Why would they bother making it in the first place if they can't make money from it?wrdnshprd wrote...
it IS cut content. if its availlable day one, IT CAN BE MADE AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL GAME. doesnt matter if another team made it. it can still be put in the original game install or put up as a digital download for free. get it. good.
AlanC9 wrote...
wrdnshprd wrote...
it IS cut content. if its availlable day one, IT CAN BE MADE AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL GAME. doesnt matter if another team made it. it can still be put in the original game install or put up as a digital download for free. get it. good.
Yep. And when I order a hamburger from McDonalds, they have cheese sitting there on the shelf. THEY COULD GIVE ME THAT CHEESE FOR FREE!
Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Why would they bother making it in the first place if they can't make money from it?wrdnshprd wrote...
it IS cut content. if its availlable day one, IT CAN BE MADE AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL GAME. doesnt matter if another team made it. it can still be put in the original game install or put up as a digital download for free. get it. good.
Think this through for a moment.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Also, it may be worth noting that no one doing the work here is actually getting paid more for it in this instance. Except maybe outside contractors like VAs who would get paid to record more lines. Mark Darrh or Mary Kirby don't get a check cut to them when Sylvius the Mad buys the DLC they worked on (or doesn't buy it, conversely).
What's your point?
Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 décembre 2013 - 07:10 .
wrdnshprd wrote...
the company is CUTTING content from the game and charging additonal money for it.. sorry but i call that getting ripped off.
and again, no matter how you slice it.. that is EXACTLY what day 1 DLC is.. even if the content is made by a different team; if its available day one, it can still be put in as part of the install or put up as a digital download for free.
billy the squid wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
ghostzodd wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
ghostzodd wrote...
Han Shot First wrote...
I've never had a problem with Day 1 DLC. Complaints against it quite frankly, are just fans being cheap. I've yet to see a Day 1 DLC that was necessary to complete a game. They all fall within the realm of extras, and I support the right of companies to charge extra for extras. Game developers aren't collectives of starving artists creating just for sake of creating. They are businesses driven by profit. Welcome to capitalism. Don't like it? Don't buy it.
Also, what is the price of most Day 1 DLCs? Somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 to 15 dollars (US)? Hardly bank-breaking, and I can think of a lot of things I've wasted similar amounts of money on but got less enjoyment out of.
I wonder how many people who complain about Day 1 DLCs are smokers. Here is a thought: Cut down on that vile cancer-causing habit that is draining your wallet, and buy that DLC you 'can't afford.'
Yes because a good amount of people complaining about the day 1 DLC are smokers *logic*
Given that a large percentage of the population does smoke, its a safe bet that a similarly large percentage of those complaining about Day 1 DLC are smokers as well. How's that for logic?
The point is that people spend money on plenty of things they don't need. DLC is included amongst those list of things, as it isn't one of life's necessities. Most of the time it isn't even necessary to complete a video game. If however the DLC is that important to you that you *must* have it, but the price is an issue, cut expenses from somewhere else in your life. I picked on smokers because they are an extreme example. How much does a nicotine habit cost? Maybe several hundred dollars a year?
Unless you do a poll, or have charts or graphs that illustrate how many people are smokers then I shall take your logic with a grain of salt;)
I'm guessing you are a smoker. Smokers usually get defensive when you criticize their habit. Nicotine...its helluva drug.
Common sense should tell you that a large percentage of gamers are smokers. In the U.S. 24% of all men and 22% of all women are smokers. Rates are even higher amongst people 18 to 44 years old. (27.5%)
You're a ****ing retard you know that? I'm sure that you may have been told that once or twice before, but it never hurts to have it pointed out when it becomes apparant that you're suffering from a brain impediment, however unknowingly, and to stop typing.
Yeah, common sense, I'd prefer to call it stupidity, but whatever floats your boat.
By your logic, if 27.5% of people smoke then it means that when people can't afford health insurance, tuition fees, mortgage repayments etc. they should stop complaining and stop smoking, there's nothing wrong with the way things function, they're just stupid and need to stop smoking so they can afford it, inflation? What kind of lie is inflation or the RPI, or CPI, those stupid economists making things up again eh?
Modifié par MassivelyEffective0730, 30 décembre 2013 - 07:46 .
Fast Jimmy wrote...
This implies that nothing can be done if there is not financial compensation for it. That's definitely not the case
Also, it may be worth noting that no one doing the work here is actually getting paid more for it in this instance. Except maybe outside contractors like VAs who would get paid to record more lines. Mark Darrh or Mary Kirby don't get a check cut to them when Sylvius the Mad buys the DLC they worked on (or doesn't buy it, conversely).
What's not true is that the time between "we're shipping the game" and "day people can play the game" is time spent on game development. If developers finish 100% of the content before going gold, and then just nickle and dime you, I can see that being a problem (perception-wise) even if it's made under a different budget exclusively for DLC. But if the development of assets is primarily in the period when there would be no more game development, how can it be "removed" from the main game?
But the existnece of their salary is contingent on EA's maintaining employee benefits and their size of employees. Look at what happened to hundreds of people at Bioware Austin after TOR flopped. Losses were transferred down in terms of lay-offs. Higher DLC sales should net job security, becuase even if the firm doesn't re-invest in labour they're unlikely to fold their profit-earning divisions.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Are developers willing to try and prove this by releasing budgets, project timelines and resource allocation to show that "most" of the DLC was "made" after going Gold?
Because Bioware just saying "no, this isn't the case" doesn't seem to be enough to convince people these days, especially after ME3, where some of the dev comments before and after the game released were found to be slightly misleading. So it would have to be some level of proof that would be more concrete in order to say the consumer is genuinely making an informed decision.
Personally, I'd go the route that doesn't out onus on you to prove that you aren't nickel-and-diming the consumer in the first place, but if the practice remains and the only defense is "this was all/mostly/predominantly/whatever made after the game went Gold and increased our costs, which we are then passing onto the consumer," then I don't think its 100% unfair for said consumer to say "prove it." Especially when you have disc-locked content as seen in ME3.
some work was done pre-going gold, that a company is "nickle and dimining" if the bulk of the work is done post-going gold. Fast Jimmy wrote...
So... D1DLC helps keep developers who put out sub par products stay solvent?
Well... you've convinced me!
Modifié par In Exile, 30 décembre 2013 - 08:05 .
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Because Bioware just saying "no, this isn't the case" doesn't seem to be enough to convince people these days, especially after ME3, where some of the dev comments before and after the game released were found to be slightly misleading. So it would have to be some level of proof that would be more concrete in order to say the consumer is genuinely making an informed decision.
I disagree with you entirely about ME3 though. The content that was disk-locked doesn't seem to be the content that's really pre-gold. More generally, I think it's absurd to say that even if (a) DLC was planned from the start and (
You know that's not what I mean. My point was that the financial success of a product is clearly tied to job security, and that includes DLC.
You've been spending an awful lot of time worrying about how unsoecified other people might see Bioware. I'm starting to worry that people on the BSN might come to see you as some sort of concern troll.
Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 30 décembre 2013 - 08:15 .
Fast Jimmy wrote...
But where is the line? What is "the bulk" in this case? 90% of the work? 75%? 50%? Animations? VA work? QA work? It's such a nebulous idea to prove that I can understand why developers would be hesitant to even try, but that doesn't mean that either way you'd slice it, it would require a lot of detail to prove it.
I agree, but if the product is in such dire straits that one piece of DLC makes or breaks their fortunes, then I'd postulate that the base game itself may have not been worth saving.
Modifié par EJ107, 30 décembre 2013 - 08:42 .
Sure, but that isn't what you said originally. My point is just that there's an obvious link between DLC and job security for employees. DLC at the end of the day means work, and absent that work, there could be cutbacks. One less writer, one less artist, whatever. That's someone's livelihood and job security on the line.
Fast Jimmy wrote...
Sure, but that isn't what you said originally. My point is just that there's an obvious link between DLC and job security for employees. DLC at the end of the day means work, and absent that work, there could be cutbacks. One less writer, one less artist, whatever. That's someone's livelihood and job security on the line.
That's fair enough. But then take From Ashes (again) as an example. A stated 50% attachment rate. This means that 50% of the consumers paid an additional $10. Meaning, on average, Bioware received an extra $5 for every ME3 unit sold.
$5/$60 is a little over 8%. Is 8% of the total game's revenue for a few hours content realistic for a few hours worth of content? I'm not speaking in terms of consumer value in this case, but simply for the total budget/resource allocation. If not all teams are involved (writers and VA being likely done, for instance), is it fair to even price this bit of content at close to 10% of the base game's expense?
Star wars, again? Really? ****.AlanC9 wrote...
In Bio's case, again, transfers are more likely than cutbacks. It's unlikely that a DAI writer would be transferred to ME4, but the unannounced IP and that rumored new Star Wars thing would both need writers.
It can be. But there is less incentive to do so.Fast Jimmy wrote...
This implies that nothing can be done if there is not financial compensation for it. That's definitely not the case
Sure they are. BioWare allocates resources based partly on the expected revenue generated by that resource allocation. It takes a certai number of man-hours to make the game. It takes a certain number of man-hours to make the DLC. Note how BioWare downsizes following a game's release (the QA team, in particular, routinely gets cut). They only employ workers for the man-hours they need to produce the content they're going to sell.Also, it may be worth noting that no one doing the work here is actually getting paid more for it in this instance. Except maybe outside contractors like VAs who would get paid to record more lines. Mark Darrh or Mary Kirby don't get a check cut to them when Sylvius the Mad buys the DLC they worked on (or doesn't buy it, conversely).
[Spam post removed.]
Modifié par Ninja Stan, 30 décembre 2013 - 11:07 .
Does fairness even enter into it? If that's an accurate representation of the return for DLC, BioWare should be doing more of it, not less. The ROI on DLC would appear to be higher than the ROI for the core game.Fast Jimmy wrote...
That's fair enough. But then take From Ashes (again) as an example. A stated 50% attachment rate. This means that 50% of the consumers paid an additional $10. Meaning, on average, Bioware received an extra $5 for every ME3 unit sold.
$5/$60 is a little over 8%. Is 8% of the total game's revenue for a few hours content realistic for a few hours worth of content? I'm not speaking in terms of consumer value in this case, but simply for the total budget/resource allocation. If not all teams are involved (writers and VA being likely done, for instance), is it fair to even price this bit of content at close to 10% of the base game's expense?
Rotward wrote...
Star wars, again? Really? ****.AlanC9 wrote...
In Bio's case, again, transfers are more likely than cutbacks. It's unlikely that a DAI writer would be transferred to ME4, but the unannounced IP and that rumored new Star Wars thing would both need writers.
Aside from that, I can't believe there's anyone supporting day 1 dlc. If it's ready for release, release it as part of the game. Otherwise, **** OFF. No one deserves extra pay for dividing their product into little pieces, and charging extra for the pieces you don't get.
Modifié par Il Divo, 30 décembre 2013 - 09:55 .
Il Divo wrote...
As a business, why would I ever do that? How does it help me, to offer you free content? Ignoring that there are a million other industries where consumers are expected to pay more for additional benefit, if I as Bioware honestly thought that day 1 dlc was actively impacting sales, I'd just hold it off to day 10 or day 50. You're still not going to see that content for free, unless I'm trying to buy consumer good will.
Modifié par I Xandra I, 30 décembre 2013 - 10:03 .
Retour en haut
