750 réponses à ce sujet

[Martyr1777]

bzombo wrote...

Consider that prices for games have not really gone up much the last 20 years, but the costs to make games has grown immensely. DLC is another revenue stream that helps games make a profit. That, in turn, makes it more likely we see more games.

The market size has also increased immensely. The game industry is bigger then the movie industry now, there is a reason why game prices havn't got up much. But for AAA titles they are slightly higher..

If they really do need that money, fine. Put it all into one package and I'll pay more for it(as long as its good product). But don't nickel and dime me. Hell a game I sort of like from Paradox is a shining example of DLC abuse imo, Crusader Kings II. That things production quality is minimal, yet unless it's on sale in Steam its still $40 for the base game and then they have lik 40+ DLCs, some of which are another $10 for a VERY minor update. It's not a terrible game, but their pricing and DLC have scared me off of it.

At least Bioware you get your money worth, but still.the DLC maddness is testing my fanboy'ism.

[Sanunes]

I Xandra I wrote...

It helps making the said product more appealing. DLC expands the game, and when it's free, the business will get a better reputation amongst its customers. When it's not free, some people refuse to buy the DLC, sometimes even the whole product altogether because they feel they are being ripped off. And oftentimes the day one DLC isn't even worth buying, so people don't buy it.

There are many different business that will incorporate extras for more money.

[Rotward]

I Xandra I wrote...

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.

It helps making the said product more appealing. DLC expands the game, and when it's free, the business will get a better reputation amongst its customers. When it's not free, some people refuse to buy the DLC, sometimes even the whole product altogether because they feel they are being ripped off. And oftentimes the day one DLC isn't even worth buying, so people don't buy it.

If it's ready on day one, it's not dlc. It's not free content either, you're buying it as part of the game. You might as well have people purchase EVERY ****ING CHARACTER ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS FOR 10 DOLLARS A POP. That's what day 1 dlc is: taking content OUT of the game, content that you've pushed release day back to produce, and then slapping it back in at extra cost. 

Modifié par Rotward, 30 décembre 2013 - 10:22 .

[Martyr1777]

Il Divo wrote...

So Bioware better start waiting one month before they sell Javik/Return to Ostagar?

I mean, why wouldn't people want additional content at launch for a game they might enjoy? 

Not all of us are complaining about just having D1 DLC in general. If it is something that was finished up seperate from the base game great. But there are companies that have had D1 DLC on the disc at release. That is plain wrong. If they can have the content done for it to make the disc then it should be included.

Now that just means Companies don't put that content on the disc so customers don't know. This is exactly why I don't like the DLC concept because it really is far to easy, and enrouaging, for companies to abuse for the sake of more money with minimal effort.

Sadly EA is one of those companies that would happily take advantage of anything, I think like to think Bioware puts up some fight to them however.

Man I hate publishers, every day indie games look better and better.

[Il Divo]

I Xandra I wrote...

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.

It helps making the said product more appealing. DLC expands the game, and when it's free, the business will get a better reputation amongst its customers. When it's not free, some people refuse to buy the DLC, sometimes even the whole product altogether because they feel they are being ripped off. And oftentimes the day one DLC isn't even worth buying, so people don't buy it.

Sure, but that's not even the most efficient option available to the business.

Say as a business I commission additional resources to develop a dlc, able to be released on day 1, but consumers demand it be given to them for free. Ignoring the fact that there are a million other industries which require you to pay an additional cost on top of a base product, my solution isn't going to be to give the consumers that dlc for free, especially since dlc is often viewed as a means of countering the stagnant cost of gaming.

If consumers are still going to demand a simple $60 cost for all content, my solution would simply be to cut out a portion of the base game's initial cost, market that as free day 1 dlc for new copies, obtaining that consumer good will, without any actual added cost, then sell that other dlc I had in the works at a later time.

[In Exile]

Martyr1777 wrote...
The market size has also increased immensely. The game industry is bigger then the movie industry now, there is a reason why game prices havn't got up much. But for AAA titles they are slightly higher..

But look at what that means for games. COD, for example. The room for error and experimentation falls to 0 when costs of production are so high that you need absolutely insane sales to be succesful with your product. DA2's sales would have been phenomenal in 2002, but they're a failure for when it came out. Skyrim was a legend that probably outsold alll the isometric RPGs combined. And so on.

[Il Divo]

Martyr1777 wrote...

Not all of us are complaining about just having D1 DLC in general. If it is something that was finished up seperate from the base game great. But there are companies that have had D1 DLC on the disc at release. That is plain wrong. If they can have the content done for it to make the disc then it should be included.

But focusing on your issue with dlc as a whole bit,how is the gaming industry special in this regard?

Let's say we were to limit the day 1 dlc to a side quest similar to Bringing Down the Sky, which had no main plot relevance what so ever. What separates this from the plethora of other industries out there where the consumer is expected to pay more for additional content?

Someone used the example of extra toppings at McDonald's or a pizza joint. I used the example of paying extra for a 3D movie. Hell, you could do the same in comparing a dvd vs. the special edition, with all the developer interviews and such. It's one thing if consumers are saying they dislike it (no one myself included would rather pay more when they could pay less), but they're acting like gaming is unique in this regard. To my knowledge, there isn't a universal organization that speaks for all consumers in saying what is (or isn't) a fair deal. It's all dependent on a particular consumer's tastes.

Modifié par Il Divo, 30 décembre 2013 - 10:35 .

[Il Divo]

Rotward wrote...

I Xandra I wrote...

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.

It helps making the said product more appealing. DLC expands the game, and when it's free, the business will get a better reputation amongst its customers. When it's not free, some people refuse to buy the DLC, sometimes even the whole product altogether because they feel they are being ripped off. And oftentimes the day one DLC isn't even worth buying, so people don't buy it.

If it's ready on day one, it's not dlc. It's not free content either, you're buying it as part of the game. You might as well have people purchase EVERY ****ING CHARACTER ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS FOR 10 DOLLARS A POP. That's what day 1 dlc is: taking content OUT of the game, content that you've pushed release day back to produce, and then slapping it back in at extra cost. 

I would find this argument a lot more appealing if I didn't already have to deal with this in a million other industries, outside of gaming.

[AlanC9]

Rotward wrote...

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. 

Ever bought a car? Or a cheeseburger?

[LinksOcarina]

In Exile wrote...

Martyr1777 wrote...
The market size has also increased immensely. The game industry is bigger then the movie industry now, there is a reason why game prices havn't got up much. But for AAA titles they are slightly higher..

But look at what that means for games. COD, for example. The room for error and experimentation falls to 0 when costs of production are so high that you need absolutely insane sales to be succesful with your product. DA2's sales would have been phenomenal in 2002, but they're a failure for when it came out. Skyrim was a legend that probably outsold alll the isometric RPGs combined. And so on.

My favorite example, the new Tomb Raider was a failure to Square Enix, despite making 3.4 million dollars.

That's roughly the equivalent of both Dragon Age games combined so far. 

Part of the reason for this inflation is advertising budgets, part of it is funneling money to push graphics and content. And part is because of turnover rate; its rare in the shelf-life of a game to be played by the populace outside of a year. Rarer still ten years down the line. 

There are so many factors on the business side of things, I honestly feel a bit of pity for BioWare and other companies that actually do give a damn about their fans who give them crap for any reason, justified or not. 

[AlanC9]

Il Divo wrote...
If consumers are still going to demand a simple $60 cost for all content, my solution would simply be to cut out a portion of the base game's initial cost, market that as free day 1 dlc for new copies, obtaining that consumer good will, without any actual added cost, then sell that other dlc I had in the works at a later time.

Better still, send some guys on vacation and don't finish the DLC before release. Then finish it up after the game ships and get cash for it.

[Martyr1777]

Il Divo wrote...

Martyr1777 wrote...

Not all of us are complaining about just having D1 DLC in general. If it is something that was finished up seperate from the base game great. But there are companies that have had D1 DLC on the disc at release. That is plain wrong. If they can have the content done for it to make the disc then it should be included.

But focusing on your issue with dlc as a whole bit,how is the gaming industry special in this regard?

Let's say we were to limit the day 1 dlc to a side quest similar to Bringing Down the Sky, which had no main plot relevance what so ever. What separates this from the plethora of other industries out there where the consumer is expected to pay more for additional content?

Someone used the example of extra toppings at McDonald's or a pizza joint. I used the example of paying extra for a 3D movie. Hell, you could do the same in comparing a dvd vs. the special edition, with all the developer interviews and such. It's one thing if consumers are saying they dislike it (no one myself included would rather pay more when they could pay less), but they're acting like gaming is unique in this regard. To my knowledge, there isn't a universal organization that speaks for all consumers in saying what is (or isn't) a fair deal. It's all dependent on a particular consumer's tastes.

You make a good point, the gaming industry in many ways isn't any different in the 'extras' concept. However the industry does get away with freaking murder compared to others. Many things we buy have warranties, you get food that is wrong you get new food that is right or your money back, whatever.

You buy a game riddled with game breaking bugs or with a terrible gameplay mechanics/concepts you can't return it, you can HOPE they patch it to make it what you payed for. But in most cases games released that badly never become worth playing.

To me the general concept of DLC is just another step in that same direction of making money without supporting the consumer. There are plenty of instances of either micro transaction or DLC related ripoffs in the last few years. If they keep pushing things it's just going to come around and bite them.

Granted it won't be a big hit because there aren't enough educated gamers that pay attention to this tuff they just buy and play and don't bother to care about their value. But the fact is it already costs companies sales. Some how I don't think they lose more pleasing those of us on this side of the fence then they would lose pleasing your side of it.

[Sanunes]

Martyr1777 wrote...

You make a good point, the gaming industry in many ways isn't any different in the 'extras' concept. However the industry does get away with freaking murder compared to others. Many things we buy have warranties, you get food that is wrong you get new food that is right or your money back, whatever.

You buy a game riddled with game breaking bugs or with a terrible gameplay mechanics/concepts you can't return it, you can HOPE they patch it to make it what you payed for. But in most cases games released that badly never become worth playing.

To me the general concept of DLC is just another step in that same direction of making money without supporting the consumer. There are plenty of instances of either micro transaction or DLC related ripoffs in the last few years. If they keep pushing things it's just going to come around and bite them.

Granted it won't be a big hit because there aren't enough educated gamers that pay attention to this tuff they just buy and play and don't bother to care about their value. But the fact is it already costs companies sales. Some how I don't think they lose more pleasing those of us on this side of the fence then they would lose pleasing your side of it.

Its our fault that anything factory sealed that can be copied can't be returned.  Back in the "dark ages" I had friends that would buy a game or movie and then copy it and then return the product for a refund. At least with Origin I can play a game during a 24 hour period and return it if I don't like it.

[Ninja Stan]

Rotward wrote...
 If it's ready on day one, it's not dlc. It's not free content either, you're buying it as part of the game. You might as well have people purchase EVERY ****ING CHARACTER ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS FOR 10 DOLLARS A POP. That's what day 1 dlc is: taking content OUT of the game, content that you've pushed release day back to produce, and then slapping it back in at extra cost. 

If that's what you truly believe, then that should factor into your decision making on whether buy a given game. You can dislike a developer or publisher for doing this, and show your dislike by, you know, not buying their games. If this were actually true, it is likely that most people would stop buying games, since Day 1 DLC is pretty common these days.

There are many people in this discussion trying to convince everyone that Day 1 DLC is an unethical practice that they'd like to see abolished. Okay, let's say that, for the sake of argument, Day 1 DLC content is deliberately ripped from the bas game to be sold to you as DLC. Now what? How does it affect you or your decision to buy/not buy the game? What are your stakes in this situation? Aside from the content itself, why is this the hill you're choosing to die on rather than, just as one example, wanting developers to make better games, period?

[Martyr1777]

Sanunes wrote...

Martyr1777 wrote...

You make a good point, the gaming industry in many ways isn't any different in the 'extras' concept. However the industry does get away with freaking murder compared to others. Many things we buy have warranties, you get food that is wrong you get new food that is right or your money back, whatever.

You buy a game riddled with game breaking bugs or with a terrible gameplay mechanics/concepts you can't return it, you can HOPE they patch it to make it what you payed for. But in most cases games released that badly never become worth playing.

To me the general concept of DLC is just another step in that same direction of making money without supporting the consumer. There are plenty of instances of either micro transaction or DLC related ripoffs in the last few years. If they keep pushing things it's just going to come around and bite them.

Granted it won't be a big hit because there aren't enough educated gamers that pay attention to this tuff they just buy and play and don't bother to care about their value. But the fact is it already costs companies sales. Some how I don't think they lose more pleasing those of us on this side of the fence then they would lose pleasing your side of it.

Its our fault that anything factory sealed that can be copied can't be returned.  Back in the "dark ages" I had friends that would buy a game or movie and then copy it and then return the product for a refund. At least with Origin I can play a game during a 24 hour period and return it if I don't like it.

Honestly didn't know that about Origin, point for them. But it's a visious cycle, there would be -less- piracy if people didn't have to worry about getting a bad game they can't return.

[Ninja Stan]

Rotward, I'll thank you to stop swearing in your posts. We can disagree with each other without resorting to such behaviour. Thank you.

[Fast Jimmy]

My favorite example, the new Tomb Raider was a failure to Square Enix, despite making 3.4 million dollars.

That's roughly the equivalent of both Dragon Age games combined so far.

Are you confusing sales versus revenue? Selling $3.4 million in revenue is abysmall and even DA2 blew that out of the water. 3.4 million in sales is close to two hundred million in revenue.



Also, to the larger conversation of "this happens in every other industry," I would say A) that's not true of the entertainment/narrative industry and all other industries are worthless to compare to. I can negotiate below the sticker price for a car, but I can't do that for a video game. Therefore, any comparison is next to stupid to even make.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Also, to the larger conversation of "this happens in every other industry," I would say A) that's not true of the entertainment/narrative industry

It's not true of the entertainment industry? What exactly do you think happened when you had to pay separately to see each Star Wars film in theaters? Or did the argument that you didn't get the complete experience work then?

Show how the gaming industry is special in this regard, since there have been quite a few dlc's released, which stand alone quite easily.

and all other industries are worthless to compare to. I can negotiate below the sticker price for a car, but I can't do that for a video game. Therefore, any comparison is next to stupid to even make.

I'd like to hear about all the McDonald's cheeseburgers and dvd special editions which you negotiated the cashiers down to. Your "standard" is extremely weak.

Modifié par Il Divo, 30 décembre 2013 - 11:31 .

[Ninja Stan]

Martyr1777 wrote...

You make a good point, the gaming industry in many ways isn't any different in the 'extras' concept. However the industry does get away with freaking murder compared to others. Many things we buy have warranties, you get food that is wrong you get new food that is right or your money back, whatever.

You buy a game riddled with game breaking bugs or with a terrible gameplay mechanics/concepts you can't return it, you can HOPE they patch it to make it what you payed for. But in most cases games released that badly never become worth playing.

Software products generally have a 90-day warranty, which you would know if you actually read through some of the documentation that comes with your games or other software.

Also note that you don't get refunds after watching/purchasing films with plot holes or continuity errors, or books with poorly-written characters, or albums which have terrible mixing. Software is sold as-is, which also in that documentation that comes with your software. It is also explicitly stated in the EULA. One reason for this is that software is complex, so there might be errors that a million end-users on a million different systems might find that weren't caught by dozens of testers. It is also much easier to patch software issues than it is to re-layout and print a book, re-master an album, or re-cut and distribute a film.

To me the general concept of DLC is just another step in that same direction of making money without supporting the consumer. There are plenty of instances of either micro transaction or DLC related ripoffs in the last few years. If they keep pushing things it's just going to come around and bite them.

Then that is a self-correcting problem that relies on the market, which is precisely how capitalism works. On the other hand, if DLC is here to stay for the time being, that is also the market speaking, in which case you and the market happen to disagree.

Granted it won't be a big hit because there aren't enough educated gamers that pay attention to this tuff they just buy and play and don't bother to care about their value. But the fact is it already costs companies sales. Some how I don't think they lose more pleasing those of us on this side of the fence then they would lose pleasing your side of it.

I am getting rather tired of the "those who disagree with me are inferior/ignorant/dumb/blind" statements that get tossed around. Just say that you disagree with other gamers, because it's games, and no one is better or worse than any other for having different tastes in games.

[ghostzodd]

Ninja Stan wrote...

Rotward wrote...
 If it's ready on day one, it's not dlc. It's not free content either, you're buying it as part of the game. You might as well have people purchase EVERY ****ING CHARACTER ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS FOR 10 DOLLARS A POP. That's what day 1 dlc is: taking content OUT of the game, content that you've pushed release day back to produce, and then slapping it back in at extra cost. 

If that's what you truly believe, then that should factor into your decision making on whether buy a given game. You can dislike a developer or publisher for doing this, and show your dislike by, you know, not buying their games. If this were actually true, it is likely that most people would stop buying games, since Day 1 DLC is pretty common these days.

There are many people in this discussion trying to convince everyone that Day 1 DLC is an unethical practice that they'd like to see abolished. Okay, let's say that, for the sake of argument, Day 1 DLC content is deliberately ripped from the bas game to be sold to you as DLC. Now what? How does it affect you or your decision to buy/not buy the game? What are your stakes in this situation? Aside from the content itself, why is this the hill you're choosing to die on rather than, just as one example, wanting developers to make better games, period?

I factor it in. This game will be like 30.00 after 6 months. So the moral that  people should not buy games day one and just wait till they are cheap.

Modifié par ghostzodd, 30 décembre 2013 - 11:36 .

[Il Divo]

Martyr1777 wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Martyr1777 wrote...

Not all of us are complaining about just having D1 DLC in general. If it is something that was finished up seperate from the base game great. But there are companies that have had D1 DLC on the disc at release. That is plain wrong. If they can have the content done for it to make the disc then it should be included.

But focusing on your issue with dlc as a whole bit,how is the gaming industry special in this regard?

Let's say we were to limit the day 1 dlc to a side quest similar to Bringing Down the Sky, which had no main plot relevance what so ever. What separates this from the plethora of other industries out there where the consumer is expected to pay more for additional content?

Someone used the example of extra toppings at McDonald's or a pizza joint. I used the example of paying extra for a 3D movie. Hell, you could do the same in comparing a dvd vs. the special edition, with all the developer interviews and such. It's one thing if consumers are saying they dislike it (no one myself included would rather pay more when they could pay less), but they're acting like gaming is unique in this regard. To my knowledge, there isn't a universal organization that speaks for all consumers in saying what is (or isn't) a fair deal. It's all dependent on a particular consumer's tastes.

You make a good point, the gaming industry in many ways isn't any different in the 'extras' concept. However the industry does get away with freaking murder compared to others. Many things we buy have warranties, you get food that is wrong you get new food that is right or your money back, whatever.

You buy a game riddled with game breaking bugs or with a terrible gameplay mechanics/concepts you can't return it, you can HOPE they patch it to make it what you payed for. But in most cases games released that badly never become worth playing.

To me the general concept of DLC is just another step in that same direction of making money without supporting the consumer. There are plenty of instances of either micro transaction or DLC related ripoffs in the last few years. If they keep pushing things it's just going to come around and bite them.

Granted it won't be a big hit because there aren't enough educated gamers that pay attention to this tuff they just buy and play and don't bother to care about their value. But the fact is it already costs companies sales. Some how I don't think they lose more pleasing those of us on this side of the fence then they would lose pleasing your side of it.

To elaborate just a bit more on my position, I'm not unsympathetic when a developer does release free content vs. asking me to pay more.

A developer who (ostensibly at least) works to get on my good side might receive more sympathy from me in terms of buying additional products or I might be a bit more forgiving if they release a product that I'm not in love with.

But at the end of the day, the quality of the base product is what's motivating all my actions and sympathy does have limits. If someone is releasing a much more enjoyable base product, even with day 1 dlc, I'm going to side with them over the developer who gives free content, if their main attraction is lacking. That's why I constantly emphasize the "base game comes first" point, far and above any free vs. paid content which the developer offers me.

Modifié par Il Divo, 30 décembre 2013 - 11:36 .

[ghostzodd]

Martyr1777 wrote...

Sanunes wrote...

Martyr1777 wrote...

You make a good point, the gaming industry in many ways isn't any different in the 'extras' concept. However the industry does get away with freaking murder compared to others. Many things we buy have warranties, you get food that is wrong you get new food that is right or your money back, whatever.

You buy a game riddled with game breaking bugs or with a terrible gameplay mechanics/concepts you can't return it, you can HOPE they patch it to make it what you payed for. But in most cases games released that badly never become worth playing.

To me the general concept of DLC is just another step in that same direction of making money without supporting the consumer. There are plenty of instances of either micro transaction or DLC related ripoffs in the last few years. If they keep pushing things it's just going to come around and bite them.

Granted it won't be a big hit because there aren't enough educated gamers that pay attention to this tuff they just buy and play and don't bother to care about their value. But the fact is it already costs companies sales. Some how I don't think they lose more pleasing those of us on this side of the fence then they would lose pleasing your side of it.

Its our fault that anything factory sealed that can be copied can't be returned.  Back in the "dark ages" I had friends that would buy a game or movie and then copy it and then return the product for a refund. At least with Origin I can play a game during a 24 hour period and return it if I don't like it.

Honestly didn't know that about Origin, point for them. But it's a visious cycle, there would be -less- piracy if people didn't have to worry about getting a bad game they can't return.

the way to end piracy is to provide a service that's more complete than
cracked software, and that restrictive DRM only encourages more piracy.

Origin is not that good of  a service it gets the job done but meh EA needs to step up there game

Modifié par ghostzodd, 30 décembre 2013 - 11:37 .

[Ninja Stan]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

My favorite example, the new Tomb Raider was a failure to Square Enix, despite making 3.4 million dollars.

That's roughly the equivalent of both Dragon Age games combined so far.

Are you confusing sales versus revenue? Selling $3.4 million in revenue is abysmall and even DA2 blew that out of the water. 3.4 million in sales is close to two hundred million in revenue.

Careful where you throw your accusations, Jimmy. Your numbers and math were pretty atrocious earlier in this discussion, and reflected a very subjective and distorted, not to mention ignorant, view of reality. Note that, in this particular case, $200M in revenue is retail sales split up among all the various retailers. The publisher doesn't get anywhere near this amount.

Also, depending on the game's budget, $3.4M in sales may be good or bad. For a AAA title, it's probably bad, but without knowing the actual budget for Tomb Raider, I can't say that it's definitely bad. Don't throw numbers around unless you can back them up.

[Ninja Stan]

Let's please keep in mind that discussion of software piracy is not just off-topic for this thread, but a violation of the Site Rules in general. Thank you.

[Ninja Stan]

ghostzodd wrote...

I factor it in. This game will be like 30.00 after 6 months. So the moral that  people should not buy games day one and just wait till they are cheap.

That's what I do, since buying a game on day 1 is not a priority for me. For others, it's definitely a priority. It's not my place to tell those people that they are wrong, dumb, or otherwise inferior for making a choice that's different from mine.