750 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

addiction21 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...


But never once, in the history of expansion packs, was one sold on Day 1.

And if a expansion pack was available day one would that be acceptable? Or would it have to be offered free? Or maybe the company should offer up their books so you could confirm that it was indeed made from a extra budget that might possibly be using code and content cut from the main game?

If an expansion pack was offered Day One, you'd better believe people would be asking developers why they were charging for it.

Also, a book is a different medium. It is a totally different product, it just happens to share a brand. While I could possibly see some sort of "buy DA:I and get a copy of The Stolen Throne" as a cross-promotional attempt, I think you would be hard pressed to find many gamers expecting (let alone demanding) it.

[Meltemph]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In Exile wrote...

I agree with you. Micro-transactions are a blight on everything and there is no form or justification that's acceptable. DA:Heroes is a great example of a game straight-up broken by microtransactions (though at least it was free-to-play).

What is the difference between microtransactions and DLC, except scale?

I'm forced to ask the same question.

But, unlike Jimmy, I don't see a problem with either.

DLC like Zaeed, map packs, LotS, and ect are examples of typical dlc and normally does not directly effect the mechanics or how a story/game works or is told.  Micro-transaction dlc, however, is very much(typically) a distortion in game design that encourages pay to win, through prolonged grinding, extreme annoyences, or other time sinks.  Microtransactions actively enourage such mechanics in games, where in order to unlock everything in the game, without buying Microtransactions would take you 300+ hours to unlock. It also encourages industry to keep out minor things, in content DLC(like weapons and armor) and instead puts them in a microtransaction state(5 dollars for that or this set).  Content DLC may foster how you get your story or game, but it doesnt actually(typically) effect the game, at least not near as bad as microtransactions.

Jonathan Blow(creator of Braid) does a good job talking about why it can be so destructive.

Modifié par Meltemph, 31 décembre 2013 - 01:27 .

[Billy-the-Squid]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Really? I don't think CoD is a good example at all. There is no experementation because it doesn't need it, it caters to a market that demands exactly what CoD provides, it doesn't want anything "innovative" it doesn't have to as it caters to a very obvious mass market need. The problem is everyone else trying to copy CoD... which is counter productive as everyone already has CoD, so why buy a CoD clone? The market is finite, which is something that publishers seem to fail to grasp in a bid to unseat CoD aka Battlefield 3, as they did with WoW and TOR.

The problem with FPS (and many AAA video game titles in general) is that "production costs" have been artificially been expanded to "marketing budgets," as if that was in any way the same thing. Your average CoD game throws close to as much in marketing dollars as it does in actual game design, after all.

I agree, but my point is that it can afford to, considering it's (CoD's) captured and larger market, comparatively lower dev cost compared to BF4 as it didn't have to sink capital into a new Frosbite  engine, and yet it can still saturate the market with advertising maintaining a better profit margin than it's competitors, because it has already established itself as the dominant FPS game. 

It becomes a problem when other FPS's try to immitate CoD behaviour in both marketing and gameplay, but don't have that established market; and yet they're doing exactly the same as CoD, so in a finite market, why would people who have played so many CoD installments switch to an unknown product. 

Look at EA, they're currently being investigated for securities fraud by a law firm retained by investors after the BF4 trainwreck. How much did they sink into BF4? Yet it will always be a smaller market than CoD, and yet every year, they try to beat CoD. BF is a good game, it should do what it's best at and the fans will do the work of spreading the word, why balloon the marketing budget in a vain hope of getting CoD like numbers.

[addiction21]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...


But never once, in the history of expansion packs, was one sold on Day 1.

And if a expansion pack was available day one would that be acceptable? Or would it have to be offered free? Or maybe the company should offer up their books so you could confirm that it was indeed made from a extra budget that might possibly be using code and content cut from the main game?

If an expansion pack was offered Day One, you'd better believe people would be asking developers why they were charging for it.

Also, a book is a different medium. It is a totally different product, it just happens to share a brand. While I could possibly see some sort of "buy DA:I and get a copy of The Stolen Throne" as a cross-promotional attempt, I think you would be hard pressed to find many gamers expecting (let alone demanding) it.

I do not have to believe because I know "people" will question everything and anything any company does.

I was asking you. If Awakeings was offered day one along side DA:O would it be acceptable? Would it have to be free because it was day one?

And by "books" I meant their budgets and ledgers not a novel. Detailed information on the inner workings of the business.

[ghostzodd]

Tequila Cat wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Really? I don't think CoD is a good example at all. There is no experementation because it doesn't need it, it caters to a market that demands exactly what CoD provides, it doesn't want anything "innovative" it doesn't have to as it caters to a very obvious mass market need. The problem is everyone else trying to copy CoD... which is counter productive as everyone already has CoD, so why buy a CoD clone? The market is finite, which is something that publishers seem to fail to grasp in a bid to unseat CoD aka Battlefield 3, as they did with WoW and TOR.

The problem with FPS (and many AAA video game titles in general) is that "production costs" have been artificially been expanded to "marketing budgets," as if that was in any way the same thing. Your average CoD game throws close to as much in marketing dollars as it does in actual game design, after all.

I agree, but my point is that it can afford to, considering it's (CoD's) captured and larger market, comparatively lower dev cost compared to BF4 as it didn't have to sink capital into a new Frosbite  engine, and yet it can still saturate the market with advertising maintaining a better profit margin than it's competitors, because it has already established itself as the dominant FPS game. 

It becomes a problem when other FPS's try to immitate CoD behaviour in both marketing and gameplay, but don't have that established market; and yet they're doing exactly the same as CoD, so in a finite market, why would people who have played so many CoD installments switch to an unknown product. 

Look at EA, they're currently being investigated for securities fraud by a law firm retained by investors after the BF4 trainwreck. How much did they sink into BF4? Yet it will always be a smaller market than CoD, and yet every year, they try to beat CoD. BF is a good game, it should do what it's best at and the fans will do the work of spreading the word, why balloon the marketing budget in a vain hope of getting CoD like numbers.

BF4 could have been amazing but EA wanted to take on COD. The game just needed more time. if it go that time then I think it honestly would have beaten COD. The AAA market is just a mess.

Modifié par ghostzodd, 31 décembre 2013 - 01:37 .

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The same goes for D1DLC. Is the current model the absolute worst gaming industry consumer experience? Or even the worst entertainment industry consumer expereince? No. But it leads down a terribly slippery slope.

It's funny how the slope always starts being slippery right at the point where the poster doesn't like the practice.

Expansion packs were very slippery slopes as well. If you think I am saying differently, then I apologize. 

But never once, in the history of expansion packs, was one sold on Day 1.

So expansion packs can be regarded as the start of the slippery slope? So we can collectively blame consumers for letting developers know that expansion packs were still acceptable? Again, the sequel argument appears. If we as consumers refused to pay to see Star Wars Episode VI, would Lucas Arts have provided that film for free?

[addiction21]

Also I asked this before. Would people accept a less polished game because zots had to be spent removing any extraneous code or content from the disk/download just in case it is or will be used in a dlc or expansion?

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The problem with FPS (and many AAA video game titles in general) is that "production costs" have been artificially been expanded to "marketing budgets," as if that was in any way the same thing. Your average CoD game throws close to as much in marketing dollars as it does in actual game design, after all.

Meaning that the games would be more profitable if they didn't market them? You sure such a game wouldn't just.... disappear?

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 décembre 2013 - 01:48 .

[Il Divo]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The problem with FPS (and many AAA video game titles in general) is that "production costs" have been artificially been expanded to "marketing budgets," as if that was in any way the same thing. Your average CoD game throws close to as much in marketing dollars as it does in actual game design, after all.

Meanin that the games would be more profitable if they didn't market them? You sure such a game wouldn't just.... disappear?

Tough to establish a 100% clear pattern. Sure, we all talk about how DA:O sold so well via great word of mouth, but what's the other side of the coin? Why did other (imo superior) games like Planescape: Torment fail to sell, despite being regarded by many as the greatest RPG ever made? 

[Fast Jimmy]

addiction21 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

addiction21 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...


But never once, in the history of expansion packs, was one sold on Day 1.

And if a expansion pack was available day one would that be acceptable? Or would it have to be offered free? Or maybe the company should offer up their books so you could confirm that it was indeed made from a extra budget that might possibly be using code and content cut from the main game?

If an expansion pack was offered Day One, you'd better believe people would be asking developers why they were charging for it.

Also, a book is a different medium. It is a totally different product, it just happens to share a brand. While I could possibly see some sort of "buy DA:I and get a copy of The Stolen Throne" as a cross-promotional attempt, I think you would be hard pressed to find many gamers expecting (let alone demanding) it.

I do not have to believe because I know "people" will question everything and anything any company does.

I was asking you. If Awakeings was offered day one along side DA:O would it be acceptable? Would it have to be free because it was day one?

And by "books" I meant their budgets and ledgers not a novel. Detailed information on the inner workings of the business.

It wouldn't have to be free... just like D1DLC doesn't "have" to be free. But if you charge for it, many (myself included) will call it nickel-and-diming, or greedy, or cheap. So yes, in that regard, Bioware would "have" to give Awakening away for free to avoid these types of charges. Even moreso for an expansion - there is no earthly way possible that the content would have been completed in the time between going Gold and release. 

And I apologize for the confusion on "books." Again, as I said earlier, I think it would be much smarter for a company to not put themselves in a position where they have to defend their business practices to consumers in such a way in the first place. A company that has to explain and defend their pricing model to their consumers is one that is likely not creating a good atmosphere. 

But, if the practice is to continue and fans don't accept the answer of "we made it after the game went Gold... despite how it might appear when you actually look on the disc," then it is up to the developers what to do. They can be more transparent in their books or they can take the slings and arrows of DLC fortune. Meaning they don't get to be upset, or surprised, or any number of other emotions or stances when fans say "these guys are crap - they are ripping out parts of the main game and selling it off to bleed the consumer dry." It's the devs word against the consumer and, in the eye of the consumer, the dev is always going to have a reason to lie. 

Again... I'd prefer devs just not place themselves in that position at all.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2013 - 02:10 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The same goes for D1DLC. Is the current model the absolute worst gaming industry consumer experience? Or even the worst entertainment industry consumer expereince? No. But it leads down a terribly slippery slope.

It's funny how the slope always starts being slippery right at the point where the poster doesn't like the practice.

Expansion packs were very slippery slopes as well. If you think I am saying differently, then I apologize. 

But never once, in the history of expansion packs, was one sold on Day 1.

So expansion packs can be regarded as the start of the slippery slope? So we can collectively blame consumers for letting developers know that expansion packs were still acceptable? Again, the sequel argument appears. If we as consumers refused to pay to see Star Wars Episode VI, would Lucas Arts have provided that film for free?

Well, I would only assume enough market research would have been done to say "hey, no one is going to see episode 6, we should probably save ourselves the money and just not make one." So yes, in that case, Lucas shouldn't have made this theoretical sequel.

But you are talking about a completely different product. I don't need to buy Episode V of Star Wars to view Episode VI. But I DO need to purchase ME3 in order to play From Ashes. Just like I need to own DA:O to play DA:A. Its ancillary content. And I don't have nearly as much problem with it if it isn't coming out on Day 1. 

Lucas never tried to sell Episode V tickets right alongside tickets to both Episode V and VI for slightly more on opening day of Episode V. I can't even come up with an analogy where that doesn't sound ridiculous because it is obvious that the discussion of DLC does not extend to sequels (and BARELY to expansions).

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The problem with FPS (and many AAA video game titles in general) is that "production costs" have been artificially been expanded to "marketing budgets," as if that was in any way the same thing. Your average CoD game throws close to as much in marketing dollars as it does in actual game design, after all.

Meaning that the games would be more profitable if they didn't market them? You sure such a game wouldn't just.... disappear?

If a game needs an equal budget of marketing vs. game development dollars, then maybe it SHOULD just disappear.

[Martyr1777]

[quote]Ninja Stan wrote...
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.

I've never been able to return a game unless it had a physical problem, like not installing from the disc. But you have a point in that I never read agreements so if there is that in there then it's getting wasted.

As for the other examples, I specifically stayed away from examples of poor writing because you point is exactly correct. But I talked about bugs and bad mechanics. If I buy a car or appliance and something doesn't work on it I get it repaired or replaces without cost. Some products have recalls because they sent them out the door way wrong. Not the game industry. Many times bugs never even get fixed from the smaller titles even after numerous patches. Football Manager is a good example, its a game I love but they release it full price every year like most sports titles and it always has bugs, some never get fixed all year then they STILL exist in the next release. Hense I don't give them my money because they don't give me what I see as value in return.

[quote]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.
[/quote]
[quote]
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.
[/quote]

You are here having an intelligent conversation, that remark wasn't aimed at you. But it is true that there are a LARGE portion of consumers of all industries that don't have the willpower and knowledge to care if they are getting what they pay for. No different with games and those are often never the type to come to forums because they just don't care. I'm not calling anyone here an idiot, beleive me I've done it plenty often in forums and its very blunt. But lets me honest, there are lots of stupid people in this world that are more then happy to just be led around. Sadly I think those are the main source of income for 'bad' games or industry practices and thats why we see companies doing things a lot of us don't like without repercusion.

[Fast Jimmy]

addiction21 wrote...

Also I asked this before. Would people accept a less polished game because zots had to be spent removing any extraneous code or content from the disk/download just in case it is or will be used in a dlc or expansion?

"Accept" is an odd word.

Obviously I would accept the alternative, because it exists. But if the base game was harmed to remove all elements off the disc just so they could finish and sell that content as D1DLC, I wouldn't "accept" that, personally. Paid D1DLC is still harming the base game. That's not somehow a carrot that could be used to bait someone either way.

If the D1DLC is just free for new copies, then it saves devs work and hassle and consumers get a product they find added value in. I don't see how this is somehow an insane, unobtainable mountain for anyone to climb, such that doing more work (like going in and mining out any content that the D1DLC corresponds to) that could even hurt the base game (and, hence, base game sales) is somehow supposed to be a better alternative.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2013 - 02:07 .

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote..

If a game needs an equal budget of marketing vs. game development dollars, then maybe it SHOULD just disappear.

i don't share your faith in the efficiency of the game market.

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote..

If a game needs an equal budget of marketing vs. game development dollars, then maybe it SHOULD just disappear.

i don't share your faith in the efficiency of the game market.

I find your lack of faith in The Market disturbing.

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

The problem with FPS (and many AAA video game titles in general) is that "production costs" have been artificially been expanded to "marketing budgets," as if that was in any way the same thing. Your average CoD game throws close to as much in marketing dollars as it does in actual game design, after all.

Meanin that the games would be more profitable if they didn't market them? You sure such a game wouldn't just.... disappear?

Tough to establish a 100% clear pattern. Sure, we all talk about how DA:O sold so well via great word of mouth, but what's the other side of the coin? Why did other (imo superior) games like Planescape: Torment fail to sell, despite being regarded by many as the greatest RPG ever made? 

Planescape didn't come out on consoles.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote..

But you are talking about a completely different product. I don't need to buy Episode V of Star Wars to view Episode VI. But I DO need to purchase ME3 in order to play From Ashes. Just like I need to own DA:O to play DA:A. Its ancillary content. And I don't have nearly as much problem with it if it isn't coming out on Day 1. 

I know I asked this upthread, but how come Il Divo and I have to wait for something because you have a problem with it?

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
Tough to establish a 100% clear pattern. Sure, we all talk about how DA:O sold so well via great word of mouth, but what's the other side of the coin? Why did other (imo superior) games like Planescape: Torment fail to sell, despite being regarded by many as the greatest RPG ever made? 

Planescape didn't come out on consoles.

Neither did BG. Your point?

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 décembre 2013 - 02:13 .

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Well, I would only assume enough market research would have been done to say "hey, no one is going to see episode 6, we should probably save ourselves the money and just not make one." So yes, in that case, Lucas shouldn't have made this theoretical sequel.

Which illustrates my point. Consumer demand for free products can in fact prevent products from being made. Of course, we could take your argument about releasing Episode VI for free, which might generate good will for Lucas Arts' next original IP.

The natural consequence of your argument is that consumers can only be expected to pay once, because there's always the chance that they'll be upset by what they don't have. I'm experiencing that right now, with some deck-building games, like Dominion. I enjoy them, but find myself disappointed that I don't have as much content as I'd like. Does the company responsible for making Dominion owe me because of my hurt feelings?

But you are talking about a completely different product. I don't need to buy Episode V of Star Wars to view Episode VI. But I DO need to purchase ME3 in order to play From Ashes. Just like I need to own DA:O to play DA:A. Its ancillary content. And I don't have nearly as much problem with it if it isn't coming out on Day 1. 

No, your argument is even worse. You in fact do not need From Ashes to receive a complete playthrough of ME3, but you insist it should be free. You do need ME3 to complete the story of the Reapers, the epic narrative begun in ME1, but you're perfectly comfortable shelling out for that. You would also need Episodes IV and V to get the "full experience" of Episode VI, which I'd argue is a greater issue than Javik. 

Lucas never tried to sell Episode V tickets right alongside tickets to both Episode V and VI for slightly more on opening day of Episode V. I can't even come up with an analogy where that doesn't sound ridiculous because it is obvious that the discussion of DLC does not extend to sequels (and BARELY to expansions).

And why would that matter? You're constantly presenting this argument in context of you feeling bad because you're not getting all the experience you want to. You weren't upset knowing that you paid for Episode V but Lucas Arts was going to nickel and dime you by demanding additional payment later, knowing that you'd paid for two prior films? That seems to fit very well into your line of reasoning.

Also, as  Lair of the Shadowbroker and Arrival demonstrate, dlc quite easily functions by expanding story content, making your argument moot.

Modifié par Il Divo, 31 décembre 2013 - 02:17 .

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote..

But you are talking about a completely different product. I don't need to buy Episode V of Star Wars to view Episode VI. But I DO need to purchase ME3 in order to play From Ashes. Just like I need to own DA:O to play DA:A. Its ancillary content. And I don't have nearly as much problem with it if it isn't coming out on Day 1. 

I know I asked this upthread, but how come Il Divo and I have to wait for something because you have a problem with it?

Mainly because I'm not the only one with a problem with it? 

And again... I'm fine with you getting the content Day 1. I'm just not happy about Bioware putting a price tag on it.

[Jorji Costava]

Il Divo wrote...

Tough to establish a 100% clear pattern. Sure, we all talk about how DA:O sold so well via great word of mouth, but what's the other side of the coin? Why did other (imo superior) games like Planescape: Torment fail to sell, despite being regarded by many as the greatest RPG ever made? 

Somehow, I'm reminded of a story from Roger Ebert about someone who was thinking about seeing Cries and Whispers; Ebert tells the man, "I thought it was the best movie of the year." The response? "Um, I'm not sure if we want to go see that movie." Sometimes, people can be almost intimidated by the idea of something's being truly great.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote..

But you are talking about a completely different product. I don't need to buy Episode V of Star Wars to view Episode VI. But I DO need to purchase ME3 in order to play From Ashes. Just like I need to own DA:O to play DA:A. Its ancillary content. And I don't have nearly as much problem with it if it isn't coming out on Day 1. 

I know I asked this upthread, but how come Il Divo and I have to wait for something because you have a problem with it?

Mainly because I'm not the only one with a problem with it? 

And again... I'm fine with you getting the content Day 1. I'm just not happy about Bioware putting a price tag on it.

Of course not.

You admitted that game prices have remained stagnant some time back, which admittedly developers are themselves to blame. But you demand more content at a $70 price point, otherwise the developer is nickel and diming you. But if you were to pay for Javik, achieving the $70 price point and removing any hurt feelings about missing out ont content, Bioware has still screwed up royally in your eyes. They should really be releasing Javik for free at the $60 price point. Is that the clear solution here?

[Il Divo]

osbornep wrote...

Il Divo wrote...

Tough to establish a 100% clear pattern. Sure, we all talk about how DA:O sold so well via great word of mouth, but what's the other side of the coin? Why did other (imo superior) games like Planescape: Torment fail to sell, despite being regarded by many as the greatest RPG ever made? 

Somehow, I'm reminded of a story from Roger Ebert about someone who was thinking about seeing Cries and Whispers; Ebert tells the man, "I thought it was the best movie of the year." The response? "Um, I'm not sure if we want to go see that movie." Sometimes, people can be almost intimidated by the idea of something's being truly great.

Black Isle made a product so good it killed them? That's depressing to think about. Like, Dark Souls level depressing.

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Il Divo wrote...
Tough to establish a 100% clear pattern. Sure, we all talk about how DA:O sold so well via great word of mouth, but what's the other side of the coin? Why did other (imo superior) games like Planescape: Torment fail to sell, despite being regarded by many as the greatest RPG ever made? 

Planescape didn't come out on consoles.

Neither did BG. Your point?

Touche.

It should also be noted the Planescape was an unfamiliar setting (as opposed to BG, which was both standard fantasy as well as FR known), had serious combat issues (while BG was and still is heralded as being highly tactical) and, to be frank, PS:T is pretty weird. Great... but weird. Not everyone's cup of tea. 

It's like saying "The Eagles are a rock band, just like Slayer... so Raining Blood should come on every other hour, just like Desperado." PS:T was a niche RPG back when RPGs were already extremely niche. It was going to appeal to the same subset as those who like Baldur's Gate, but even then... it wasn't going to appeal to all of them. Everyone should have known that from a mile away. As good as it was, it was still too big of a deviation from "the formula" for people to expect it to sell half as well as BG (let alone BG2).

But I feel like we are getting woefully off topic.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2013 - 02:25 .