750 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
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?

 "You" plural, then. Same question.

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 décembre 2013 - 02:26 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo wrote...

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?

No.

I would have been fine if they released DA:O for $70 and continued to give Shale away free. Same goes for Skyrim, vanilla.

I would have been still pretty ticked if ME3 had cost $70, free DLC or no. Not unless the base game was GREATLY improved.

I'm not saying "a $70 game better be greater than any other game I've ever played." But it certainly has to be better than ME3 or DA2, free DLC or no.

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...
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?

 "You" plural, then. Same question.

Because consumers who are getting ticked off for being impatient to spend money for your ancillary, smaller revenue product is a TON better than consumers who are getting ticked off and not buying your main, heavy revenue product?

As I was talking about earlier, losing one New game sale is worth more than half a dozen D1DLC sales. You and Il Divo can lick your wounds and gnash your teeth that you have to wait X amount of weeks before the first piece of DLC comes out that you can give Bioware your money for, but Bioware would be smart to do so if it meant even a mediocre 5% increase in New Game sales. 

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

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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.

We certainly have. The question was why you think that marketing budgets are worthless.

PS:T was not all that relevant either. I'm not sure that game coukd have been marketed even if someone had tried. Note that BG in effect was marketed, by the popularity of D&D and the FR.

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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.

We certainly have. The question was why you think that marketing budgets are worthless.

PS:T was not all that relevant either. I'm not sure that game coukd have been marketed even if someone had tried. Note that BG in effect was marketed, by the popularity of D&D and the FR.

When did I say marketing budgets are worthless?

By that same token, writing budgets are worthless. As are music budgets. Or combat/encounter design budgets.

Simply because I would prefer that one aspect of the budget not eclipse that of everything else does not mean I think it is worthless. Just that it is highly overinflated.

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Doesn't the DLC model, especially the D1DLC model where content could be truly edited out of the main game (by other developers less scrupulous than Bioware, of course) and sold separately, completely alter the game industry by the same stroke? Sure, it doesn't place arbitrary obstacles in the way hoping the player throws money at it, but it still encourages developers to see what content would be most likely to sell as a standalone product and to charge for it.

No. But I just fundamentally don't have a problem with developers doing that, because it seems to be the only way the market will bear the cost of increased games. If we get to story-type microtransactions: pay $5 for this next part of the quest, then we have a problem. I just can't see that business model being viable. And if it is, and it's actually profitable, then it's going to happen and there's no way to stop it because consumers will tolerate it. 

I mean, this proposition seems pretty simple to me: we can think something is subjectively horrible, but it's killing the industry and the company will collapse for doing it (see the fisting Microsoft is getting with their Xbox One) or the market will happily tolerate it and ask for more.

Grinding microtransactions make the journey to what you really want harder and longer in hope that the player will throw money at it. DLC takes destinations you'd want to see out of that journey and asks the player to pay more to see them all. Aren't those two sides of the same coin?

No. Because in on case I'm being offered more of something fun. The developer isn't literally pissing in my soup and making me pay for a filter to take the ****** out. They're just selling the main course separate from the soup. If they start charging me for individual french fries then they've gone too far, but paying for each part of the meal separately is not a problem for me. 

It's like going to a fancy restaurant and having to pay for the sides separately. 

Combat difficulty is something that is to be overcome. I wouldn't pay to go through it if the developer purposefully made it so difficult I had to use MTX - I would just turn the game off, sell it to Gamestop for what I could and blast it as one of the worst designed games I'd encountered to anyone who would listen.

But what if you have a Bioware game where the combat is so painfull and atrocious you can't get through the story without MTX? That's not even the endgame - that's the point of MTXs. They're as much a gate for story content as they are a kick in the shin for gameplay.

It's not an added challenge, it is a diminished experience. And the foreknowledge that I, as the player, am missing out on content has a very easy way of diminishing the content I am already seeing.  

How is it a diminished experience? That's where we differ. I don't disagree with you on the sentiment, I just don't share it with when it comes to story-related content. I don't have a diminished experience of Doctor Who if I have to purchase the Christmas Specials separately from the typical series. 

I am feeling like every scene, conversation or interaction the game gives me could possibly have been made better if I had just forked over the money... you feel that every game that offers microtransactions was possibly made overly hard for the sole purpose of squeezing money out of you. Yet if the DLC didn't exist, I wouldn't second guess every scene I saw. And if the microtransactions weren't in your game, you'd think it was pretty brave of the developer to put such difficult sequences in a game to challenge today's gamers.

Okay, do you know how DLC works? At no point has it added things to vanilla conversations in the game. Even with Javiik, he doesn't feature in 90% of the scenes. Are you saying every conversation you have with Anderson on Earth before you can even leave is somehow tainted with the knowledge that the companion DLC character that isn't available at that point would have radically changed everything? 

Modifié par In Exile, 31 décembre 2013 - 02:35 .

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Because consumers who are getting ticked off for being impatient to spend money for your ancillary, smaller revenue product is a TON better than consumers who are getting ticked off and not buying your main, heavy revenue product?

As I was talking about earlier, losing one New game sale is worth more than half a dozen D1DLC sales. You and Il Divo can lick your wounds and gnash your teeth that you have to wait X amount of weeks before the first piece of DLC comes out that you can give Bioware your money for, but Bioware would be smart to do so if it meant even a mediocre 5% increase in New Game sales. 

Hmm.... so if you guys are butthurt enough, the optimal solution for Bio is that rest of us just have to suck it up? Maybe. It won't hurt Bio much. They can always put the DLC on ice for a couple of weeks even if it's done. Somewhat lower sales, but if there really are enough of you guys it might be the optimal strategy anyway.

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 décembre 2013 - 02:36 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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).

RPGs weren't niche back in the early 2000s. Niche was a flight sim. You know, a genre that's outright dead today. 

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

When did I say marketing budgets are worthless?

By that same token, writing budgets are worthless. As are music budgets. Or combat/encounter design budgets.

Simply because I would prefer that one aspect of the budget not eclipse that of everything else does not mean I think it is worthless. Just that it is highly overinflated.

Caught me exaggerating.. What's Fast Jimmy's Rule for the optimal marketing budget percentage? And how did you calculate it?

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 décembre 2013 - 02:39 .

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
As I was talking about earlier, losing one New game sale is worth more than half a dozen D1DLC sales. You and Il Divo can lick your wounds and gnash your teeth that you have to wait X amount of weeks before the first piece of DLC comes out that you can give Bioware your money for, but Bioware would be smart to do so if it meant even a mediocre 5% increase in New Game sales. 

Okay, so what if Bioware has objective data that they lose less in new game sales, on a per dollar basis, then they accrue in revenue from monetizing people who like DLC? On your reasoning, suck it subset of playerbase because it's the best financial outcome for us, the developer, is acceptable reasoning... so would you say that DLCs are the right call if enough players support it to make it the most profitable option?

What about randomly generated packs like the ME MP sells? That was insanely popular with a subset of the fanbase and spawned a lot of free content. Would you agree that Bioware should redesign all their SP games to feature that kind of MP, becuase if clearly gaining more in MP MTX sales than they are losing in SP/unit sales? 

Edit: Don't feel obliged to actually answer these Qs - I don't want you to feel blitzed between me and AlanC9. All I'm getting at here is that it seems like this part of your reasoning boils down to getting what you want even at the expense of what others want, and not about the bottom line for the company at all. 

Modifié par In Exile, 31 décembre 2013 - 02:40 .

[addiction21]

In Exile wrote...


RPGs weren't niche back in the early 2000s. Niche was a flight sim. You know, a genre that's outright dead today. 

And now I am going to go cry myself to sleep for you reminding me of that.

[In Exile]

addiction21 wrote...

And now I am going to go cry myself to sleep for you reminding me of that.

I'm sorry. 

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

No.

I would have been fine if they released DA:O for $70 and continued to give Shale away free. Same goes for Skyrim, vanilla.

Well, I'm glad someone is fine with that. But I suspect we'd be getting more than a few cries of anger about the price point, from fans demanding that content for the original $60. Wasn't you who was talking all about perceptions a while back?

I would have been still pretty ticked if ME3 had cost $70, free DLC or no. Not unless the base game was GREATLY improved.

I'd love to see a universally agreed formula for defining what games can be sold at a $70 price. Is it game length? is it zots spent on the title? Or overall enjoyment? I suspect it's the last one, but seeing as that's subjective, I don't think you really can establish a general trend for what games will go for that price.

You established that $70 will demand more "quality" but that's such a vague qualifier. That's what's odd here, since you're comfortable paying for DA:O at that price point, but are outraged by the idea of ME3 being sold at that price.

Modifié par Il Divo, 31 décembre 2013 - 02:47 .

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

No. But I just fundamentally don't have a problem with developers doing that, because it seems to be the only way the market will bear the cost of increased games. If we get to story-type microtransactions: pay $5 for this next part of the quest, then we have a problem. I just can't see that business model being viable. And if it is, and it's actually profitable, then it's going to happen and there's no way to stop it because consumers will tolerate it.

Well, now... hold up.

Just because SOME consumers tolerate it doesn't make it a sustainable model. It depends on the margins and the costs it winds up having to brand loyalty and future sales. If the fact that a game has story MTX makes me not buy the game, then a number of other consumers would have to buy into the model for that one loss to be balanced out. This isn't an equitable exchange, where if I don't participate, they only need one new spot to replace me... a loss base unit sale would by its very nature be more valuable than a player who partakes in a dozen $1 microtransactions. Just because you have 12 microtransactions doesn't somehow mean that the model is viable, or that consumers will tolerate it. Just that some will, at costs unknown.

I mean, this proposition seems pretty simple to me: we can think something is subjectively horrible, but it's killing the industry and the company will collapse for doing it (see the fisting Microsoft is getting with their Xbox One) or the market will happily tolerate it and ask for more.

We don't (and won't) know if the market would have taken the XB1 suggestions. Microsoft saw, however, that their loss in units sales was going to be more harmful to the lesser revenue they would have gotten from developers who would have been paying them to not lose money on Used Games. Just because Bioware isn't exercising that same level of caution doesn't mean the same exact market factors aren't in effect.

No. Because in on case I'm being offered more of something fun. The developer isn't literally pissing in my soup and making me pay for a filter to take the ****** out. They're just selling the main course separate from the soup. If they start charging me for individual french fries then they've gone too far, but paying for each part of the meal separately is not a problem for me. 

It's like going to a fancy restaurant and having to pay for the sides separately.

My only really response to that is that stories don't work like that. Humans don't process narrative content in the same way they process food - food is not related or tied together. Noodles without sauce is still just noodles. Spaghetti without meatballs is still spaighetti. Pasta dinner without garlic bread is still pasta dinner.

Someone telling you a story and then cutting out a chunk of it before you pay more just feels like cheating. 

But what if you have a Bioware game where the combat is so painfull and atrocious you can't get through the story without MTX? That's not even the endgame - that's the point of MTXs. They're as much a gate for story content as they are a kick in the shin for gameplay.

Then I would gladly not play that game. And I would tell everyone I know that it is like getting kicked in the shins for twenty hours. And I would naturally assume the game would tank badly in a shallow attempt at getting tiny bits of revenue while destroying their base game sales. Which would be exceptionally stupid, not some insidious business manueveur.

And, again... my problem is not DLC as an entire model. Just Paid D1DLC. Where the added content is not just sold, but heavily marketed as being an enhancement to the game that a player will miss unless they pay the extra money. 

How is it a diminished experience? That's where we differ. I don't disagree with you on the sentiment, I just don't share it with when it comes to story-related content. I don't have a diminished experience of Doctor Who if I have to purchase the Christmas Specials separately from the typical series.

Wouldn't you? What if the true nature of the Tardis is discussed in the Christmas Special? Nothing tied to the overarching season's main plot, but very revealing and lore-building aspects of their history and society? Does that Christmas Special suddenly seem so unimportant?

Okay, do you know how DLC works? At no point has it added things to vanilla conversations in the game. Even with Javiik, he doesn't feature in 90% of the scenes. Are you saying every conversation you have with Anderson on Earth before you can even leave is somehow tainted with the knowledge that the companion DLC character that isn't available at that point would have radically changed everything? 

How would I, in any way, shape or form, think that going to Thessia is going to be influenced by if I bought the D1DLC at all? Its a Prothean - why would the Asari homeworld matter? Maybe if Liara was the D1DLC, I could see it. But hey, if you did buy the DLC and you brought him with you, you got treated to some pretty cool, interesting scenes. Not vital or game-breaking ones... but very interesting, nonetheless. 

How would I know, as a potential DA2 player, that buying the DLC with the archer character would unlock a scene where I can have a conversation with Leliana? How random is that? How predictable could that possibly be?

Point is, you don't know what you are missing when you don't buy the D1DLC. You CAN'T know, unless you somehow get a leaked script or someone who has played through both the vanilla game and the DLC game outlines it all for you. And if anyone can truly have access to that level of information on Day 1, I'd be honestly jealous at their connections.

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

When did I say marketing budgets are worthless?

By that same token, writing budgets are worthless. As are music budgets. Or combat/encounter design budgets.

Simply because I would prefer that one aspect of the budget not eclipse that of everything else does not mean I think it is worthless. Just that it is highly overinflated.

Caught me exaggerating.. What's Fast Jimmy's Rule for the optimal marketing budget percentage? And how did you calculate it?

28.43%. Rounding up, of course.

A good magician never reveals his tricks.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Point is, you don't know what you are missing when you don't buy the D1DLC. You CAN'T know, unless you somehow get a leaked script or someone who has played through both the vanilla game and the DLC game outlines it all for you. And if anyone can truly have access to that level of information on Day 1, I'd be honestly jealous at their connections.

Okay, but can you seriously sustain the "I don't know what I'm missing vibe" for 25+ hours of gameplay? And that goes for any game.

Sebastian doesn't stand out so easily as Javik as being "special" so in most cases, the idea that you'll constantly be focused on this content you don't have is itself ludicrous.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Okay, so what if Bioware has objective data that they lose less in new game sales, on a per dollar basis, then they accrue in revenue from monetizing people who like DLC? On your reasoning, suck it subset of playerbase because it's the best financial outcome for us, the developer, is acceptable reasoning... so would you say that DLCs are the right call if enough players support it to make it the most profitable option?

No, that's not what I'm saying. Alan simply asked "besides Fast Jimmy and co. not liking this, why should Bioware do something different?" So I gave him a business reason.

That doesn't mean Bioware should do the practice even though Fast Jimmy and co. don't like it. But that reason may be a little more subjective and biased than a straight business one. If the money makes sense for them to say "let them squeal, we're still making money hand over fist with DLC and New Game sales aren't taking a lick," they are fine to do so... just like I'm fine to then say I'm feeling nickel-and-dimed for them doing so.

I feel like you are trying to argue for a reason for me to not have a problem with the practice. I'm not sure that's going to happen. My sole reason is I don't like it. But since I'm not the only one (obviously, based on responses to this and other threads), I can also extrapolate that opinion in a business view, such that it is worth pointing out that Bioware could LOSE money in their attempt to gain money in a way I don't like.

What about randomly generated packs like the ME MP sells? That was insanely popular with a subset of the fanbase and spawned a lot of free content. Would you agree that Bioware should redesign all their SP games to feature that kind of MP, becuase if clearly gaining more in MP MTX sales than they are losing in SP/unit sales?

I find randomly generated packs from MTX to be the most dangeorus form of digital transaction on the planet. Its virtual slots for virtual goods, but using real money. If ever there was a recipe for a company causing the ruin of someone with zero impulse control (and the subsequent fallout that company could get hit with for doing so), that is it.

Edit: Don't feel obliged to actually answer these Qs - I don't want you to feel blitzed between me and AlanC9. All I'm getting at here is that it seems like this part of your reasoning boils down to getting what you want even at the expense of what others want, and not about the bottom line for the company at all. 

To which I would say I disagree? 

Bad brand image is one of the most difficult things for a company to shake off. Even if magical math could be done that shows new game sales aren't hurt to the level where DLC transactions outweigh them, it would have to be a MAMMOTH level to outweigh the baggage Bioware (and EA) are picking up to engage in them. One the microcosm, ONE D1DLC for ONE game made by ONE division of ONE developer could be small scale damage... but over the course of multiple games? Across every division? Across every developer? The damage to EA could be brutal. 

I'd say EA has been trying to make strides recently to combat that bad image, with delayed release dates, cutting out practices like the Online Passes, doing a much more concerted and focused attempt at PR... losing money and sales in the process, no doubt. (at least in the short term). Would none of that been needed without From Ashes? No, highly unlikely. But do the "From Ashes" of the company not accumulate together into one giant avalanche over time? The only way to overcome such an image is baby steps, steps which are stymied in an attempt for small revenue streams.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2013 - 03:18 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Point is, you don't know what you are missing when you don't buy the D1DLC. You CAN'T know, unless you somehow get a leaked script or someone who has played through both the vanilla game and the DLC game outlines it all for you. And if anyone can truly have access to that level of information on Day 1, I'd be honestly jealous at their connections.

Okay, but can you seriously sustain the "I don't know what I'm missing vibe" for 25+ hours of gameplay? And that goes for any game.

Sebastian doesn't stand out so easily as Javik as being "special" so in most cases, the idea that you'll constantly be focused on this content you don't have is itself ludicrous.

I didn't say constantly, no. 

But in the example In Exile gave about MTX, would he be thinking about how much the microtransactions were hampering him CONSTANTLY? Even during sections where there wasn't combat? Even during areas that didn't have difficult encounters? Even during areas that didn't offer the abiltiy to buy microtransactions?

As we can see with complaints about other aspects of games, it doesn't take omni-presence of something to detract from the experience. DA2 really only had you visit the same cave about a dozen times, max. And I think I may be laying it on thick there. You didn't go into the Viscount's Palace and think "oh, man, I hope going in here doesn't wind up loading up "The Cave" again!" You didn't talk with Isabella and think "man, this conversation is REALLY being ruined by the fact that ten minutes earlier, I had to fight enemies in the same location I'd visited before! GAH! Woe is me!"

But DA2 gets blasted for re-used environments. Just like ME3 gets blasted for its endings (10 minutes of a 25+ hour game) or its autodialogue (maybe a dozen or so times across THOUSANDS of lines of dialouge). 

"It bothers me and hurts my experience" does not equal "every single second of the game is spent worrying and focusing on this one factor." Playing a base game I know has DLC that was created right along the base game and could have hooks anywhere to content that I'm not seeing simply because I didn't fork over the money grates on me and causes a bad experience. Not for 25+ hours straight, but it does happen and it does exist.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2013 - 03:17 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo wrote...

Well, I'm glad someone is fine with that. But I suspect we'd be getting more than a few cries of anger about the price point, from fans demanding that content for the original $60. Wasn't you who was talking all about perceptions a while back?

Hmmm. No. That seems highly unlike me.

I'd love to see a universally agreed formula for defining what games can be sold at a $70 price. Is it game length? is it zots spent on the title? Or overall enjoyment? I suspect it's the last one, but seeing as that's subjective, I don't think you really can establish a general trend for what games will go for that price.

You established that $70 will demand more "quality" but that's such a vague qualifier. That's what's odd here, since you're comfortable paying for DA:O at that price point, but are outraged by the idea of ME3 being sold at that price.

I could create such a formula for myself, but it would only apply to me. 

Games that I greatly enjoy and that allow me to keep coming back to them, time and time again, are worth way more than $60. I'd have paid $100 for DA:O if  I knew how much enjoyment and replayability (nearly hand-in-hand in my book) they would give me. And there are many on this forum who thought DA:O was incredibly boring, slow and a chore to get through who, apparently, would not have been happy paying $60.

Point being, that's the industry's responsibility. They were the ones who thought increased volume would eclipse the need for steady price increases. When that well began to run dry, they tried to make up for it with increased anti-piracy and lower Used game sales. And when those measures began to fall through as well, they began to target Paid DLC and MTX as a venue for revenue. 

Maybe that venue is the one that cracks the nut. Or maybe it results in such bad publicity that five years from now, only the developers who steered clear of such suggestions are the ones who make it out alive. No one knows. But it is worth pointing out that if this is the future that Bioware is hitching their horse up to, then they are doing a poor job of selling it to fans. Not as in marketing a piece of DLC, but getting consumer buy in on the concept. 

Many consumers feel cheated, lied to and jaded about the practice (many do not, it is worth noting). It is also worth noting that many fans feel elated, vindicated and even a little proud of developers like CDProjekt who give their DLC away for free, even past the release date (many do not, again, it is worth noting). So not only does Bioware have an uphill battle trying to get buy-in on the practice, there are also next door neighbors in the industry marketplace who aren't doing it, making it REALLY easy for the consumer to point and say "well, why?" And the "why" is a question Bioware hasn't done a fantastic job answering, other than "games don't grow on trees, you young whippersnappers! Now get off my lawn!"

[Rotward]

Meltemph wrote...

Micro-transactions, to me, are the most insipid in the industry. It fosters a form of game development that directs said development(The new forza game as the latest example).

While simultaneously lowering the qulity of the game. Micro transactions will be illegal before I die, if it's the last thing I do. 

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
Maybe that venue is the one that cracks the nut. Or maybe it results in such bad publicity that five years from now, only the developers who steered clear of such suggestions are the ones who make it out alive. No one knows. But it is worth pointing out that if this is the future that Bioware is hitching their horse up to, then they are doing a poor job of selling it to fans. Not as in marketing a piece of DLC, but getting consumer buy in on the concept. 

Or they go all the way to modular development; hasn't Sylvius been pushing that lately?

Or the whole issue goes away when they go to a service model instead of anyone actually ever purchasing anything.

Or nothing much happens and we just go on like this.

Even if you're right and there's too much nerdrage to keep doing day 1 DLC, the easy response is to keep the current production plans and hold onto the DLC for a couple of weeks, until the fuss dies down.

Modifié par AlanC9, 31 décembre 2013 - 05:24 .

[Realmzmaster]

If the $60 price point is to be maintained then I suggest that Bioware simply cut out content from the base game to make two or three dlcs. Release that cut content as dlc on days 30, 90 and 120 at $10 a pop. That way Bioware does not invest anymore money. The base game would still be playable and hopefully of excellent quality that the gaming community will never notice.
No day one dlc. That would end any nerdage about day one dlc and enhance gamer perception.

Of course that would upset anyone who wants that content right away. It may lose sales to gamers who have finished the game and moved on to other games. Some of the gamers on this forum actually finish the game before the 20 day mark and are unlikely to buy dlc because they have removed the game from their hard drives.and move on to the next game.

I have no problem with day one dlc because it is a choice whether I buy it or not. It is my choice to buy the base game or not.
The finished product is what is sent out the door and the consumer has access.

I would tell Bioware forget the dlc or expansions. Let that stuff remain on the cutting floor. Move on to the next game in the series or new IP. Some of the employees will probably be moved to other assignments or let go.

If gamers want more let them demand it. I would adopt the model GMT Games uses with their P500 series. GMT takes orders on new games and games to be reprinted. Once game orders reach a certain level (in this case 500 pre-orders) the game is produced and copies are sent to those ordering and their credit cards are charged at that time. If the pre-orders do not reach 500 no games are produced and no credit card is charged..

I would suggest that Bioware set dlc orders starting at 10,000 and charge $10. If dlc pre-orders hit 10,000 then proceed with making the dlc, otherwise do not bother.

Modifié par Realmzmaster, 31 décembre 2013 - 06:23 .

[Realmzmaster]

It could be taken a step further. Everyone who wants day one dlc will pay for its development. Bioware would then send the day one dlc and base game to all those who pre-order it only for the first 90 days. Bioware could then offer the dlc to those who purchased only the base game after the 90 day period..

[Sylvius the Mad]

In Exile wrote...

Because at a certain point, the random number generator aspect of the packs that you get and the incredibly difficulty spike make it such that you have two choices: grind, and grind for a very long time, or pay IRL money to progress. A parallel would be making XP so rare, and the power curve between levels so high, that you'd have to fight random mobs for days to level up enough to move on to the next DA:O-type screen.

I'm in the grind stage.  At no point have I been even remotely tempted to spend money on the game, and if, at some point, I find the game becomes tedious, I'll just uninstall it.

I've certainly gotten my money's worth out of the game.  It was free, after all.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Or they go all the way to modular development; hasn't Sylvius been pushing that lately?

Indeed I have.  I'd love to see it.  Then we could actually see how much market support each feature has, and perhaps even see dynamic pricing where less popular features are more expensive (thus allowing those of us who like them to still get them if we're willing to pay for it).

It's really just an extension of the ability we all have to spend $2 billion buying EA, liquidating all the non-BioWare parts, and then just using the newly released liquidity to fund game development to our own specifications.

All any of us needs is $2 billion.

Or the whole issue goes away when they go to a service model instead of anyone actually ever purchasing anything.

That would ensure that I never bought another game from them ever again.