750 réponses à ce sujet

[Ninja Stan]

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. 

Telltale is already doing this by making their games episodic in nature. That may or may not be the kind of "story-type microtransaction" you are referring to. Personally, I think it's a neat, though not necessarily better or worse, way to sell a game product, though I am the kind of gamer who would wait until the entire story is done before purchasing it.

[ghostzodd]

Ninja Stan wrote...

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. 

Telltale is already doing this by making their games episodic in nature. That may or may not be the kind of "story-type microtransaction" you are referring to. Personally, I think it's a neat, though not necessarily better or worse, way to sell a game product, though I am the kind of gamer who would wait until the entire story is done before purchasing it.

Me also. The walking dead season 2 and, wolf among us look great but, I would rather wait till all episodes are released and there is a steam sale going on. Thats prob what I am going to do with DAI is wait till most or all of the DLC drops then pick up the game.

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

That would be a decent solution.

Not as good as Free D1DLC, since the DLC wouldn't be available to enhance base unit sales and the target purchase time for a D1DLC is the date of purchase... but it would resolve a lot of the nerd rage effect. They would have too be careful how they sold it, as if it was pretty blatant that it was ready on Day 1 and they were just holding off on it, it could result in similar whiplash effects.

But I have little problem with the DLC being cut directly out of the base game as long as it isn't released as Paid D1DLC. It's not ideal, but it is better than the alternative. It can even be highly integrated into the main game experience if it is given away for free on D1... that will only ensure more copies are New instead of Used.

[Sanunes]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

That would be a decent solution.

Not as good as Free D1DLC, since the DLC wouldn't be available to enhance base unit sales and the target purchase time for a D1DLC is the date of purchase... but it would resolve a lot of the nerd rage effect. They would have too be careful how they sold it, as if it was pretty blatant that it was ready on Day 1 and they were just holding off on it, it could result in similar whiplash effects.

But I have little problem with the DLC being cut directly out of the base game as long as it isn't released as Paid D1DLC. It's not ideal, but it is better than the alternative. It can even be highly integrated into the main game experience if it is given away for free on D1... that will only ensure more copies are New instead of Used.

I don't think it would make any difference for the arugement either seems to be "its made before the game was shipped" or "its important content that was removed because they wanted to charge the player more money" and delaying it doesn't seem to be anything against those arguements. 

[LPPrince]

I'm fine with Day One DLC existing, since I'm under the assumption Bioware has no plans to quit cold turkey. What I want is to have that DLC for free. I don't want to have to pay more for little add-ons like that.

Its one thing if an expansion comes out a few months later, like with Skyrim's DLCs. Those I'm perfectly happy paying for.

But if its a Day One DLC, I want it included with the price of my game, and I don't want it hidden behind a $20+ Collector's Edition.

What I'm comfortable with-

DAO's Shale(free with any new copy)

What I'm not comfortable with-

ME3's Javik(included in CE which itself costs an extra $20, otherwise must purchase separately)

What I'd be most comfortable with-

Skyrim(No Day One DLC whatsoever, everybody gets everything for the same cost, extra content is released later in bigger expansion packs)

Modifié par LPPrince, 31 décembre 2013 - 04:19 .

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't think it would make any difference for the arugement either seems to be "its made before the game was shipped" or "its important content that was removed because they wanted to charge the player more money" and delaying it doesn't seem to be anything against those arguements.

Logically, no, it shouldn't. But the developers we have seen release DLC even just a few weeks after release get none of the same blasting as those who release it Day One. So it would stand to reason that it would continue to happen that way for developers like Bioware.

[wrdnshprd]

In Exile wrote...

wrdnshprd wrote...

the company is CUTTING content from the game and charging additonal money for it.. sorry but i call that getting ripped off.

and again, no matter how you slice it.. that is EXACTLY what day 1 DLC is..  even if the content is made by a different team; if its available day one, it can still be put in as part of the install or put up as a digital download for free.

If it's available day one, then it could be offered for free, but that's true if it was available on day 900 (like that free Alan Wake stuff that came up recently).

What's not true is that the time between "we're shipping the game" and "day people can play the game" is time spent on game development. If developers finish 100% of the content before going gold, and then just nickle and dime you, I can see that being a problem (perception-wise) even if it's made under a different budget exclusively for DLC. But if the development of assets is primarily in the period when there would be no more game development, how can it be "removed" from the main game? 

actually on day 900 they cant exactly make it as part of the original iso unless they release another version of the game to include the DLC parts as part of the original install..  also, im not against DLC after the fact.  i prefer large expansions to spread out $10 releases.. but thats just me.  that being said,  i am against day 1 DLC because it CAN be released as part of the original iso install.

and im sorry.. i have a hard time believing that they would start development on DLC AFTER the game has gone gold and still have it ready for day 1 of original release.. that would have to be a pretty short piece of content, that quite frankly would not be worth paying for.  no, my guess is they develop the "extra" content while still in the process of making the "original" game.  it has to go through the same certification process (play testing, QA, etc) as the "original" content.. and that takes time. 

thus, again, they can put the DLC in as part of the original iso.. but they CHOOSE not to (thus cutting the content from the original release) in order to make a few extra bucks.  why customers dont have a problem with this is beyond me.

Modifié par wrdnshprd, 31 décembre 2013 - 05:01 .

[Pasquale1234]

If not for D1-DLC, what would be the incentive to pre-order or, for consoles, purchase new rather than used?  Bonus items, maybe?  I think extra content works really well for both purposes.

I suppose they could offer some sort of discount for pre-orders, but by the time a game gets to release, they have made a huge investment and are pretty hungry for revenue.

wrdnshprd wrote...
thus, again, they can put the DLC in as part of the original iso.. but they CHOOSE not to (thus cutting the content from the original release) in order to make a few extra bucks.  why customers dont have a problem with this is beyond me.

Maybe because many customers don't mind paying companies for goods and services they value?

A lot of products have additional options and upgrades available at a higher price.  Why is it wrong for game developers to offer additional content at an additional price?

[OdanUrr]

Ninja Stan wrote...

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. 

Telltale is already doing this by making their games episodic in nature.

Word.

[Fast Jimmy]

Pasquale1234 wrote...

If not for D1-DLC, what would be the incentive to pre-order or, for consoles, purchase new rather than used?  Bonus items, maybe?  I think extra content works really well for both purposes.

I suppose they could offer some sort of discount for pre-orders, but by the time a game gets to release, they have made a huge investment and are pretty hungry for revenue.

Except Bioware didn't do this for ME3. The D1DLC was extra, regardless of if you pre-ordered. It was simply just extra for the consumer to pay. So the extra content wasn't working for either of the above purposes, it was simply charging gamers extra.

And I'm not (at all) against the idea of discounted DLC for pre-orders or new copies, but I've not seen anyone embrace that in a way that makes sense - Season Passes are about the most illogical business approach to DLC I've ever heard.

Maybe because many customers don't mind paying companies for goods and services they value?

A lot of products have additional options and upgrades available at a higher price.  Why is it wrong for game developers to offer additional content at an additional price?

Again - no other industry has story content on Day One for extra money. Key points - STORY content (not creature comforts, like if the content is in 3-D, but actual extra story) on DAY ONE (so DVD releases with deleted scenes coming out almost a year later don't qualify) for extra money. 

Because no other industry tries to cut up and divy out narrative content like that, it really isn't comparable. It would be like reading a book on your Kindle and getting a prompt in-between chapters to pay more for a special scene/deleted chapter that the writer has already finished and could have added to the story, but didn't unless you pay an extra $X dollars. The technology for that exists now, but the industry basic common sense has not acted on it.

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

That would be a decent solution.

Not as good as Free D1DLC, since the DLC wouldn't be available to enhance base unit sales and the target purchase time for a D1DLC is the date of purchase... but it would resolve a lot of the nerd rage effect. They would have too be careful how they sold it, as if it was pretty blatant that it was ready on Day 1 and they were just holding off on it, it could result in similar whiplash effects.

But I have little problem with the DLC being cut directly out of the base game as long as it isn't released as Paid D1DLC. It's not ideal, but it is better than the alternative. It can even be highly integrated into the main game experience if it is given away for free on D1... that will only ensure more copies are New instead of Used.

You do realize the absurdity of this, right?

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

That would be a decent solution.

Not as good as Free D1DLC, since the DLC wouldn't be available to enhance base unit sales and the target purchase time for a D1DLC is the date of purchase... but it would resolve a lot of the nerd rage effect. They would have too be careful how they sold it, as if it was pretty blatant that it was ready on Day 1 and they were just holding off on it, it could result in similar whiplash effects.

But I have little problem with the DLC being cut directly out of the base game as long as it isn't released as Paid D1DLC. It's not ideal, but it is better than the alternative. It can even be highly integrated into the main game experience if it is given away for free on D1... that will only ensure more copies are New instead of Used.

You do realize the absurdity of this, right?

If by absurdity, you mean complete lack of logic? Then yes, I agree.

But unless we are actually going to pretend buying purchase behavior is anything BUT logical actions, based close to its entirety in perception and emotion, then this makes perfect sense.

Stop making it seem like you are nickel and diming the consumer and, lo and behold, the consumer will stop perceive they are being nickeled and dimed... regardless of the reality. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2013 - 06:21 .

[In Exile]

Ninja Stan wrote...
Telltale is already doing this by making their games episodic in nature. That may or may not be the kind of "story-type microtransaction" you are referring to. Personally, I think it's a neat, though not necessarily better or worse, way to sell a game product, though I am the kind of gamer who would wait until the entire story is done before purchasing it.

No, that episodic model seems like something very different from an MTX. What I'm talking about is something like purchasing the next conversation with the Viscount in the quest-chain for .30 cents. 

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Ninja Stan wrote...
Telltale is already doing this by making their games episodic in nature. That may or may not be the kind of "story-type microtransaction" you are referring to. Personally, I think it's a neat, though not necessarily better or worse, way to sell a game product, though I am the kind of gamer who would wait until the entire story is done before purchasing it.

No, that episodic model seems like something very different from an MTX. What I'm talking about is something like purchasing the next conversation with the Viscount in the quest-chain for .30 cents. 

Agreed. Just like an expansion pack is on the right scale for its pricing scheme, TellTale's episodic content is as well.

For the same price as From Ashes, you can play through any of the chapters of TWD series, which are infinitely better written and designed. That's good value and should be supported. And I've heard next to no crtiics of that model.

[OdanUrr]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Agreed. Just like an expansion pack is on the right scale for its pricing scheme, TellTale's episodic content is as well.

For the same price as From Ashes, you can play through any of the chapters of TWD series, which are infinitely better written and designed. That's good value and should be supported. And I've heard next to no crtiics of that model.

There have been many, myself included.

[In Exile]

Filament wrote...
t seems the Walking Dead installments did fit the $5 price range that you originally specified as problematic, if not your new and improved danger zone.

It did hit the price range, absolutely. I never played Walking Dead because it's a zombie game, and I hate those. Wolf Among Us was good, and IMO felt like a self-contained game on a cliff-hanger. So to me the "episodic" approach basically seems like a very indie thing right now. If Bioware starts doing that for $30, then I'll judge it on a different scale because it's an AAA product with different expectations. 

[Fast Jimmy]

OdanUrr wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

Agreed. Just like an expansion pack is on the right scale for its pricing scheme, TellTale's episodic content is as well.

For the same price as From Ashes, you can play through any of the chapters of TWD series, which are infinitely better written and designed. That's good value and should be supported. And I've heard next to no crtiics of that model.

There have been many, myself included.

Why? You get a 30+ hour game at the same sticker price, just broken up. If you wait, you can buy the full game for the same price. 

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Filament wrote...
t seems the Walking Dead installments did fit the $5 price range that you originally specified as problematic, if not your new and improved danger zone.

It did hit the price range, absolutely. I never played Walking Dead because it's a zombie game, and I hate those. Wolf Among Us was good, and IMO felt like a self-contained game on a cliff-hanger. So to me the "episodic" approach basically seems like a very indie thing right now. If Bioware starts doing that for $30, then I'll judge it on a different scale because it's an AAA product with different expectations. 

I fail to see the disconnect. If anything, it is MORE consumer friendly, since you can play the first episode, decide whether you like the concept, and move on if not. You'd only be out $5-$10 bucks, instead of the $60 a regular AAA game would have. And it allows more variety in the game design, as a developer can play around with concepts that would not have been plausible under a full AAA, $60 price model, but may work for a small purchase of $5-10.

Honestly, to me it represents truly consumer friendly modular content, much better than the DLC model does. 

[AlanC9]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
If by absurdity, you mean complete lack of logic? Then yes, I agree.

But unless we are actually going to pretend buying purchase behavior is anything BUT logical actions, based close to its entirety in perception and emotion, then this makes perfect sense.

Stop making it seem like you are nickel and diming the consumer and, lo and behold, the consumer will stop perceive they are being nickeled and dimed... regardless of the reality. 

So irrational fans = irrational publishing schedules?

OK. I'm still not convinced there's enough entitled whiners to create an actual problem here, but the argument does have an amusing symmetry.

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
If by absurdity, you mean complete lack of logic? Then yes, I agree.

But unless we are actually going to pretend buying purchase behavior is anything BUT logical actions, based close to its entirety in perception and emotion, then this makes perfect sense.

Stop making it seem like you are nickel and diming the consumer and, lo and behold, the consumer will stop perceive they are being nickeled and dimed... regardless of the reality. 

So irrational fans = irrational publishing schedules?

OK. I'm still not convinced there's enough entitled whiners to create an actual problem here, but the argument does have an amusing symmetry.

The alternative is a public awareness campaign, where Bioware (or EA, at large) tries to educate and promote the DLC model to fans in a way that informs? But I doubt such an idea would gain much traction, nor do I think Bioware would want to give an "under the hood" look for consumers to see how the sausage was made, so to speak, that wouldn't give more ammo to critics than convincing consumers of its merits. 

[AlanC9]

Another alternative is to ignore the whole thing. You haven't made a very convincing case that this isn't a workable strategy.

[BaladasDemnevanni]

AlanC9 wrote...

Another alternative is to ignore the whole thing. You haven't made a very convincing case that this isn't a workable strategy.

His approach seems to be "if you're not giving your consumers free content, you're doing it wrong".

Modifié par BaladasDemnevanni, 31 décembre 2013 - 07:58 .

[DandyManGames]

This should be a bonus for pre-ordering.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

And this comparison would work if your issue had been bad quality content, as opposed to the lack of content's existence in your game. Experiencing a crappy ending could feasibly ruin your game.

The idea that consumers would have been heart-broken if Bringing Down the Sky (for example) had been day 1 dlc is laughable.