750 réponses à ce sujet

[AlanC9]

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

Well, I think we can stipulate that the number of entitled whiners is not zero. The question is how many there are.

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

I feel like I made a halfway convincing argument that a developer can't be making a ton of money off it, either? Again - Bioware's highest purchases DLC, From Ashes, only made around $20 million in revenue ($10 X 2 million DLC sold) and the developer only takes home a small fraction of that after cost and distribution fees. Is $5 million (a rough, but reasonable assumption of profit margin) worth all this extra baggage? You can make an additional $20 million revenue by selling an extra quarter of a million New Games, a pilthy 5% increase in sales. Can you honestly tell me that free D1DPC couldn't scare up 5% increase in New Game sales, especially in conjunction with the fact that Paid D1DLC might scare 1 or 2% the other direction?

Is it that worth it?

[Fast Jimmy]

AlanC9 wrote...

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

Well, I think we can stipulate that the number of entitled whiners is not zero. The question is how many there are.

We can tone down the name calling. 

A consumer saying they don't like a practice and won't support it is the backbone of capitalism and free market economics. Adam Smith didn't have "entitled whiners" as a functional group when writing Wealth of Nations.

[OdanUrr]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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. 

Since you've asked, I'll try and explain. Firstly, there is an inherent danger with this business model and it's that the company that develops the game may not be able to complete it at all or, at the very least, on schedule since they don't release upon completion of the game but upon completion of each episode. Indeed, this is exactly what's going on with TTG at the moment and has fans vowing left and right never to buy any of their products again.

Moreover, there's an inconsistency, to me at least, on how TTG charges for their games. After all, if you release your game in several episodes it would make sense to charge for each episode separately in the same way you pay for each successive comic of the same story-arc (this is a particularly good analogy considering both TWD and TWAU are based on comic books). However, this is not the case, at least insofar as the PC version is concerned. With the Steam version of the game you can only buy a "season pass" for all episodes; in essence, financing future episodes at best, other games at worst.

Furthermore, this is not the case for consoles. For instance, in the case of TWAU, TTG released the first episode separately, allowing console users to buy only the first instalment if they so desired. Why make this distinction between console and PC gamers I wonder? I have indeed asked this on the TTG forums and have yet to receive a response. To further highlight this "rift" between console and PC gamers, TTG has now made the first episode of TWAU available for free on both the PS3 and the Xbox 360.

These are, basically, my criticisms of the way TTG is handling this business model.

EDIT: I nearly forgot about the most important point. The strength of having an episodical release is that you can simply buy the first episode and see if you like the game. If not, it only sets you back some $5 as opposed to the full price of the completed game. Indeed, maybe more people ended up buying at least part of your game as a result of this business model than they would've done otherwise. However, by releasing episodically but not charging so TTG is effectively undermining this strategy.

Modifié par OdanUrr, 31 décembre 2013 - 08:21 .

[Fast Jimmy]

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.

This is entirely illogical.

If something causes a bad experience, it causes a bad experience. Why would you knowingly create a bad experience for your possible consumers? Again - not only have other developers done this with no problem, but Bioware itself has. We as consumers know the method is viable... why risk alienating fans?

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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. 

Wait, you're OK with getting what you're told from the begining is not the full game?

Modifié par In Exile, 31 décembre 2013 - 08:26 .

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

AlanC9 wrote...

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

Well, I think we can stipulate that the number of entitled whiners is not zero. The question is how many there are.

We can tone down the name calling. 

A consumer saying they don't like a practice and won't support it is the backbone of capitalism and free market economics. Adam Smith didn't have "entitled whiners" as a functional group when writing Wealth of Nations.

I fully support consumers deciding for themselves what is and isn't worth buying. I just think it's funny when they try to draw some moral outrage on that principle.

I don't want to pay for X is a perfectly acceptable purchasing decision on its own, no sensationalism necessary.

[Fast Jimmy]

Since you've asked, I'll try and explain. Firstly, there is an inherent danger with this business model and it's that the company that develops the game may not be able to complete it at all or, at the very least, on schedule since they don't release upon completion of the game but upon completion of each episode. Indeed, this is exactly what's going on with TTG at the moment and has fans vowing left and right never to buy any of their products again. 

Yes, but you didn't buy that future content.

DA:I may come out and flop and end the series forever, leaving us to wonder what ever happened to Sandal... that doesn't mean AAA video game development is terrible. It just means that with each iteration of a series, whether that is a direct sequel or a next episode, there runs the risk of the series being cancelled. This happens in TV all the time.

Moreover, there's an inconsistency, to me at least, on how TTG charges for their games. After all, if you release your game in several episodes it would make sense to charge for each episode separately in the same way you pay for each successive comic of the same story-arc (this is a particularly good analogy considering both TWD and TWAU are based on comic books). However, this is not the case, at least insofar as the PC version is concerned. With the Steam version of the game you can only buy a "season pass" for all episodes; in essence, financing future episodes at best, other games at worst.

I feel Season Passes are bad deals, so I will agree with you there. Paying for future content without the understanding of speculation and risk (like a Kickstarter) is a terrible methodology. I wouldn't say this is indicative of the practice of episodic content in general, though.

EDIT: I nearly forgot about the most important point. The strength of having an episodical release is that you can simply buy the first episode and see if you like the game. If not, it only sets you back some $5 as opposed to the full price of the completed game. Indeed, maybe more people ended up buying at least part of your game as a result of this business model than they would've done otherwise. However, by releasing episodically but not charging so TTG is effectively undermining this strategy.

I agree - this is moving from episodic content into some weird subscription model.

So, in that sense, I agree, that is sheisty. But the base idea of episodic content, where small increments are made and sold piecemeal, is a very high value deal for consumers. Turning it into a pay-before-you-play model is not, at all.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2013 - 08:28 .

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

This is entirely illogical.

If something causes a bad experience, it causes a bad experience. Why would you knowingly create a bad experience for your possible consumers? Again - not only have other developers done this with no problem, but Bioware itself has. We as consumers know the method is viable... why risk alienating fans?

You don't have a "bad experience". Bioware creates a crappy ending. This is content in the game which you, the consumer, have experienced. Bioware not including some extra, which the game itself never notifies you exists in the first place? You have not had an experience, period. Good luck explaining how a Mass Effect 1 player who's never experienced Bringing Down the Sky would derive a negative experience from the base game.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
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. 

Wait, you're OK with getting what you're told from the begining is not the full game?

Yes. Mainly because there isn't other content available. 

I can buy episode 1. If I like it, I can buy episode two. There isn't an episode 1.5 that comes out the same day as Episode 1 that gives me special scenes that could tie into Episode 2... its iterative content. I would have no more problem with it than I would a developer making sequels. 

[In Exile]

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I can buy episode 1. If I like it, I can buy episode two. There isn't an episode 1.5 that comes out the same day as Episode 1 that gives me special scenes that could tie into Episode 2... its iterative content. I would have no more problem with it than I would a developer making sequels. 

What about today? You want to buy the Walking dead. Do you feel obligated to buy all the episodes? They're all avaialble right now and you didn't buy it on release. 

[Fast Jimmy]

I fully support consumers deciding for themselves what is and isn't worth buying. I just think it's funny when they try to draw some moral outrage on that principle.

I don't want to pay for X is a perfectly acceptable purchasing decision on its own, no sensationalism necessary.

Saying a product is over priced, or low quality, or that they felt ripped off that a company would charge them for something is all avid forms of capitalism as well. If a restaurant rented out a salt shaker to you, there would be business reasons for them doing so - salt isn't free and refilling those shakers take employee time that they are on the hook for - but many frequenters of the restaurant would tell the manager to his face he was being cheap.

[Fast Jimmy]

You don't have a "bad experience". Bioware creates a crappy ending. This is content in the game which you, the consumer, have experienced. Bioware not including some extra, which the game itself never notifies you exists in the first place? You have not had an experience, period. Good luck explaining how a Mass Effect 1 player who's never experienced Bringing Down the Sky would derive a negative experience from the base game.

And good luck telling a player that a Prothean character, whose species has been the forefront of the entire trilogy, doesn't play a larger part in the overall game's experience.

Any fan of the series who heard about the Prothean character would assume it was vitally important to the game, simply because of the heavy nature the series placed on them. The fact that this was not the case is irrelevant - anyone who didn't want to pay for that content would have felt that anytime the Protheans or the Crucible were mentioned, they might be missing content.

That is a craptacular experience for a consumer.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

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.

And while that's great for Fast Jimmy, such a price point would probably have more than a few fans foaming at the mouth, likely more than your extra $40 would net Bioware.

You see, the problem is as you put it perception. It doesn't matter that Fastjimmy thinks DA:O is worth $100, which by the way he can't know until the game is in his hands. The problem is that many gamers might not recognize that the resources which went into DA:O might constitute an increased base price. And for a new IP, charging even $10 above market value when gamers see plenty of other $60 options could be a huge problem. The entire industry isn't shifting $10 at the same time, I suspect.

The general perception might not be the way you see it, where Bioware already made a game worth $100. The perception very well could be "If Bioware wants to make a $100 game, they better add an additional $40 worth of content". In this thread, we've had more than a few people bemoan how they're "already" shelling out $60 a game, which you yourself admitted is low for 2013.

For the time being, the $60 price point seems here to stay. Charging a higher base price for content you perceive as better sounds appealing, but creates an additional barrier to entry, since every purchase is a higher risk for the consumer and competes against other, cheaper products. It's also why I think your position on DA:O is funny since, given you're willing to pay higher for a quality game, if Shale was available day 1 paid dlc, in effect you still could have gotten DA:O for $70 and other consumers have greater say in whether they consider Shale worth shelling out more money in the first place.

Modifié par Il Divo, 31 décembre 2013 - 08:41 .

[Mirrman70]

does a measly ten dollars or five dollars really dent your wallet that much or are just that entitled that you believe day 1 dlc actually does hurt the profit margin of a game? Shale is not necessary. Sebastian is not necessary. Javik wasn't necessary either. they add more to the story but thats it. they are not selling you a partial game at all. if waiting a month or two really makes that much of a difference to you then you are a very, very hard to please person that is nowhere near being on the top of their "customers we need to please list". and the whole collectors addition exclusives should be material not digital thing? if I am paying $100+ for a game I damn well better be getting mor than just a collectible box a map and a model. Day 1 DLC probably produces more revenue than waiting or making it free because of all the people that preorder to get the DLC for free. preorders are ALMOST guaranteed sales so developers and publishers and distributors (the holy trio of gaming) obviously want people to preorder. day one dlc that is free if you preorder this or buy deluxe edition that, is intended to increase preorders nothing more nothing less. do not argue ceaselessly about economic models if end then you will still give into it no matter the amount of WHINING.

[Fast Jimmy]

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I can buy episode 1. If I like it, I can buy episode two. There isn't an episode 1.5 that comes out the same day as Episode 1 that gives me special scenes that could tie into Episode 2... its iterative content. I would have no more problem with it than I would a developer making sequels. 

What about today? You want to buy the Walking dead. Do you feel obligated to buy all the episodes? They're all avaialble right now and you didn't buy it on release. 

Not anymore or less than if DA:I came out today and I would want to have previously played DA:O, DA:A and DA2?

Again - iterative content.  

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...


And good luck telling a player that a Prothean character, whose species has been the forefront of the entire trilogy, doesn't play a larger part in the overall game's experience.

Hence why I place the stipulation that we ignore Javik and focus on low profile day 1 dlc, which you still view as a moral outrage. Sure, I'll grant you, a high profile character like Javik could draw all sorts of attention. ME3 being the last installment in the first ever save import trilogy? Lots of attention there.  

Hence the Bringing Down the Sky example. Who, while playing Mass Effect 1, would be saying to themselves "Damn, I missed out on that!". Who while playing DA2 would be saying to themselves "Bioware stole Sebastian from me!". I mean, is Starkhaven even mentioned if you don't have the dlc? I don't think he's even listed in that little book of companions that Cassandra tosses at Varic.

You see, I can at least buy into the idea that a consumer who knows nothing about Javik, their first thoughts might be "he's obviously important to the main plot", even if he's completely useless. Your conclusion however, that all day 1 dlc is the problem, does not follow, since developers also have the ability to design non-intrusive content.

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

In Exile wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...
I can buy episode 1. If I like it, I can buy episode two. There isn't an episode 1.5 that comes out the same day as Episode 1 that gives me special scenes that could tie into Episode 2... its iterative content. I would have no more problem with it than I would a developer making sequels. 

What about today? You want to buy the Walking dead. Do you feel obligated to buy all the episodes? They're all avaialble right now and you didn't buy it on release. 

Not anymore or less than if DA:I came out today and I would want to have previously played DA:O, DA:A and DA2?

Again - iterative content.  

You still had more than a few flame wars over Lair of the Shadowbroker and Arrival, if I recall correctly.

[Fast Jimmy]

The general perception might not be the way you see it, where Bioware already made a game worth $100. The perception very well could be "If Bioware wants to make a $100 game, they better add an additional $40 worth of content". In this thread, we've had more than a few people bemoan how they're "already" shelling out $60 a game, which you yourself admitted is low for 2013. 

You misunderstand - I'm not saying Bioware should have charged $100 for DA:O. That would have been absolute suicide. I'm saying I would have been comfortable paying that price for the value I recieved.

The only way to increase sticker price without large increases in quality, game length, replayability or a number of other fronts is small, tiny increments, maybe two dollars or so. Over the course of the next 15 years. Like they should have been doing this whole time.

Coincidentally, increasing the price by two dollars a copy, assuming the same costs and resulting in the same units sales, would net an additional $8 million dollars in pure profit assuming 4 million img sales. Which is nearly double what I estimated the From Ashes profit margins were.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2013 - 08:48 .

[Il Divo]

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I fully support consumers deciding for themselves what is and isn't worth buying. I just think it's funny when they try to draw some moral outrage on that principle.

I don't want to pay for X is a perfectly acceptable purchasing decision on its own, no sensationalism necessary.

Saying a product is over priced, or low quality, or that they felt ripped off that a company would charge them for something is all avid forms of capitalism as well. If a restaurant rented out a salt shaker to you, there would be business reasons for them doing so - salt isn't free and refilling those shakers take employee time that they are on the hook for - but many frequenters of the restaurant would tell the manager to his face he was being cheap.

Not to make a point, but here you're outlining why the $100 game price point probably wouldn't work. Cheaper alternatives.

[Fast Jimmy]

Hence why I place the stipulation that we ignore Javik and focus on low profile day 1 dlc, which you still view as a moral outrage. Sure, I'll grant you, a high profile character like Javik could draw all sorts of attention. ME3 being the last installment in the first ever save import trilogy? Lots of attention there.  

You CAN'T ignore Javik. Not only is he the 800 pound Elcor in the room whenever this comes up, but it is the first D1DLC from Bioware that you could not get for free with a new or pre-orders copy. He WAS the first AND ONLY Paid D1DLC Bioware has ever done.

You can't say to ignore that. Period.

Hence why I place the stipulation that we ignore Javik and focus on low profile day 1 dlc, which you still view as a moral outrage. Sure, I'll grant you, a high profile character like Javik could draw all sorts of attention. ME3 being the last installment in the first ever save import trilogy? Lots of attention there.

Bringing Down the Sky wasn't released on Day 1. There was no concurrent marketing for the DLC right alongside the base game pre-release hype, nor was there any way a player could think to themselves "man, I wonder how this game would play if I had just bought this content."

It doesn't work. You can't make it fit. It's not the same circumstances at all.

You see, I can at least buy into the idea that a consumer who knows nothing about Javik, their first thoughts might be "he's obviously important to the main plot", even if he's completely useless. Your conclusion however, that all day 1 dlc is the problem, does not follow, since developers also have the ability to design non-intrusive content.

Saying "Bioware should make DLC so forgettable no one wants to buy it" is not a good idea. It just wastes everyone's time and money.

The better route is to make content that people want and either use it as incentive to buy the game New or sell it at a different date, such that it cannot interfere or influence people's base game experience. That's how, to me, you avoid giving this "bad experience" I am talking about.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2013 - 09:04 .

[Fast Jimmy]

You still had more than a few flame wars over Lair of the Shadowbroker and Arrival, if I recall correctly. 

Forum flame wars shouldn't concern Bioware.

Forbes writing articles about how fans are crying out against their D1DLC (and the dozen or so other examples of this getting public attention) are what should concern them. And arrival and LOTSB resulted in those.

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2013 - 09:01 .

[Fast Jimmy]

Il Divo wrote...

Fast Jimmy wrote...

I fully support consumers deciding for themselves what is and isn't worth buying. I just think it's funny when they try to draw some moral outrage on that principle.

I don't want to pay for X is a perfectly acceptable purchasing decision on its own, no sensationalism necessary.

Saying a product is over priced, or low quality, or that they felt ripped off that a company would charge them for something is all avid forms of capitalism as well. If a restaurant rented out a salt shaker to you, there would be business reasons for them doing so - salt isn't free and refilling those shakers take employee time that they are on the hook for - but many frequenters of the restaurant would tell the manager to his face he was being cheap.

Not to make a point, but here you're outlining why the $100 game price point probably wouldn't work. Cheaper alternatives.

Again - I'm not trying to say Bioware should charge $100 a game today. That would be suicide. Small increases to prices would be a better idea, all round. 

[Mirrman70]

I got javik for free.

[Fast Jimmy]

Mirrman70 wrote...

I got javik for free.

I'd argue no, you really didn't. You pre-ordered a Collector's Edition, which cost you the same amount as the DLC. You pre-paid for your DLC and got a shiny case for free. 

EDIT: Or, I suppose, you pirated it. In which case you'd be right. 

Modifié par Fast Jimmy, 31 décembre 2013 - 09:17 .