They are not limiting the content by platform.
It's a timed exclusive. The first DLC pack will be on Xbox early. It will come to Playstation afterwards.
The rest of the DLC will probably be on both at the same time, anyway.
If it's done like GTA then yes that's true. If this turns out like Skyrim then I'd venture to say it falls much closer to limitation.
I thought Solas but now I'm thinking un-helmeted generic inQUIZmasteritor
That's what I'm thinking. Baldquisition?
They are not limiting the content by platform.
It's a timed exclusive. The first DLC pack will be on Xbox early. It will come to Playstation afterwards.
The rest of the DLC will probably be on both at the same time, anyway.
even by limiting when you get content you are excluding others, the rate at which people pickup, play and leave a game is quite short these days... in fact there was some research done recently that showed just how few people actually complete the games (just the campaign) on a first play through. Seriously a lot of people will play a game and after the first few days never finish it. Now given that if content is made exclusive for a period of time wouldn't that mean that these who never finish the game due to work loads or other reasons never get a chance to experience said content.
even by limiting when you get content you are excluding others, the rate at which people pickup, play and leave a game is quite short these days... in fact there was some research done recently that showed just how few people actually complete the games (just the campaign) on a first play through. Seriously a lot of people will play a game and after the first few days never finish it. Now given that if content is made exclusive for a period of time wouldn't that mean that these who never finish the game due to work loads or other reasons never get a chance to experience said content.
I am sure EA have far better numbers on this than we do.
If accepting Microsoft's money to give them first-DLC-pack exclusivity didn't make business sense, they wouldn't be doing it.
I gotta run through this thread later as I've been focused in the broad E3 thread.
Keep posting folks! Have fun discussing the new video reveals.
I am sure EA have far better numbers on this than we do.
If accepting Microsoft's money to give them first-DLC-pack exclusivity didn't make business sense, they wouldn't be doing it.
EA has done quite a few things in its past that weren't very successful businesswise. I wouldn't exactly expect them to solely do things that actually make sense.
Again, Bioware doesn't make that call. You're barking up the wrong tree. Post your complaints on an EA board. For all we know Bioware tried to fight this. It doesn't really serve them.
I'm not a fan of timed exclusives either (because they come across as leaving players feel like they aren't the "focused" group, and those on the other platforms lose the buzz of marketing new content), but I also don't really have much visibility into the financial aspects of stuff like this. If the financials mean a DLC that otherwise wouldn't exist for anyone, is that worth it?
That's the other extreme and it's probably more somewhere in between, but there's a lot of business aspects that I'm not really aware of and I don't know how to gauge when it's appropriate to make a decision like this and when it's not.
I am sure EA have far better numbers on this than we do.
If accepting Microsoft's money to give them first-DLC-pack exclusivity didn't make business sense, they wouldn't be doing it.
http://au.ign.com/ar...at-finish-games
http://edition.cnn.c...ideogames.snow/
Wow I've missed a lot after being out of town in Florida for 5 days.
Why does E3 have to happen on my Final week. Now games are all I can think about.
Okay, what about advantages in marketing because of the exclusivity deal? Xbox support in selling the game - priority positions on the Xbox Live dashboard, a prime place in Microsoft's E3 conference.
Trying to understand their decision-making with imperfect information is a bad idea.
Why don't people finish games!? If you spend 60 bucks on something, you better get the most value out of it. I finish all my games!...except Jak 2 and 3 which I really need to finish!
I'm glad we got to hear one of fem!quisitor's voices but kinda wish we had gotten a shot of her too... maybe later! Either way I liked the companion trailer.
Ok guys, I know this sound really unfair but imo, the way business world work is something like this:
Games are NOT free to make. They can be very costly, especially AAA ones. So when a game start its development, they will need money. Where does all those money come from? Can be from mother company (EA), can be from deal that EA make with others companies, we don't know. But money does not pop out of thin air, and it's very possible that some kind of deal had to be made to get developers the resources they need.
Now I don't know if they made a deal with MS or anything, but the thing is if EA didn't fund BioWare and green light DA:I, then us players wouldn't have a game to buy in the first place. So as unfair as it sounds, customers don't have that whole lot power that we thought we have just because we buy their product. So if they chose to do things that way, then we kinda have to live with it. What do you prefer? Getting dlc late or don't even have a main game to play in the first place?
At least they're announcing this exclusivity deal now, rather then the day before release, which is what Bethesda did for Fallout: New Vegas.
They announced the first DLC would be a timed exclusive to 360 days before release. PC and PS3 got it 2 months later.
Fortunately it was only the first DLC, and not all four.
I'm upset about this, but I'm still getting Inquisition on PC. I don't have any of the consoles and I don't want one.
I'm also wondering if this is Xbox exclusive or Xbox "exclusive" - Titanfall is on PC, but it was marketed as an X1 "exclusive".
I'm not a fan of timed exclusives either (because they come across as leaving players feel like they aren't the "focused" group), but I also don't really have much visibility into the financial aspects of stuff like this. If the financials mean a DLC that otherwise wouldn't exist for anyone, is that worth it?
That's the other extreme and it's probably more somewhere in between, but there's a lot of business aspects that I'm not really aware of and I don't know how to gauge when it's appropriate to make a decision like this and when it's not.
Wow. Three new trailers, dragon combat, new character profiles, AND a dev directly replies to one of my comments! It's been a damn good day. If that's what it takes for DLC to come out then hell yes it's worth it. I'm still saddened that we never got the Starkhaven DLC for DA2 especially since it seems that didn't make it over to DA:I. So if that's the decision making behind it then I'm all for it. But from the outside looking in it just seems like an easy way to turn a buck. I find it hard to believe that with a publishing company the size of EA there are some things Bioware just wouldn't be able to do unless Microsoft forked over the cash for timed exclusives. We're not even talking about a console exclusive. How much is MS really paying to get DLC a month early? Enough to fund an entire DLC campaign after the money is divvied up? It just doesn't add up for me. But I'm by no means a guru on the subject so your question could be right on the money.
Okay, what about advantages in marketing because of the exclusivity deal? Xbox support in selling the game - priority positions on the Xbox Live dashboard, a prime place in Microsoft's E3 conference.
Trying to understand their decision-making with imperfect information is a bad idea.
Never argue business or marketing in this place. Either most people don't understand it, or choose to ignore it as a factor.
maybe because a decade feels like yesterday for me. As i said before, gaming for over 30 years...
you light the fires and sharpen the pitchfork and I'll bring the marshmallows... no one ever said a angry mob can't be feed.
I'm about open gaming, the platform you use should not dictate what content you get or who you can interact with. Come on someone playing on a PC should be able to play with someone on Xbox or PlayStation, this this mentality of differing gardens to play in when they should be playing in the giant oval is rediculous.
Look if any content was exclusive to one platform I would be pissed off (still buy the game mind you)... I hate what Ubisoft does with all their games and Sony.
I'm a 30 year vet too and now we just need someone to bring the chocolate bars and gram crackers.
And when you drop the loaded phrases and just make the actual point its so much better. I agree 100% especially if you are doing multi-platform releases everyone should be able to have access to everything at the same time.
Why don't people finish games!? If you spend 60 bucks on something, you better get the most value out of it. I finish all my games!...except Jak 2 and 3 which I really need to finish!
the point is that globally across all platforms only about 10% of gamers actually finish the campaigns...now just think about that and Mass Effect 3's ending, only 42% of people who bought ME3 finished it and experienced the horrible ending (sorry it still sucks and I don't know how they could ever have fixed it) and remember the up roar from that ending...and only a small percentage of us of that 42% were vocal...
timed exclusives mean (for apparently according to the numbers the vast majority of gamers) most gamers will never experience them
I really wish people would stop talking down to the people, I too can do 2+2=4. You all we are defending Bioware and the practice are not math or financial wizards by a long shot. Exclusives, timed or otherwise on multiplatform games are bad for the consumer. No consumer, that is being honest has said "Gee I'm so glad I didn't get that content first." I am a consumer, that is who I am concerned with. and Nintendo Bioware is a big boy . And many businesses are notoriously short sighted when it comes to profits (see focusing on first week sales, opening box office etc.) and act like it's a Festivus miracle when a game with good content and good business practices has a good long tail with sales.
ETA: I've also never said "Gee I'm glad someone else didn't get this content early or not at all. " I mean even platform exclusives like The Last of Us...I'm glad I have the platform it's on but I wouldn't not care in the slightest is it somehow miraculously was ported to the xbox.
I'm glad we got to hear one of fem!quisitor's voices but kinda wish we had gotten a shot of her too... maybe later! Either way I liked the companion trailer.
Like a shot where she's not in movement? True the fight was a bit hectic so you didn't get the best look of her but I think the end shot of her standing with the companions was good. I like her silly pulled-too-high pants
Im really dissapointed with just one single thing about the game - womens. They all look... most of them not appeal at all, some even ugly. Heck, that (autocensor i see, well. That woman there was most likely a prostitute. I called it by word W.) from Witcher's gameplay video are better then all of them.
Retour en haut
