855 réponses à ce sujet

[Dragoonlordz]

No offense, but I don't consider a reply from you to be the end all-be all of my day. You would have done better to leave off at your dislike of console exclusivity, which is pretty well-written.

 

Regarding my confusion regarding your stance on console exclusivity was entirely on me. 

 

Because it is an old quote and I have had people try to take things out of context in an effort to discredit something else I said here I am covering myself and asking anyone who is looking to do such not to bother doing it if wish to continue discourse. It was simply a general 'cover my derriere' type comment.

[Il Divo]

Again, some games have modding capability, but not all.  Not even most.  This is an even smaller number than those with controller support, I bet.

 

 

Okay, so say we limit ourselves to cases of games with modding capabilities, of which RPGs are a major group. Hell, you have the MEHEM linked in your sig. Unless that's considered different to games, like Skyrim, which have construction kits?

 

With regard to controller support, that's why programs like Xpadder exist. 

 

Some PCs do have higher end graphic capabilities.  If the player is willing to pay for it.  A high-end gaming computer can cost 2-3 times as much as a console if the player doesn't build it themselves.  And would likely require an upgrade before the end of the console generation to stay that way.  So right there that particular platform has a cost to it.

 

 

So to be clear, people who pay more get more? That sounds quite a bit like Microsoft's exclusivity deal.

 

But in any case, you want a substantive difference:  ehre's one.  An exclusivity agreement is not a technical limitation.  These things you keep mentioning, modding, graphics, etc, are the result of tech limits of the console in question.  Timed exclusivity is not.  There is no technological reason why they should not be released simultaneously.  Bioware will be deliberately sitting on dlc because they were paid to.  Not because the PS4 can't handle the graphics .  Not because the 360 lacks modding capabilities.  Not to strike a blow against the PC Master Race.  But because Microsoft wrote a check.

 

 

Yet a couple posts back you were commenting on how Xbox One players should have mod support and that Bioware should look into it. So it's not necessarily a technical limitation, provided they're willing to invest the resources, which at this point seems to be very unlikely. 

 

Now from a consumer perspective, should this really go down easier? None of the above alters Bioware's commitment of more resources to PC editions of the game. (For curiosity's sake, does Bioware even see more profit, when selling on the more expensive PCs?) Being told "we paid more for PC" isn't going to alter the fact that "You paid the same for Dragon Age". Sure, it might explain why your edition of the game is better, but it doesn't alter the problem of one group of players feeling their platform is placed second best to another's, returning us back to the "We are not all equal" point. 

 

And so we're absolutely clear, I'm comfortable with those differences. 

[Iakus]

Okay, so say we limit ourselves to cases of games with modding capabilities, of which RPGs are a major group. Hell, you have the MEHEM linked in your sig. Unless that's considered different to games, like Skyrim, which have construction kits?

 

With regard to controller support, that's why programs like Xpadder exist. 

 

 

So to be clear, people who pay more get more? That sounds quite a bit like Microsoft's exclusivity deal.

 

 

Yet a couple posts back you were commenting on how Xbox One players should have mod support and that Bioware should look into it. So it's not necessarily a technical limitation, provided they're willing to invest the resources, which at this point seems to be very unlikely. 

 

Now from a consumer perspective, should this really go down easier? None of the above alters Bioware's commitment of more resources to PC editions of the game. (For curiosity's sake, does Bioware even see more profit, when selling on the more expensive PCs?) Being told "we paid more for PC" isn't going to alter the fact that "You paid the same for Dragon Age". Sure, it might explain why your edition of the game is better, but it doesn't alter the problem of one group of players feeling their platform is placed second best to another's, returning us back to the "We are not all equal" point. 

 

And so we're absolutely clear, I'm comfortable with those differences. 

 

The MEHEM mod is not supported by Bioware or EA.  It was constructed with tools made by modders, designed by players, not developers.  So yeah, that's different from games which modding is actually supported, like Skyrim.  In this case, modders accomplished something that was not believed possible (and to this day I still think it's an amazing feat)

 

An intersting aside, modders also actively worked on finding a way to port the mod to the 360.  Sadly it proved beyond their abilities.

 

I am not familiar with Xpadder.

 

In the case of an exclusivity deal, Microsoft "pays more to get more" the players all pay the same.  But one group gets better service.

 

You are also the one who said modding was a technical limitation to consoles.  I said overcoming such a limitation should be looked into.  

 

As far as I know, all platforms have equal content.  The PC is not getting modding tools or anything like that.  but the XBone is getting content sooner.  A PC copy of a game isn't "better" a higher end computer might make it run better, aesthetically speaking.  But it's still the same game (unless it's a cr*ppy PC port, maybe)

 

So I don't see how technical limitations should somehow justify backroom deals to hold up dlc.

[Raven X]

have they said how long the X1 timed exclusive will last?

 

is it just one month?

[Gileadan]

have they said how long the X1 timed exclusive will last?

 

is it just one month?

As far as I know, they haven't.

 

BF4 had the same thing going with Second Assault, and it was a mess. Nobody knew how long the delay would be, weeks just passed by with everyone guessing until the release was announced about a week before it actually happened.

 

In the end, Second Assault was published for XBone on Nov 22nd, 2013, for premium subscribers on all other platforms on February 18th, 2014, and for everyone else on March 4th, 2014. (source: BF wiki)

 

So... could be a few months.

[Raven X]

As far as I know, they haven't.
 
BF4 had the same thing going with Second Assault, and it was a mess. Nobody knew how long the delay would be, weeks just passed by with everyone guessing until the release was announced about a week before it actually happened.
 
In the end, Second Assault was published for XBone on Nov 22nd, 2013, for premium subscribers on all other platforms on February 18th, 2014, and for everyone else on March 4th, 2014. (source: BF wiki)
 
So... could be a few months.

hmmmm.........thanks.

hopefully it won't turn into what happened with Skyrim.

[Il Divo]

The MEHEM mod is not supported by Bioware or EA.  It was constructed with tools made by modders, designed by players, not developers.  So yeah, that's different from games which modding is actually supported, like Skyrim.  In this case, modders accomplished something that was not believed possible (and to this day I still think it's an amazing feat)

 

 

Fair point. I wasn't under the (very mistaken) assumption that modding automatically entailed modding support. 

 

In the case of an exclusivity deal, Microsoft "pays more to get more" the players all pay the same.  But one group gets better service.

 

 

And to that I would say, that's the nature of business. 

 

As a fun example, I used to work in the dye industry, with a variety of high and low profile clients. As a general rule, we would match our service to the desires of our high profile clients, who happened to buy larger quantities, than any of our low profile clients, despite both paying the same rate of service. That could mean higher priority on putting together their orders, more effort in quality control to make sure their purchases would satisfy them (double and triple checking their numbers), and at times even exclusivity deals (this should sound very familiar).  

 

You're attempting to operate from a moral principle that isn't yours to judge, namely that you're attempting to tell an independent entity what to do with their own things. It's not the consumer's place to tell Bioware "it's wrong to treat consumers different", especially when Bioware is being quite up front about that said exclusivity.  It's actually not all that different to all "Day 1 dlc is bad" posts, where we get people attempting to tell companies that they're morally bankrupt for attempting to generate greater revenue, which is sort of the point of the whole endeavor. 

 

That the Xbox One players didn't pay Bioware but Microsoft did shouldn't really be a factor of consideration because the key point is that Bioware goes where the money is, or rather where they think the money. 

 

So I don't see how technical limitations should somehow justify backroom deals to hold up dlc.

 

 

Well, let me try putting that a different way. Your point regarding the lack of modding capabilities is well made, but it doesn't alter the favoritism angle, 

 

Ex: Playing Baldur's Gate on PC doesn't look better without the developer putting those extra resources into the game, far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong there). 

 

So yes, you could point to me and say "well, we pay more for the PC than do console players" and you'd be right. But that doesn't mean that they value those players equally any more than my dye company valued all their consumers equally. They were still in the habit of providing certain consumers which much better service. Which is something a console player could point to in saying "well, they did put in the extra time and effort to make the PC the best they could, in X, Y, or Z ways". 

 

Even when comes to companies that don't do such "back door" deals, as you say, likely don't consider all their players of equal value. With companies, money tends to be of the highest priority. 

[Dragoonlordz]

First thing that you said above that annoyed me...

 

It's not the consumer's place to tell Bioware "it's wrong to treat consumers different".

 

It very much is the customers place to tell the business when something they do is having a negative impact on how they view their service or their products. The fact you used your example of treating your customers badly in your 'dye business' by charging them the same price but giving them worse service does not justify the policy or the principle, it merely states that you also took part in bad business practices. Saying you did something negative does not make it a positive thing or the right thing to do anymore so than if I said I robbed a bank...that it would make robbing banks the right thing to do. It doesn't, it just states you did not treat your own customers with the same level of respect/decency or my in my bank robbing example all it means is I would of done a bad thing and does not become justification as to why others should do it too.

 

If it is not their customers right or their place to express such feedback and criticism according to you then who is left to challenge such things, point out improvements to their product or their services? There is a well know quote which comes in many forms but the principle is the same and I think it applies to this aspect of your defence even though if I will quote a more dramatic version the principle remains the same.

 

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me."

 

Also in relation to what I quoted you saying at the top of my reply let me put it to you this way...if all those customers found out they were paying you the same price yet getting a lower quality service, do you think they would not be entitled and right to complain to you? I can assure you most would be offended by what you did if they found out and they would also be offended by you claiming they have no right, not entitled or that it is 'not their place' as you put it to complain about such treatment by your company. If you pay more it is more reasonable and justifiable to expect more like when buying a CE vs SE version of a game but if you pay the same for EA/Bioware's product in this case you should expect equal quality service from them.

 

On to the second thing you said which annoyed me...

 

That the Xbox One players didn't pay Bioware but Microsoft did shouldn't really be a factor of consideration.

 

Yes it very much does factor into it. I explained why earlier in this reply. I tried to stay out of your bickering on this but these two sentences I quoted from you are wrong and annoyed me and as such I feel the need to jump in on them. I do not agree with everything Iakus says but he is right in that specific aspect, it does matter and it is worthy of consideration. I will quote the exact paragraph I am referring to in my link just in case you do not feel like going back and reading the entire thing.

 

If both you and a friend pay the same price for a game you expect them to give you both the same treatment and quality of service for that game. The current situation is both you and your friend pay the same price for the game but one is given preferential treatment, advantages that have nothing at all to do with the price of the game, price paid for your platform, technical limitations of your platform or amount of loyalty you have shown to the creator of the game. A third party bribed the company to treat you worse than your friend. It is really simple and easy to grasp in that they are being paid to treat one group of the fan base worse than the other. It would actually be more excusable if was actually linked to price, if you the customer had to pay extra for the preferential treatment much like buying a CE vs SE version of the game but it is not and you are generally expected to pay same price as those who are being treated better than you...even more than that even if you pay more for a non-Xbox One version of their product (which is the game and not the platform it is to be played on) like for example if buy a CE version on PS4 or PC you are still being treated worse in some respects than those who paid less for a standard version on Xbox One because of that bribe.

 

One last thing just for irony regarding your last sentence is EA specifically stated themselves at this years E3 that they are and I quote "putting consumers first" from now on though I admit I cannot remember if they said consumer, customer or gamers but all three refer to the same thing in that it refers to us the customer not other corporations like Microsoft. That promise, that commitment goes against and is opposed to this DLC policy as well as the bribe they accepted to do it.

[ghostzodd]

hmmmm.........thanks.

hopefully it won't turn into what happened with Skyrim.

 

Skyrim was different, the engine was not designed well for the PS3, Bethesda was having problems getting it up and running on ps3 properly, The DLC was suppose to release a lot sooner for Ps3. Frostbite engine is not bad what so ever

[Il Divo]

It very much is the customers place to tell the business when something they do is having a negative impact on how they view their service or their products. The fact you used your example of treating your customers badly in your 'dye business' by charging them the same price but giving them worse service does not justify the policy or the principle, it merely states that you also took part in bad business practices. Saying you did something negative does not make it a positive thing or the right thing to do anymore so than if I said I robbed a bank...that it would make robbing banks the right thing to do. It doesn't, it just states you did not treat your own customers with the same level of respect/decency or my in my bank robbing example all it means is I would of done a bad thing and does not become justification as to why others should do it too.

 

 

For one, we did not treat our customers badly. We simply treated higher profile clients better, comparative degree. Believe it or not, service is not strictly relegated to either "perfect" or "terrible", there are such things as in betweens. 

 

From your tone of voice, you'd think we didn't support any of our consumers in any capacity. We certainly did, but realities are, those who pay the most get the best treatment, if the alternative is losing their business. We had a base level of quality control that was performed across the board. But when you're also worried about pissing off clients who are responsible for the large majority of your business, fact of the matter is, someone gets left behind. 

 

And this is something you see in quite a few different areas. When I buy Chinese food in bulk, they tend to throw a free batch of General Tso's Chicken on top of it.  You see this in a whole bunch of different areas, more money, more benefits. 

 

If it is not their customers right or their place to express such feedback and criticism according to you then who is left to challenge such things, point out improvements to their product or their services? There is a well know quote which comes in many forms but the principle is the same and I think it applies loosely to your above comment even if I will quote a more dramatic version the principle remains the same.

 

 

Who said you shouldn't point out improvements? Point away. I point out things I dislike about products all the time.

 

I just don't add that extra sensationalist claims of "it's wrong!" to the picture, which seem to be very common both here and as per day 1 dlc outrage. Bioware is doing what they like with their own product. They have not deceived you, they have not done anything without your knowledge. They've expressed, pretty openly, and well in advance their arrangement. 

 

My approach, personally? I can be extremely mercenary when it comes to being a consumer. A company who does try to treat me as a valued customer, I tend to support more via loyalty, giving second chances after bad releases, etc. Note here that I am using a resource that does belong to me: my own money, word of mouth, etc. 

 

When a company tends to be more cut-throat regarding its goals, such as its desire for money, I'm typically less committed. Here again I'm making use of resources under my control. 

 

I don't see any particular problems to either approach of business, provided that they're willing to take the potential consequences of such actions. 

 

"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out – because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me – and there was no one left to speak for me."

 

 

Comparing a developer marketing/selling his own product as he pleases to the Nazis' infringing on the freedom/lives of individual people. You don't see anything wrong with this comparison? 

 

Yes it very much does factor into it. I explained why earlier in this reply. I tried to stay out of your bickering on this but these two sentences I quoted from you are wrong and annoyed me and as such I feel the need to jump in on them. I do not agree with everything Iakus says but he is right in that specific aspect, it does matter and it is worthy of consideration. I will quote the exact paragraph I am referring to in my link just in case you do not feel like going back and reading the entire thing.

 

 

Well, to that, let me ask you a hypothetical question then. And you're free to tell me either I'm crazy or whatever else. Your statement, specifically

 

"If both you and a friend pay the same price for a game you expect them to give you both the same treatment and quality of service for that game. The current situation is both you and your friend pay the same price for the game but one is given preferential treatment, advantages that have nothing at all to do with the price of the game, price paid for your platform, technical limitations of your platform or amount of loyalty you have shown to the creator of the game. 

 

 

Now to start, I don't believe that loyalty is required, any more from me than from Bioware. As above, I tend to exchange loyalty from a company with loyalty, but it's by no means required (Ex: Bioware suddenly deciding to make DA:I one platform exclusive would be their right). 

 

What differentiate the PC advantages from the synthetic dyes I was responsible for producing? Again, customers were paying the same rate, regarding a specific product, simply one set of consumers paid for substantially more than others. In this case, it's been mentioned that PC gamers paid more for their console as a defense of their receiving greater benefits from games, like developers putting more effort into graphics. And keep in mind, it's not like these advantages are listed right on the cover when purchased, again like the dye scenario. The $60 copy of Skyrim that I purchased, for example, won't say "but with worse graphics than we bothered putting in the PC Edition!". 

 

Developing modding capabilities (and accepting as Iakus claimed that it's not done for every game) require resources. What if, for example, the resources which go into modding, designed to make a single platform better instead went into something improving all 3 platforms across the board, even if it's simply in small ways (bug fixes, extra lines of dialogue, etc)? This is meant to show that people who pay more do receive greater benefits in, well, everything. 

 

 

One last thing just for irony regarding your last sentence, EA specifically stated themselves at this years E3 that they are and I quote "putting consumers first" from now on. That promise, that commitment goes against this very policy.

 

 

On that, I would disagree with EA, then. You can't have an exclusivity policy, of any kind, and then accurately claim that your consumers are of equal (or first) value to you. 

 

But I also think this can (and should) be applied to every company, since these sorts of statements are common. A company that puts its consumers before themselves in the most literal sense wouldn't be making any profits. 

[DisturbedJim83]

For one, we did not treat our customers badly. We simply treated higher profile clients better, comparative degree. Believe it or not, service is not strictly relegated to either "perfect" or "terrible", there are such things as in betweens. 

 

From your tone of voice, you'd think we didn't support any of our consumers in any capacity. We certainly did, but realities are, those who pay the most get the best treatment, if the alternative is losing their business. We had a base level of quality control that was performed across the board. But when you're also worried about pissing off clients who are responsible for the large majority of your business, fact of the matter is, someone gets left behind. 

 

And this is something you see in quite a few different areas. When I buy Chinese food in bulk, they tend to throw a free batch of General Tso's Chicken on top of it.  You see this in a whole bunch of different areas, more money, more benefits. 

 

 

Who said you shouldn't point out improvements? Point away. I point out things I dislike about products all the time.

 

I just don't add that extra sensationalist claims of "it's wrong!" to the picture, which seem to be very common both here and as per day 1 dlc outrage. Bioware is doing what they like with their own product. They have not deceived you, they have not done anything without your knowledge. They've expressed, pretty openly, and well in advance their arrangement. 

 

My approach, personally? I can be extremely mercenary when it comes to being a consumer. A company who does try to treat me as a valued customer, I tend to support more via loyalty, giving second chances after bad releases, etc. Note here that I am using a resource that does belong to me: my own money, word of mouth, etc. 

 

When a company tends to be more cut-throat regarding its goals, such as its desire for money, I'm typically less committed. Here again I'm making use of resources under my control. 

 

I don't see any particular problems to either approach of business, provided that they're willing to take the potential consequences of such actions. 

 

 

Comparing a developer marketing/selling his own product as he pleases to the Nazis' infringing on the freedom/lives of individual people. You don't see anything wrong with this comparison? 

 

 

Well, to that, let me ask you a hypothetical question then. And you're free to tell me either I'm crazy or whatever else. Your statement, specifically

 

 

Now to start, I don't believe that loyalty is required, any more from me than from Bioware. As above, I tend to exchange loyalty from a company with loyalty, but it's by no means required (Ex: Bioware suddenly deciding to make DA:I one platform exclusive would be their right). 

 

What differentiate the PC advantages from the synthetic dyes I was responsible for producing? Again, customers were paying the same rate, regarding a specific product, simply one set of consumers paid for substantially more than others. In this case, it's been mentioned that PC gamers paid more for their console as a defense of their receiving greater benefits from games, like developers putting more effort into graphics. And keep in mind, it's not like these advantages are listed right on the cover when purchased, again like the dye scenario. The $60 copy of Skyrim that I purchased, for example, won't say "but with worse graphics than we bothered putting in the PC Edition!". 

 

Developing modding capabilities (and accepting as Iakus claimed that it's not done for every game) require resources. What if, for example, the resources which go into modding, designed to make a single platform better instead went into something improving all 3 platforms across the board, even if it's simply in small ways (bug fixes, extra lines of dialogue, etc)? This is meant to show that people who pay more do receive greater benefits in, well, everything. 

 

 

On that, I would disagree with EA, then. You can't have an exclusivity policy, of any kind, and then accurately claim that your consumers are of equal (or first) value to you. 

 

But I also think this can (and should) be applied to every company, since these sorts of statements are common. A company that puts its consumers before themselves in the most literal sense wouldn't be making any profits. 

Actually they would make more profit,unlike Skyrim there is not technical reason why DLC should be staggered across multiple platforms if i recall earlier on Allan Schumacher himself said he does not believe the exclusivity deal will be a big system seller for XB1 which begs the question Why do it in the first place?To treat customers differently is bad customer service period there are no exceptions every customer must be valued equally regardless of social or financial standing

 

This is especially important when you release maybe 2 products a year if that every annoyed customer has a negative effect on business since they are likely to tell their friends and family etc about how badly they were treated and before you know it word spreads and business suffers, if you treat all customers equally your sales will increase as that customer is likely to recommend your product to others who will likewise do the same if they have a good experience of your company/product.

[Iakus]

 

And to that I would say, that's the nature of business. 

 

As a fun example, I used to work in the dye industry, with a variety of high and low profile clients. As a general rule, we would match our service to the desires of our high profile clients, who happened to buy larger quantities, than any of our low profile clients, despite both paying the same rate of service. That could mean higher priority on putting together their orders, more effort in quality control to make sure their purchases would satisfy them (double and triple checking their numbers), and at times even exclusivity deals (this should sound very familiar).  

 

You're attempting to operate from a moral principle that isn't yours to judge, namely that you're attempting to tell an independent entity what to do with their own things. It's not the consumer's place to tell Bioware "it's wrong to treat consumers different", especially when Bioware is being quite up front about that said exclusivity.  It's actually not all that different to all "Day 1 dlc is bad" posts, where we get people attempting to tell companies that they're morally bankrupt for attempting to generate greater revenue, which is sort of the point of the whole endeavor. 

 

That the Xbox One players didn't pay Bioware but Microsoft did shouldn't really be a factor of consideration because the key point is that Bioware goes where the money is, or rather where they think the money. 

 

 

It is absolutely mine to judge.  I am a customer unhappy with their customer service.  Making money by exploiting customers is not a good business strategy (It may be a profitable strategy, at least in the short term, though)

 

Your example with the dye industry already exists as far as DAI goes:  The standard, deluxe and Inquisitor edition.  If the player is willing to pay more for the game, they get more '"stuff"  But as far as I know, a deluxe copy of DAI costs the same on an XBone as on a PS4 as on a PC.  But one of them gets the exclusivity deal, despite all of them paying the same rate.

 

 

 

Well, let me try putting that a different way. Your point regarding the lack of modding capabilities is well made, but it doesn't alter the favoritism angle,

Ex: Playing Baldur's Gate on PC doesn't look better without the developer putting those extra resources into the game, far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong there).

So yes, you could point to me and say "well, we pay more for the PC than do console players" and you'd be right. But that doesn't mean that they value those players equally any more than my dye company valued all their consumers equally. They were still in the habit of providing certain consumers which much better service. Which is something a console player could point to in saying "well, they did put in the extra time and effort to make the PC the best they could, in X, Y, or Z ways".

Even when comes to companies that don't do such "back door" deals, as you say, likely don't consider all their players of equal value. With companies, money tends to be of the highest priority.

 

I'm not sure where you're going here.  I don't think modding was ever officially supported for BG.  The engine was just easy for modders to work with (compared to engines nowadays, at least)

[NextArishok]

I don't know if I'm overreacting, but that announcment about timed exclusive DLC made me extremely disappointed in Bioware despite my love for the series and the great footage at the conference.

 

I thought that after the Skyrim mess up no one would make such a backhanded deal with microsoft again, especially now that no one cares about Xbox any more.

 

*sigh* I needed to vent. Sorry if you use Xbox, I have nothing against it. I just hope I won't have to wait half a f'ing year just because I chose to play the game on PC.

 

It is VERY annoying, but Microsoft won't make good games...especially an IP they just want what is already out and would rather put that money towards a few months for content lmao.  They have been stupid like this for a very long time.  I am very happy people are moving away from them.  I mean HALO 4,584 will probably get them a few sales, but they aren't bringing much to the table, just throwing money at MULTI PLATS and pre existing titles.

 

This is my first time hearing about this situation with them and bioware.  I can tell you I didn't buy fallout because of this exact crap though.

[Il Divo]

Actually they would make more profit,unlike Skyrim there is not technical reason why DLC should be staggered across multiple platforms 

 

 

Actually, Skyrim's dlc was exclusive to the 360 for the first 30 days of release. Far as I recall, that was not the result of "technical reasons". Dawnguard was meant to be released on both PS3 and PC afterwards, unfortunately the PS3 release suffered from a number of other issues which forced back the release date. 

 

http://www.gamespot....s/1100-6331158/

 

 

if i recall earlier on Allan Schumacher himself said he does not believe the exclusivity deal will be a big system seller for XB1 which begs the question Why do it in the first place?

 

 

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you there. The only impact this is likely to have is on people who own multiple platforms and even then, given the timed exclusivity runs out, I suspect there would be a number of players who still will play on their platform of choice, even noting the timed cost. 

 

But I will say, even if I don't think it'll work, it's still the company's right to decide their terms of sale. I maintain the right that if I start producing a product, it's up to me to decide on its price point, no matter how wise or unwise if I think it might work. Having said that, I also don't have access to Bioware's finances (Ex: how much Microsoft will pay them) so my expertise in that is even less. 

 

To treat customers differently is bad customer service period there are no exceptions every customer must be valued equally regardless of social or financial standing

 

 

And I would say this is a bit naive. You see this sort of practice manifest itself in about a million different ways. If you have a customer worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, you're never going to value them on the same page as the customer who spends about a grand on your products every year, especially if it has more demanding consequences on your ability to conduct future business. And that sort of thing doesn't always manifest itself in the form of customer service. Take things like trading card games, which invariably favor those with higher incomes but maintain themselves by being addictive. 

 

You've created an artificial constraint, that customer service is either good or bad, which sorry to tell you is not necessarily the case (although possible). 

 

This is especially important when you release maybe 2 products a year if that every annoyed customer has a negative effect on business since they are likely to tell their friends and family etc about how badly they were treated and before you know it word spreads and business suffers, if you treat all customers equally your sales will increase as that customer is likely to recommend your product to others who will likewise do the same if they have a good experience of your company/product.

 

 

I can guarantee you that my old company had followed the bolded, they very well might have ended up bankrupt, or doing substantially worse from a financial perspective. But as above, weaker customer service does not mean no customer service. Much like how in making a product, I need to balance cost of materials vs. quality, level of customer service is simply a factor, like any other. 

 

To accurately assess the above, we need a measure of DA:I's overall quality vs customer service vs other factors. But I suspect if DA:I is similar to DA:O's level of quality, we're not likely to see any substantial repercussions. 

[Darvins]

Actually they would make more profit,unlike Skyrim there is not technical reason why DLC should be staggered across multiple platforms if i recall earlier on Allan Schumacher himself said he does not believe the exclusivity deal will be a big system seller for XB1 which begs the question Why do it in the first place?To treat customers differently is bad customer service period there are no exceptions every customer must be valued equally regardless of social or financial standing

 

This is especially important when you release maybe 2 products a year if that every annoyed customer has a negative effect on business since they are likely to tell their friends and family etc about how badly they were treated and before you know it word spreads and business suffers, if you treat all customers equally your sales will increase as that customer is likely to recommend your product to others who will likewise do the same if they have a good experience of your company/product.

 

Yes Timed Exclusivity is not intended to be a system seller (except maybe Destinys Deal with Sony) They are meant to be a version seller, and to establish an image of a console as favouring certain games, as being the system to play a game on. Consoles make a significant portion of their profit on Software Sales, so tempting the cross system gamers to pick your system to play that big game on, is good for a Consoles bottom line, as is making a console appear to be the place to game. People are creatures of habit if you get used to buying your games for a specific system, you'll likely keep doing so. 

 

I think through this thread is going in circles everyone is set in their viewpoint.

[Schreckstoff]

I said so before but apparently it was glossed over.

Timed exclusively doesn't necessarily mean holding one finished DLC back for other platforms but could just as well mean they'll prioritize the exclusive version and work full force on the others once it's finished.

DLC development still takes time. spreading their work across all platforms at once will take more time than prioritizing one platform.

That's just my 2 cents.

[Icy Magebane]

*sigh* I needed to vent. Sorry if you use Xbox, I have nothing against it. I just hope I won't have to wait half a f'ing year just because I chose to play the game on PC.

I hadn't bothered to check this thread before but now that I have... six months???  I thought it was one month, like the Bethesda deal.  This is terrible news!  It means I'll have to either avoid the forums for six months after a DLC is released or have the whole thing spoiled?  Jeez... I mean, I could have accepted one month.  That would have been fine.  But six full months?

[Anzer]

I hadn't bothered to check this thread before but now that I have... six months???  I thought it was one month, like the Bethesda deal.  This is terrible news!  It means I'll have to either avoid the forums for six months after a DLC is released or have the whole thing spoiled?  Jeez... I mean, I could have accepted one month.  That would have been fine.  But six full months?

I believe that was just an arbitrary number to use as an example. To my knowledge, an exact time frame has not been officially announced as of yet.

[ntrisley]

And that is why you read a whole thread before commenting.

[godlike13]

I have both Ps4 and XBox One, pre-ordered this on Xbox One because it will have multiplayer, and Ps4 hasn't released an exclusive game that needs Plus yet. So i haven't subscribed to Plus, but i am subscribed to Live. So that why im going with Xbox One.

 

That being said i don't like this practice, never did. Not when either companies do it. And they both do it. Its certainly not a new practice, and i understand why they do it, but even still as a consumer i just don't like it. 

[Icy Magebane]

I believe that was just an arbitrary number to use as an example. To my knowledge, an exact time frame has not been officially announced as of yet.

Oh okay... I didn't notice anything like that when I read through the Bioware responses, but if it's not officially 6 months then I'll just hope for the best.

 

And that is why you read a whole thread before commenting.

32 pages of PC vs. console rubbish?  No thanks.

[Il Divo]

Wait, is multiplayer confirmed for DA:I?

[Darvins]

Wait, is multiplayer confirmed for DA:I?

 

No but that doesn't stop people thinking it has been.

[Iakus]

Wait, is multiplayer confirmed for DA:I?

An appaant achievement link strongly indicates it's in.

[Olmerto]

I hadn't bothered to check this thread before but now that I have... six months???  I thought it was one month, like the Bethesda deal.  This is terrible news!  It means I'll have to either avoid the forums for six months after a DLC is released or have the whole thing spoiled?  Jeez... I mean, I could have accepted one month.  That would have been fine.  But six full months?

 

Don't panic over an off-the-cuff statement by a poster. No one has said definitively how long the delay will be.