96 réponses à ce sujet

[Fast Jimmy]

where does it stop?? you imagine DA getting put up in parts? Battlefield?? call of duty?? fifa? tiger woods?

They would rip the behind out it an come away with the usual "wee have employees to pay an bills to pay"

To be entirely honest, given how little changes and content come out for Tiger Woods, FIFA and Battlefield, they would do better with a large scale DLC/update rather than a new game every iteration.

And I'm not talking about Bioware moving to an episodic content model like TellTale. Bioware is going to release 3-5 DLC for every fully finished game they put out (they have since 2009). All I'm proposing is making these DLC more interrelated.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'm referring to Microsoft and Sony policy for what type of restrictions exist on DLC and how they interact with each other.
 
I cited FONV because they wanted to enable DLCs that had interdependencies among them but it wasn't allowed.  Josh Sawyer mentions this as to why the (exceptionally high quality) mod he released for the PC could not be released as a patch, which would also benefit the consoles.  There's too much interdependency between the DLC with it (the mod requires all the DLC).

Was the reason given that they were worried about the interdependencies from a bug-standpoint? Or did they just not like the idea of serialized content, even for a product that had a larger "main game" component? I'm having trouble grasping why they woukd be staunchly against the concept.

[Allan Schumacher]

I don't know.  I respect Josh a lot though and he's always come across as a very straight shooter to me, so I take him at his word when he says it.

[Fast Jimmy]

I don't know.  I respect Josh a lot though and he's always come across as a very straight shooter to me, so I take him at his word when he says it.

Undoubtedly. Just seems like an odd hurdle for MS and Sony to out out there.

[Allan Schumacher]

Undoubtedly. Just seems like an odd hurdle for MS and Sony to out out there.

 

After giving it some thought, can you think of any?

[Fast Jimmy]

After giving it some thought, can you think of any?

Well, the console's greatest strength (outside of initial price point) is its stability - an XBox360 built in 2007 can play games made in 2014. Having multiple pieces of digital software that can be downloaded through the same network and which interact with each other in terms of dependencies might introduce instability. And, since both the manufacturers have stringent certification processes, this may expand their own internal review process to new levels, where they might need to incur extra costs in QA and analysis to make sure the developers haven't created content which will cause the machine issues and crashes.

They would see no greater return on one type of DLC versus another, but an added cost for the episodic type. Therefore, outside of trying to charge more to the developers (which could result in all types of issues such as defining what is classified as episodic or related DLC, contract negotiations, infrastructure set up to perform this extra type of processing, etc.), they have opted to block it entirely, letting the developers know they won't obtain certification for digital content that has too many interlocking hooks.

Although it would seem, if all of the above is presupposed to be true, that TellTale has earned a reprieve from such a decision.

[Fast Jimmy]

That being said... it seems like this should be something that could be open for negotiation. Perhaps it is a policy that varies by the developer.

TellTale made episodic content fashionable and so likely proved themselves as capable in its execution before the concept was considered something the industry might move towards in a larger scale, so they were given a bit of a free pass. Meanwhile, Obsidian, which has a reputation for releasing buggy content and not working well with certification (particularly with Sony, if word on the street can be believed), may have been denied across the board.

Perhaps, due to Bioware's proven experience with handling games that utilize plot flags and other data books from one installment of a product to the next, would not be blocked entirely, but made to jump through hoops before certification would even be considered? I don't know - this is all speculation on my part.

[AlanC9]

An expansion would give us larger locations to explore and new locations, rather than recycling or modifying existing places.

Don't DLCs typically include new locations too?

[Allan Schumacher]

I do not consider a game that is episodic content (like Telltale) to be equivalent to episodic DLC that attaches to a base game.  It may seem the same, but there are differences.  Especially with your suggestion about buying individual episodes separately (unless I misread something).

[Burricho]

I'm quite surprised with some of the reactions here - i loved awakening, and wish more dlc was released like it. At the same time I also liked Mark of the assassin and legacy. As long as its not item packs or incredibly short and not at all story driven stuff, like return to ostagar then im ok. Or companion dlc. God, don't get me started.

[Deviija]

I am all in favor of actual expansion packs rather than bits-n-pieces 1-hour mission DLCs.  It holds little interest for me.  I rather have a fully fleshed out expansion pack that adds another plotline for our main hero and the existing companions.  The latter being a key point as well.  I am not interested in expansion packs or DLCs that stick you with new people to travel with.  Add a companion or three into the expansion pack, sure, but I don't want all our established companions to vanish from the plot landscape in favor of an entirely new crew.  It isn't as compelling for me.  

[Fast Jimmy]

I do not consider a game that is episodic content (like Telltale) to be equivalent to episodic DLC that attaches to a base game.  It may seem the same, but there are differences.  Especially with your suggestion about buying individual episodes separately (unless I misread something).

Well, I was just thinking from a manufacture stand point - I would think MS and Sonywould look at TellTale episodic content the same way as they would DLC episodic content, in terms of the certification process and effort involved on their party to launch it.

But that may not be accurate. There may be steps omitted/added for DLC that would make the path different for the manufacturers in a way I hadn't considered. I just wouldn't be sure why that would be, when you are talking about an episode that is 3-7 hours in length and about 500 MB worth of content and a DLC that is 3 - 7 hours in length and about 500 MB worth of content.

[shedevil3001]

i prefer dlc or expansions to at least continue or tie in with the main game, also including the companions you already have, not throwing new temporary one's at us thats only there for the duration of the dlc or expansion then gone at the end, that bothered me with mark of the assassin, the dlc was ok but it would have been better if tallis became part of our team, not just gone at the end, as for stuff packs and that sort of thing i hate those things, for me they are a waste of money sadly as i never use the items, there's much better things in the main game

[Allan Schumacher]

I would think MS and Sonywould look at TellTale episodic content the same way as they would DLC episodic content, in terms of the certification process and effort involved on their party to launch it.

 

I'm not sure why you'd think that though.  The most fundamental difference is that one is attached to a different product that is required.  The other is not.  That doesn't strike me as trivial.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I'd like to see a move toward modular game design. So you get a base game, and then you can pay extra to add stuff in.

If you want side-quests, you pay for that.
If you want customisable companions, you pay for that.
If you want voice-over, you pay for that.
If you want the ability to install mods, you pay for that.
If you want a tactical camera, you pay for that.

I'd also suggest a dynamic pricing model, where the most popular features are cheaper. They could even require non-refundable pre-orders for some of the less popular features, and if they don't get enough at high enough prices they don't build those features.

[Fast Jimmy]

I'd like to see a move toward modular game design. So you get a base game, and then you can pay extra to add stuff in.
If you want side-quests, you pay for that.
If you want customisable companions, you pay for that.
If you want voice-over, you pay for that.
If you want the ability to install mods, you pay for that.
If you want a tactical camera, you pay for that.
I'd also suggest a dynamic pricing model, where the most popular features are cheaper. They could even require non-refundable pre-orders for some of the less popular features, and if they don't get enough at high enough prices they don't build those features.

But what about scope creep or changes in expected costs? What if putting in X feature was projected to cost Y zots and would, therefore, require Z number of supporters, but then the price goes up to 2 * Y? If the feature has to be cancelled, what about those players who suddenly don't want to play the game at all anymore?

Or what about the implementation? You may say you want Bioware to go to a silent protagonist, but they may implement a PC with no recorded dialogue, but still plenty of auto-responses for your character that invalidates your expectation? We've seen these complaints for some Kickstarters, where backers are getting what they were promised, but simply not in the manner they believed.


I like the concept, but the nightmare of its implementation would wake me up in cold sweats if I thought about it too long.

[Sylvius the Mad]

But what about scope creep or changes in expected costs? What if putting in X feature was projected to cost Y zots and would, therefore, require Z number of supporters, but then the price goes up to 2 * Y? If the feature has to be cancelled, what about those players who suddenly don't want to play the game at all anymore?

Or what about the implementation? You may say you want Bioware to go to a silent protagonist, but they may implement a PC with no recorded dialogue, but still plenty of auto-responses for your character that invalidates your expectation? We've seen these complaints for some Kickstarters, where backers are getting what they were promised, but simply not in the manner they believed.


I like the concept, but the nightmare of its implementation would wake me up in cold sweats if I thought about it too long.

Scope and budget creep are problems that exist today. They could be dealt with in the same way they are now.

As for the preorders, the money would need to be refunded if the feature wasn't delivered. If it was delivered and people just didn't like it, tough. Isn't that basically what happened with DA2?

There would be some risk for the buyers, just as there is now. Again, this isn't a new problem.

The developers would, have a greater PR incentive to disclose feature details. Like how the writing style in Dragon Age changed to accommodate the voiced PC, they would want to explain those things. And if they think the voice-overs genuinely improve the game, they should promote that benefit.

[Schreckstoff]

If BioWare is looking at other DLC models for inspiration Bethesda is the place to look. Tribunal, Bloodmoon, Shivering Isles, Dragonborn...

Horse Armor...

Never forget that oblivion started the DLC craze.

[Fast Jimmy]

Scope and budget creep are problems that exist today. They could be dealt with in the same way they are now.
As for the preorders, the money would need to be refunded if the feature wasn't delivered. If it was delivered and people just didn't like it, tough. Isn't that basically what happened with DA2?
There would be some risk for the buyers, just as there is now. Again, this isn't a new problem.
The developers would, have a greater PR incentive to disclose feature details. Like how the writing style in Dragon Age changed to accommodate the voiced PC, they would want to explain those things. And if they think the voice-overs genuinely improve the game, they should promote that benefit.

Eh. I think if anything, they would want to misrepresent features so that more people order them, even if they do so under false pretenses.

If they demo the feature in a light that looks amazing, I pre-order it for all the features because of it and then if the end product isn't what I had expected but then I have the same risk of "buyer beware," then the developer in this scenario just pocketed cash I wouldn't have spent if my decision was well-informed.

Sure, they could get teamed for doing so, but that wouldn't stop it from happening.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Eh. I think if anything, they would want to misrepresent features so that more people order them, even if they do so under false pretenses.

If they demo the feature in a light that looks amazing, I pre-order it for all the features because of it and then if the end product isn't what I had expected but then I have the same risk of "buyer beware," then the developer in this scenario just pocketed cash I wouldn't have spent if my decision was well-informed.

Sure, they could get teamed for doing so, but that wouldn't stop it from happening.

Actually, that might be a good business model in the short term.

I suggest we should watch publishers' share prices carefully to guard against that.

[Fast Jimmy]

Actually, that might be a good business model in the short term.
I suggest we should watch publishers' share prices carefully to guard against that.

Increased returns and profits are great for stock prices. Angry consumers aren't, neccessarily.

To use an oft-quoted example here, EA's stock price rose from 2011 to 2013, despite winning the "Worst Company in America Award," which would indicate that they have (at least a few) dissatisfied consumers.

[Schreckstoff]

EA winning Worst Company in America is such a joke, they neither trade in food shortages, don't employ children nor sweat shops, don't speculate with customer money, etc.

[displayname]

I'm not sure why you'd think that though.  The most fundamental difference is that one is attached to a different product that is required.  The other is not.  That doesn't strike me as trivial.

How is it any different then the "episodic content" that was added to say ME3 from that DLC? All DLC is essentially episodic content. So how can having minor content or story driven content in a game like DA or ME as DLC be so different then releasing fragmented story arcs that culminate to tell a complete and different story, then what each individual component story offers?

 

It seems pretty trivial and dismissive to disclude episodic content from a larger story like what is used in a game like DA or ME, when it can allow for an increased depth to the game that developers often cite towards content that had to be removed or etc for some reason.