247 réponses à ce sujet

[Vapaa]

So you're happy to support BioWares double standards so long as they are forthright about it? Good grief!

 

Apparently shady business practices are okay as long as you're honest about it

[CronoDragoon]

So you're happy to support BioWares double standards so long as they are forthright about it? Good grief!

 

Double standards as in console DLC going on sale while PC doesn't? They could do a better job of that. But then I always buy DLC when it comes out, so I don't really care about console sales, either.

 

Anti-consumerism? Hardly. This is just people bitter about not getting stuff for cheaper. And calling it greedy when a company doesn't reduce DLC prices is a double standard in itself, since one's primary motivation is simply to keep more money in their pocket.

[pdusen]

Apparently shady business practices are okay as long as you're honest about it

 

There is absolutely nothing shady about it. A company has the right to price its product however it wants to to whomever it wants to for as long as it wants to. If you don't like it, you have the right not to buy it. It's as simple as that.

[Amaror]

There is absolutely nothing shady about it. A company has the right to price its product however it wants to to whomever it wants to for as long as it wants to. If you don't like it, you have the right not to buy it. It's as simple as that.

 

So using a seperate payment method to artificialy keep prices high by not allowing any competition. Sure sounds shady to me!

[Dan Fango]

Double standards as in console DLC going on sale while PC doesn't? They could do a better job of that. But then I always buy DLC when it comes out, so I don't really care about console sales, either.
 
Anti-consumerism? Hardly. This is just people bitter about not getting stuff for cheaper.

Look, I always support the games I enjoy with my money and I've never purchased any piece of BioWare DLC at less than full price. And I'm more than happy with that. My issue is with BioWare periodically offering their otherwise full priced DLC at discounted prices to all but their PC fans. And calling them out for doing so doesn't make one 'bitter', right?

[AlanC9]

I'm not saying they should put it on Steam, I'm saying that apart from Bioware, EVERYONE that puts a game on sale, puts the eventual DLC on sale too...so the "should DLC go on sale ?" argument is moot anyway.

OK. But "everybody does it" isn't actually a valid argument either.

[AlanC9]

So using a seperate payment method to artificialy keep prices high by not allowing any competition. Sure sounds shady to me!

Competition? There's no competition. Bio would set the prices no matter what the prices are set in.

[Dan Fango]

Apparently shady business practices are okay as long as you're honest about it

Astonishing right?

[CronoDragoon]

Look, I always support the games I enjoy with my money and I've never purchased any piece of BioWare DLC at less than full price. And I'm more than happy with that. My issue is with BioWare periodically offering their otherwise full priced DLC at discounted prices to all but their PC fans. And calling them out so doesn't make one 'bitter', right?

 

Depends what you're calling them out about. In this case I support PC fans being irked about not having as frequent sales as console (never said I didn't). The disconnect between us appears to be that Bryan's post I liked actually had nothing to do with BioWare points or PC-specific sales. He was just explaining why DLC tends to not go on sale *in general* and I appreciated the insight, since I've also always wondered why it never seems to go on sale.

[Amaror]

Competition? There's no competition. Bio would set the prices no matter what the prices are set in.

 

Of course there's no competition with those stupid bioware points. On Origin or Steam there are at least legitimate key stores like gmg offering multiple options for gamers.

[Dan Fango]

Depends what you're calling them out about. In this case I support PC fans being irked about not having as frequent sales as console (never said I didn't). The disconnect between us appears to be that Bryan's post I liked actually had nothing to do with BioWare points or PC-specific sales. He was just explaining why DLC tends to not go on sale *in general* and I appreciated the insight, since I've also always wondered why it never seems to go on sale.

Ok Crono, that's fair.

EDIT: Thinking about it, you 'liked' Bryan's honesty, but what did you actually make of his answer?

[AlanC9]

Of course there's no competition with those stupid bioware points. On Origin or Steam there are at least legitimate key stores like gmg offering multiple options for gamers.

What does that have to do with DLC? Bio controls the DLC prices. Anyone selling DLC would sell them at the price Bio wanted, wouldn't they? I don't see what Bio points have to do with this.

[Amaror]

What does that have to do with DLC? Bio controls the DLC prices. Anyone selling DLC would sell them at the price Bio wanted, wouldn't they? I don't see what Bio points have to do with this.

 

 

First of all, Bioware doesn't control anything. EA controls the Price of a video game. Secondly Ea also doesn't control prices of their games when they are sold at another store, the story controls the prices. EA just gets a cut, depending on the contract the story made with EA. 

[Reznore57]

I still have 800 bioware points , I hope I will be able to use those for DAI DLC.

If I can't , I'm going to be quite upset.

[CronoDragoon]

Ok Crono, that's fair.

EDIT: Thinking about it, you 'liked' Bryan's honesty, but what did you actually make of his answer?

 

Well, I'm not sure I agree with the implication that DLC retains its *full* value over time, but it definitely retains its value more than gameplay packs. And he's right that once the disc is back in the tray and you are ready to start another playthrough, the DLC's value goes way up, compared to when someone has no plans to play a game but sees a DLC sale for it. The question becomes whether a DLC priced at $4.99 is twice as valuable to a player than a DLC priced at $9.99...in other words will it sell twice as much to the fanbase? Keeping in mind that those who tend to buy DLC are the hardcore that will probably care about the story more, I tend to think the elasticity of DLC isn't quite that responsive. Sure a $4.99 DLC will sell more, but enough to make up for the revenue loss?

 

I think it's ultimately a question that can only be answered by data which I don't have. Other companies do put DLC on sale more than BW, but other companies don't exactly do DLC like BioWare, with 4-5 hour unique story content.

[Bryan Johnson]

I am going to re-iterate that what I said is my opinion on things, I do not have the power nor the data to provide "the real" reason. I just presented what I thought was my opinion of a scenario that can lead to what I have seen. 

 

You know the scientific method where you make a hypothesis based on observation, and then see if that hypothesis holds up to future experiments. 

 

There are some things in this world that nearly never go on sale and they hold up remarkably well despite what you would think is the logical approach. The two that comes to mind is the auto industry and Apple. 

While you will see these two sell things at a slight sale, they will never truly go on sale at insane costs. They would rather destroy their equipment than put it out for ridiculously cheap (look up some new car vehicle parking lots).

 

Being able to buy our game for 3 dollars, while still is money earned, is generally not that profitable.

 

Also to the one who called me Greedy, I would like to hear your argument for why you think I am greedy. Please PM me.

[Lux]

 

I think it's ultimately a question that can only be answered by data which I don't have. Other companies do put DLC on sale more than BW, but other companies don't exactly do DLC like BioWare, with 4-5 hour unique story content.

 

It doesn't compute to have the main game at discounts as low as $10 for DAO and ME2, because they've passed their selling peak long ago, but then having to buy add-ons mounting to $50 or more. If I was a new buyer I'd be pretty pissed to find DLC still at full price whereas the more important component of the game is not. No one else does this.

 

The idea of DLC being more important than the main game to justify a permanent price fix is a rather insidious viewpoint, in my opinion. It would then be much more profitable for publishers to release only a tiny fraction as the main game and the rest coming in steady DLC pieces for the money to keep on flowing, with the added bonus of DLC not having to have a price drop.

[Vapaa]

Being able to buy our game for 3 dollars, while still is money earned, is generally not that profitable.

 

Oh come on, you know full well the games aren't always on sale, and those 3 bucks are still 3 bucks you might've managed to take from someone who wouldn't have given it to you otherwise; 30 sales at 3€ gives better profit than 5 sales at 15€; there's a reason for the succes of Steam sales.

[Kantr]

Oh come on, you know full well the games aren't always on sale, and those 3 bucks are still 3 bucks you might've managed to take from someone who wouldn't have given it to you otherwise; 30 sales at 3€ gives better profit than 5 sales at 15€; there's a reason for the succes of Steam sales.

There is value though in keeping them not on sale for as long as you can.

 

I think this topic needs to be split into another one so that people can discuss/debate this without fear of the topic being locked
 

[Lux]

 

Being able to buy our game for 3 dollars, while still is money earned, is generally not that profitable.

 

 

It's a good way to introduce players to the franchise so that in the next iteration there's added customers buying at full price. That player would otherwise not get to try the quality of a product released years ago.

 

And if you'd have that on a platform like Steam, the profit from those 3 bucks would increase exponentially due to the amount of players there (this has proven to be true time and again).

[Vapaa]

There is value though in keeping them not on sale for as long as you can.

 

But when the game does go on sale, why not the DLCs at the same time ?

[CronoDragoon]

It doesn't compute to have the main game at discounts as low as $10 for DAO and ME2, because they've passed their selling peak long ago, but then having to buy add-ons mounting to $50 or more. If I was a new buyer I'd be pretty pissed to find DLC still at full price whereas the more important component of the game is not. No one else does this.

 

No one else does what? Maintain the base price of DLC? Sure they do. They have sales, but permanent reduction of DLC pricing isn't exactly common.

 

 

 

The idea of DLC being more important than the main game to justify a permanent price fix is a rather insidious viewpoint, in my opinion. It would then be much more profitable for publishers to release only a tiny fraction as the main game and the rest coming in steady DLC pieces for the money to keep on flowing, with the added bonus of DLC not having to have a price drop.

 

It's more complicated than that. If it truly did make more money in the long run, companies would be doing it. That they are not tells me they think there are significant issues with such a distribution model, such as: player buys first "game" release for $20, doesn't like it, doesn't buy further DLC pieces. Compared to, player buys base game for $60, doesn't like it, doesn't buy the 2-3 unrelated DLC to follow. It's likely that front-loading the game like that is going to make companies more money than trying a comic-book volume type of release.

[Kantr]

But when the game does go on sale, why not the DLCs at the same time ?

I was talking about game sales on steam. Not specifically BioWare.

 

No one else does what? Maintain the base price of DLC? Sure they do. They have sales, but permanent reduction of DLC pricing isn't exactly common.

I just had a look at Skyrim and the game is 9.99 while the DLC is 13.99

[Bryan Johnson]

Oh come on, you know full well the games aren't always on sale, and those 3 bucks are still 3 bucks you might've managed to take from someone who wouldn't have given it to you otherwise; 30 sales at 3€ gives better profit than 5 sales at 15€; there's a reason for the succes of Steam sales.

No it doesnt, while you might think 90 is better than 75 there is other costs to consider.

In the case of steam you might lose 30% which makes it 63 (for 30) vs 52.5 (for 5). 

 

Lets say for the average use the cost of running the server to support then is $1.00. So now we have 33 vs 47.5.

[Vapaa]

In the case of steam you might lose 30% which makes it 63 (for 30) vs 52.5 (for 5). 

 

30% for what ?