247 réponses à ce sujet

[Lux]

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.

 

AFAIK, most sales are done during the first months of a game's release. DLCs follow that trend of diminishing sales as interest in a game blows over. The point right now is about DLC made years ago that does not have discounts at all.

 

In other games from other companies whenever a new DLC arrives, older DLC and the main game have discounts in order to get new players. Whenever a new iteration arrives, the previous game and its DLCs gets generous discounts. This creates for me a very good impression, a sense of fairness, goodwill, and trust in a company. It makes me buy more from them and I become a happy long term customer. This sort of policy, together with other positive interactions, is what made me pre-order TW3.

 

As for BW? I don't like the way they're doing business, for now.

[chris2365]

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.

 

As I said before this is a perfectly reasonable explanation. The only thing that isn't fair is the double standard given to console players, who have had plenty of sales in the past vs PC players who haven't had any. If you want to keep this stance then apply it to everyone, not just PC players.

[Bryan Johnson]

30% for what ?

Steam takes 30% cut of all sales

[llandwynwyn]

I don't mind paying full price when the dlc is worthy (and I think some of BW's are) but this deal with Microsoft for exclusive dlc for x time makes me really bitter for having to pay full price for an "old" product that console friends can buy on sale.

[ghostzodd]

I feel like this is going to turn into a Steam versus Origin debate, which is pointless because we already know who won that battle

[Bryan Johnson]

I feel like this is going to turn into a Steam versus Origin thing, which isn't even a question.

If it does, I will instant lock the thread, so this is the warning on that

[Fawx9]

I feel like this is going to turn into a Steam versus Origin debate, which is pointless because we already know who won that battle

I don't think it so much about steam vs origin, but distributors vs bioware at this point in the discussion. Every Bioware product sold by a distributer has gone on sale outside of the points. Origin has had sales on Javick DLC through the upgrade being on sale. Microsoft and Sony have had all the ME3 DLCs on sale at this point.

The only one seemingly hanging onto the constant pricing is bioware itself. Which only hurts PC users for no explainable reason.

[Lux]

Another point I'd like to add is that BW isn't the only company I buy games from. Discounts go a long way to balance expenses in a saturated market, especially now that RPGs are making  a strong comeback. Eventually I need to pick which games to buy and those that I have to live without. I inevitably select games from companies that provide the better deal for me as a consumer.

 

I'd think that most players are like that. I may even buy the main game because of its quality but forgo of DLC due to other expenses. If there's no DLC discounts available and the business format is overall less friendly, that's likely a lost sale for me.

[ghostzodd]

Back to the topic at hand though, Yes The BW points are shady why can't we use real money to purchase the DLC, all other digital  distribution stores on PC like Steam, GOG, Uplay use actual money, heck even Microsoft got rid the ridiculousness that was Microsoft points.and they have sales

 

So why is Bioware being this way, but I doubt we will get a legit answer instead Bryan Johnson would rather mod a "single image post"

 

[Spaghetti_Ninja]

I would prefer it if they did away with Bioware points. Just enable payment via iDEAL, please.

[ghostzodd]

I don't think it so much about steam vs origin, but distributors vs bioware at this point in the discussion. Every Bioware product sold by a distributer has gone on sale outside of the points. Origin has had sales on Javick DLC through the upgrade being on sale. Microsoft and Sony have had all the ME3 DLCs on sale at this point.

The only one seemingly hanging onto the constant pricing is bioware itself. Which only hurts PC users for no explainable reason.

 

Yea your right I read through most of thread, the topic at hand seems to be more that Bioware is being bullheaded about the DLC...............Its not like Bioware could move all the DLC to Origin or anything to streamline things/have sales! that would be to difficult.

[Wulfram]

Even the DA:O DLC effectively go on sale whenever the Ultimate Edition is reduced on Steam, which is semi-regularly, since that ends up being a lot cheaper than buying the DLC seperately even if they already own the base game and Awakening

[Jsixgun]

If it does, I will instant lock the thread, so this is the warning on that

I'm not sure why you would want to instant lock the thread - it is a reasonable comparison to make. The answer is obvious, but you guys could use it as feedback right?

[Vapaa]

Steam takes 30% cut of all sales

 

And ? if the base profit is higher, then the net profit will also be highter, if the Steam fee is 90% it's still 9 vs 7,5.

[ghostzodd]

And ? if the base profit is higher, then the net profit will also be highter, if the Steam fee is 90% it's still 9 vs 7,5.

 

Well the whole 30 percent fee is what contributed to EA not having there stuff on steam anymore, they want  to "sell it to us directly".

[Dan Fango]

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.

So reading that it appears you have some sympathy with those here questioning BioWares approach to pricing, selectively discounting and disseminating their DLC?

[Wulfram]

And ? if the base profit is higher, then the net profit will also be highter, if the Steam fee is 90% it's still 9 vs 7,5.

 

As he pointed out later in the post, a high fixed cost per sale has more of an impact if the income per sale is low.

 

Though really this is a pointless conversation without actual numbers.  And even then stuff like the impact on people's willingness to pay full price at release has to rely mostly on guesswork.  But presumably Bioware know if their older DLC is still selling, so they're in a better position to judge than we are.

[CronoDragoon]

So reading that it appears you have some sympathy with those here questioning BioWares approach to pricing, selectively discounting and disseminating their DLC?

 

You mean in terms of PC DLC not getting sales? Sure, I can see how that'd be annoying.

[Dan Fango]

You mean in terms of PC DLC not getting sales? Sure, I can see how that'd be annoying.

Sure, that one's a given. You also spoke a little about how BioWare DLC retains its 'day 1' price over many (many, many) years?

[Vapaa]

Though really this is a pointless conversation without actual numbers.

 

We can see that every major digital distributor majes these sale though, I took 3 bucks as an example, but it was the price of ME3 during the last Origin sale, and Origin actually went a step further with their free game program, putting visibility way ahead actual profit.

 

Given that game sale became a staple of online distribution, why was it an argument in the first place.

 

For Bioware points, nowadays they're simply useless, if not wasteful, as far as the customer is concerned, it would only serve to gain (more) money for the publisher.

[CronoDragoon]

Sure, that one's a given. You also spoke a little about how BioWare DLC retains its 'day 1' price over many (many, many) years?

 

That I don't have a problem with besides my desire to play the DLC. If I think it's overpriced I simply won't buy it, as I did with DA2 DLC.

[Chari]

May I use inhuman money for DLC? That would be nice

[Dan Fango]

That I don't have a problem with besides my desire to play the DLC. If I think it's overpriced I simply won't buy it, as I did with DA2 DLC.

Fair enough. Here's a question for you: If you were four years late picking up Inquisition and really wanted to purchase its DLC, would you see no problem in paying day 1 prices for all of it? I certainly wouldn't entertain the idea.

[CronoDragoon]

Fair enough. Here's a question for you: If you were four years late picking up Inquisition and really wanted to purchase its DLC, would you see no issue in paying day 1 prices for all of it?

 

Heh, well my first impulse is to reject the hypothetical, since any game for which I'd really want to play the DLC I'd also really want to play the game, and so would be buying it as soon as it came out.

 

But assuming I was in a car accident and comatose for 4 years and woke up? Well, I'd be annoyed at paying $10 for Inquisition and $50 for it's DLC, sure. But an "issue" to me sounds like there's something at stake beyond my personal self interest, as if there's something ethically wrong about keeping DLC at base prices (hence why I objected to the anti-consumer label when I thought you were talking about DLC pricing in general). But if "issue" just means grudgingly paying $50 for 10-15 hours of content whereas the main game is $10-15 dollars for 50 hours of content, then I totally understand. But I'm never going to call a company or its members "greedy idiots" for something which is ultimately my choice.

[Kantr]

The only time I buy DLC for games (aside from Bioware games due to really wanting the DLC) is when they go on sale or I can find them for cheaper then the full price.

 

I only got Bioshock infinite because the game and it's season pass were under 10 pounds on GMG.