76 réponses à ce sujet

[Coldcall01]

Frist of all I am a big Bioware fan and own most games going back to late 90s, so I'm not complaining for the sake of it, but after having analysed the amount DLCs cost ,and the cost of distributing them, compared to retail game and packaging costs; it would appear DLCs are not good value from a gamer's perspective.

Lets looks at it purely on bang for buck terms. I paid £35 for the retail packaged game which comes in a box, dvd, and small game manual. An honest appraisal of gameplay time would be say 50 hours. So in effect one is paying about £2 per hour of game. Now compare the avergae cost of a 1 hour long DLC such as Wardens Keep. It costs $7 US, and Bioware need not print or manufacture any DVDs or packaging materials.

So the DLCs are 3-4 times more expensive than the actual retail game. I see a lot of dedicated gamers complaining about the costs of DLCs and i think they have a point. One would think EA/Bioware would be trying to make DLCs more affordable and considering they are way better on the enviroment (way less carbon created through DLC release) there is just no excuse (other than profteering) to charge $7 for an hour-long DLC.

Another reason the DLCs should not cost that amount is that they are built with an editor by the folks who created the editor for gamers to create content. The devs at Bioware can probably whip through that editor creating great new content far faster than expansions were created a few years back.

Sorry but had to be said - regardless of how much i like DAO (its a great game).

[Coldcall01]

oops slight mistake in my maths not taking into account currency conversion.



$7 is about £5 right now, so the DLCs are just under 3 times more expensive at pro rata.

[MprezdNZ]

So you are saying Bioware shouldn't try to make money?

[TheHawk]

If they want to make money they should do a mmorpg not overpriced dlcs.

[Eudaemonium]

While the DLC is more money per hour than the full game, I don't think its really that expensive. Not for an 18+ working individual/student/etc. RtO, for example, is (will be), about £3.10 in the UK at the moment. WK is about £5.33. Additionally, its not as if this is an MMO with a monthly subscription. The DLCs are few and far-between, and forking out £3-5 every few months for a bit of new content is not necessarily too much to ask.



That being stated, I do get your point: per hour of play-time, the DLCs are extortionately priced. I bought the game new for only £15, with Blood Dragon Armour and The Stone Prisoner free, and the latter is by far the most expensive of the DLCs, so I got something of a bargain. Having purchases WK and (the points for) RtO, I still haven't spent close to what you did for the original game. Would I like free/redcued price DLC? Of course, who wouldn't. But buying a DLC for £5 every 2-3 months is not the same as buying a full-priced game.

[MprezdNZ]

Yes when they have such a long history and a huge fanbase in rpg titles. Let's just throw that away and go into an mmo stlye rpg.

[RetrOldSchool]

I don't think its neither fair nor reasonable to compare full game time and DLC game time, especially since it would mean that a 1 hour DLC package for a short game should be priced higher than a 1 hour DLC for DA:O.



However, I think that Bethesda and Rockstar has raised the bar a lot with the Fallout 3 DLC's and the 2 episodes for GTA IV and this far, neither WK or RtO can touch the value of those two DLC's.



If you wonder how I can comment on the value of RtO I have completed RtO, I was one of the unfortunate souls who bought RtO as soon as it hit Xbox Live, so I'm struggling with the specialization bug, but at least I got to play and finish RtO.



I don't think 560 and 400 MS points is too expensive for WK and RtO, I don't feel cheated or anything but I can agree that comparing to the best of the DLC around, it's not as much value as the best DLC's around.



Point Lookout for Fallout 3 is 1200 MS points, ie 3 times more than RtO but comparing the overall value of the both DLC's PL wins hands down. RtO is a short ~1 hour dungeon crawler with very little else than combat, while PL is a big new area with multiple quests, multiple NPC's and ~5+ hours of varied gameplay.



I do however look forward to more DLC anyway and I hope Bioware keeps a steady flow of DLC to both ME2 and DA:O! But that being said, IMO I'd much rather see bigger (though fewer) 1200 MS points ($15) DLC's in the kind of style like Point Lookout, The Pitt etc than short 1-dungeon DLC's for 400MS points.



And I think that BW will take the criticism to heart, like it seems they did with the expansion.

[damage1900]

Isn't Bioware making a Star Wars mmo...

[Coldcall01]

MprezdNZ wrote...

So you are saying Bioware shouldn't try to make money?

That's a really daft reading of what i said. Where did i say they should not make money? Are you saying they dont make money on the £35-£40 retail game?

Please if you cant make an intelligent comment - dont bother.

[Coldcall01]

Eudaemonium wrote...

While the DLC is more money per hour than the full game, I don't think its really that expensive. Not for an 18+ working individual/student/etc. RtO, for example, is (will be), about £3.10 in the UK at the moment. WK is about £5.33. Additionally, its not as if this is an MMO with a monthly subscription. The DLCs are few and far-between, and forking out £3-5 every few months for a bit of new content is not necessarily too much to ask.

That being stated, I do get your point: per hour of play-time, the DLCs are extortionately priced. I bought the game new for only £15, with Blood Dragon Armour and The Stone Prisoner free, and the latter is by far the most expensive of the DLCs, so I got something of a bargain. Having purchases WK and (the points for) RtO, I still haven't spent close to what you did for the original game. Would I like free/redcued price DLC? Of course, who wouldn't. But buying a DLC for £5 every 2-3 months is not the same as buying a full-priced game.

Okay I'm not arguing about the subjective value of a DLC. I totally agreee that £5 for WK depends on the person buying it and whether they feel its good value.

My point is about the discrepancy in the price of the full retail game compared to the DLC - measured in hours.

By the way, where did you get the full game for £15? Thats a real bargain, and yes i can see if someone gets the full retail game inexpensively then one can justify spending over the odds for a DLC.

Also I'm not suggesting free DLCs. In fact I would prefer Bioware become more consistent by NOT giving them away free with the use of a redemption code, and just charge a fair price relative to the original game.

As I've said before that  i think DLCs and expansions should be priced on a per hour of gamepley type metric.

[Coldcall01]

RetrOldSchool wrote...

I don't think its neither fair nor reasonable to compare full game time and DLC game time, especially since it would mean that a 1 hour DLC package for a short game should be priced higher than a 1 hour DLC for DA:O.

However, I think that Bethesda and Rockstar has raised the bar a lot with the Fallout 3 DLC's and the 2 episodes for GTA IV and this far, neither WK or RtO can touch the value of those two DLC's.

If you wonder how I can comment on the value of RtO I have completed RtO, I was one of the unfortunate souls who bought RtO as soon as it hit Xbox Live, so I'm struggling with the specialization bug, but at least I got to play and finish RtO.

I don't think 560 and 400 MS points is too expensive for WK and RtO, I don't feel cheated or anything but I can agree that comparing to the best of the DLC around, it's not as much value as the best DLC's around.

Point Lookout for Fallout 3 is 1200 MS points, ie 3 times more than RtO but comparing the overall value of the both DLC's PL wins hands down. RtO is a short ~1 hour dungeon crawler with very little else than combat, while PL is a big new area with multiple quests, multiple NPC's and ~5+ hours of varied gameplay.

I do however look forward to more DLC anyway and I hope Bioware keeps a steady flow of DLC to both ME2 and DA:O! But that being said, IMO I'd much rather see bigger (though fewer) 1200 MS points ($15) DLC's in the kind of style like Point Lookout, The Pitt etc than short 1-dungeon DLC's for 400MS points.

And I think that BW will take the criticism to heart, like it seems they did with the expansion.

Well I agree with you about preferring longer DLCs instead of small 1 hour quest episodes. And i think that is part of the problem with Bioware's DLC strategy. I cannot help but think they feel its more profitable making regular small DLCs and charging $5-$7 for each than making a large enough expansion to charge $20-30.

I also agree about Bioware taking criticism to heart - they usually do, which is why these forums are a good place to raise these issues.

[Coldcall01]

Just to add on the redemptions give-aways.



I may sound like i am contradicting myself but i dont like the freebies which are given away in some editions and not others. The problem with that is not every one gets the same game. I would prefer they dont do give-aways and instead just lower the DLC price slightly for everyone. That consistency will make them more money in the end.

[Eudaemonium]

Coldcall01 wrote...

Okay I'm not arguing about the subjective value of a DLC. I totally agreee that £5 for WK depends on the person buying it and whether they feel its good value.

My point is about the discrepancy in the price of the full retail game compared to the DLC - measured in hours.

By the way, where did you get the full game for £15? Thats a real bargain, and yes i can see if someone gets the full retail game inexpensively then one can justify spending over the odds for a DLC.

Also I'm not suggesting free DLCs. In fact I would prefer Bioware become more consistent by NOT giving them away free with the use of a redemption code, and just charge a fair price relative to the original game.

As I've said before that  i think DLCs and expansions should be priced on a per hour of gamepley type metric.

I pretty-much agree with you on these points, I believe its also factoring into the cost per hour arguements regarding the upcoming expansion, which appears to be available for Pre-Order at the same or (on Steam) an even higher price than the original game. I do think that DLCs should be priced more relatively to the standard game.

I originally played DA:O at a friend's house and only purchased the game in December (in GAME), where for some reason the PC version was like £15. The PS3 and X-BOX copies were still £40, and I assume the PC one's price got pushed down to compete with the pirate market. You can get it on Amazon.co.uk for a comparable price. Unfortunately it meant I missed out on all the pre-order/CE goodies.

[MprezdNZ]

Coldcall01 wrote...

MprezdNZ wrote...

So you are saying Bioware shouldn't try to make money?

That's a really daft reading of what i said. Where did i say they should not make money? Are you saying they dont make money on the £35-£40 retail game?

Please if you cant make an intelligent comment - dont bother.

And you think you sound intelligent by comparing dlc to the original game? It is no different to anything else; if you can hook people on to anything then you can test the waters to see what people will/won't pay for. Why shouldn't they try to get more money out of gamers for the 6 years of work they have done developing this game? 

Are you trying to say that any other business doesn't try to grab an audience and then try and see how much money they can get out of them? The difference is a lot of businesses haven't put 6 years of work into their products. 

They can't expect that everyone who buys this game will be faithful to it for the next 2 years. They need to 'strike while the is hot' so to speak and obtain what they can, while they can. 

How do you work out a cost per hour price when everyone plays it differently?

Modifié par MprezdNZ, 25 janvier 2010 - 12:43 .

[MprezdNZ]

Coldcall01 wrote...

Just to add on the redemptions give-aways.

I may sound like i am contradicting myself but i dont like the freebies which are given away in some editions and not others. The problem with that is not every one gets the same game. I would prefer they dont do give-aways and instead just lower the DLC price slightly for everyone. That consistency will make them more money in the end.

Well the only dlc that was given away (unless you bought the digital deluxe version from Steam D2D etc) was Stone Prisoner as far as I am aware - and everyone who bought the game new got it. And there is nothing to say that Steam/D2D didn't wear some/all of that cost themselves for giving away WK. 

If you are talking about the gifts (armour etc) why shouldn't people who buy the collectors edition and/or pay in advance not get some thank you from the developer? You are giving them more money and, in the case of pre-orders, money in advance. 

Modifié par MprezdNZ, 25 janvier 2010 - 12:49 .

[Azimuth0001]

I don't buy DLCs biased on how much time I get to play them, I buy them for their value as entertainment....with that in mined, I have to agree that the current pricing is too high. There's not $7.00 worth of entertainment in wardens keep, so I'm going to bypass RTO and just get the expansion when it comes out.

[Matshelge]

Problem with this argument is that they can't really charge more then 60$ or 50$ (for pc) for any game. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is only 6 hours long, but noone argues that it's 10 bucks an hour for that game.



So, in Modern Warfare value, Dragon Age is worth 600$.

See how weird it is to use this scale?



If BioWare followed your logic, you would only be allowed to buy a small part of the game, perhaps up to the first time you meet Flemeth, then you would have to buy each of the next areas as DLC for 10-20$ each.



The method you should be using is that you got a cupon for a really good deal at a resturant, 5 course meal for a small cost, you liked the food so much that you are willing to return and pay the normal price for the next time you eat there.

[Matshelge]

Coldcall01 wrote...

MprezdNZ wrote...

So you are saying Bioware shouldn't try to make money?

That's a really daft reading of what i said. Where did i say they should not make money? Are you saying they dont make money on the £35-£40 retail game?

Please if you cant make an intelligent comment - dont bother.

BioWare might not have made back all the money they invested into Dragon Age and the marketing they put behind it. Dragon Age might have been planed over several years, loss for the first game, but made up with DLC income over the next few years, and the major payoff when Dragon Age 2 comes out.

Im guessing this might be the case, seeing how original IP seldom sells anywhere close to the second or third installment of a game. Having a 3-game plan, along with DLC and Expansions, and a budget going over 5-6 years, where most of the revenu comes in the later part of the projected plan is the normal practice nowadays.

[DMTyrisis]

I wasn't concerned about the price of DA:O DLC at all, until I played the DLC for Fallout 3. I get an hour for $5, or 5-7 for $10 from Bethesda. I am a huge BioWare fan, but Bethesda is providing a better experience when it comes to DLC. On the other hand though, it is still cheaper than seeing a movie...

[RetrOldSchool]

Matshelge wrote...

Problem with this argument is that they can't really charge more then 60$ or 50$ (for pc) for any game. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 is only 6 hours long, but noone argues that it's 10 bucks an hour for that game.
So, in Modern Warfare value, Dragon Age is worth 600$.
See how weird it is to use this scale?
If BioWare followed your logic, you would only be allowed to buy a small part of the game, perhaps up to the first time you meet Flemeth, then you would have to buy each of the next areas as DLC for 10-20$ each.
The method you should be using is that you got a cupon for a really good deal at a resturant, 5 course meal for a small cost, you liked the food so much that you are willing to return and pay the normal price for the next time you eat there.

I agree with that I don't really see it as a good comparison to compare full game time with DLC game time.

I think the only fair comparison is DLC-to-DLC game time. Comparing with the DLC's from other major games could be a good way to measure how Biowares pricing is.

Personally I find both WK and RtO worth the money, I spend twice what RtO costed for lunch, even a visit to the movies is twice, even more than twice the cost (here in Sweden 400MS points is roughly 45 SEK, a movie is 110 SEK).
So in terms of entertainment for my money I think both are worth it.

However, when I compare to Point Lookout, Broken Steel and The Pitt for Fallout 3 or Lost and The Damned for GTA IV, then I can also admit that I dont get at all as much value with the DA:O DLC's this far.

[MprezdNZ]

Are you talking value in terms of time played though? Because for me, the Fallout dlcs were all rubbish.



it is all a matter of perspective and there isn't a right/wrong answer, but at the end of the day if you like the game and you want to play it, then as long as the amount is not exorbitant then you should get it.If it is only a 30 minute play through but you play it more than once than you have to factor in that value. At the end of the day no one can tell you to attribute a value to it because it is your personal enjoyment.



Personally, I never played F3 with more than 1 character because it didn't interest me that much. I have every intention of playing DA with every single character - apart from maybe the mage.

[CaitlynRoe]

I agree with Matshelge. These comparisons are frustrating because when comparing the cost and length of the main game versus the DLC, few people stop to consider that perhaps the main game was an exceptional value, not that the DLC is expensive. There are very few games that are so long without resulting to lengthening the game through grinding, plus the replay value is very large. Since the development time was so long, and the quality so high for the main game, I have no doubt that they need to charge a reasonable price for DLC to make the kind of profit they want (and frankly, deserve).



And heck, if people think the DLC is a poor value, don't buy it. The whole point in setting prices for things is charging a price that people think is worth it. If not enough people buy it, they will either lower the price, or more likely, stop making DLC since the lowered price wouldn't justify the investment on their part.

[ArathWoeeye]

To be honest, instead of a 10-hour DLC in the quality of Mothership Zeta (I dont remember the prices), I prefer 1 hour of DA-quality DLC.

[Peeker2009]

I don't want to get into the price of DLC issue myself as I've already read enough about it in other threads, and really don't have much to add - except that I saw DA:O selling for AU$110 in EB games today. Probably the most expensive game I have ever seen in EB. I'm not implying that it isn't worth it, just an info update.

However, people keep bringing up the 6 years of work put into DA, and often using the figure to justifiy pricing. Can someone please tell me if this 6 years was a full time, all-hands-on-board, nose-to-the-grindstone type effort, or was it more of a snowball effect; ie, starting very small and gradually picking up size and pace as the years went by? Was DA:O a top priority during that time, or was Bioware's attention mostly elsewhere? The claim of 6 years work is rather vague.

On the one hand, it could be something to be proud of, suggesting a quality experience for the player, that every detail was lovingly hand-crafted and thoroughly tested, while on the other it could be a little embarrassing; For example, should a game that was 6 years in the making require a patch at all? Or, in all that time did no one think that having to reset a ranger pet's tactics every time would be a nuisance (and that's all it is), and spent a couple of hours, days or weeks to fix it? I'm obviously not a games developer, and would have no idea how long that would take.

Please don't misunderstand me, I loved the game - probably the best I've played in years, but if the figure of 6 years is used to help justify cost in a discussion such as this, it would be helpful to know what that means exactly.

Perhaps this has already been thrashed out in another thread, or maybe there are some relevant records that are available to the public. If anyone could point me in the right direction, I would be grateful.

Modifié par Peeker2009, 25 janvier 2010 - 01:42 .

[ggRechen]

- I'm afraid complaining about prices is quite hopeless. You give your vote via buying or not buying, because pricing is based on sales numbers and not on opinions. Basically: enough buyers = high prices. Too few buyers = lower prices.

As long as a product is not essential (like food), it's not the companies that make the prices, it's the customers. A company would charge 5.000.000 US$ per game if we were willing to pay. Obviously we are not, so they don't. They charge what we are willing (or not) to pay.

- I don't see the point in calculating price / game duration. By that logic you could lengthen play-time by dropping in endless waves of mobs, thus achieving a better price / value balance. It doesn't really work that way, does it? 1 hour of great gameplay/story is more worth to me than 3 hours of monster-slaying.

- DLC has become an important source of income for many companies in the gaming industry and this will increase in 2010.

- Publishers believe that DLC will reduce piracy - (for most games except Guitar Hero / Rock Band, I don't agree in this point).