812 réponses à ce sujet

[Il Divo]

Not really. EA doesn't do something if it's not profitable. Including Awakening with the base game was obviously profitable, so they went ahead and did it. This isn't rocket science. The only reason Awakening probably even happened is because it was likely already a concept before EA bought out BioWare in 2007. BioWare had been working on Dragon Age since as early as 2004 after they finished KotOR I.

 

You mean like re-release all their products together as a special bundle which doesn't involve any sort of special effort, what so ever? Are you next going to tell me that Darkspawn Chronicles was also well received? 

[Il Divo]

Hell, let's take the comparison a step further. Lucas (and now Disney) seems a fan of rereleasing the Star Wars prequels along side their original installments. Can I also say Episodes I-III are universally loved via profits? 

[AlanC9]

What's funny is BioWare obviously had the same process with Jaws of Hakkon. The difference is that BioWare did not announce they were working on this DLC add-on. Don't fool yourself into believing they hadn't started development on this before DAI was released. Had BioWare stated this was coming before launch, people would have been up and arms as well. It's just a lack of understanding how long it takes to make something go from concept into actual being.

Oh, absolutely. My point was just that I'm glad that CDPR fans aren't any less ignorant than Bio fans -- I've been worrying that we've been cornering the market on that.

You could say that Bio's procedure is actually a bit more fair than CDPR's. With TW3 you're paying for content long before you get the content, whereas with Bio you don't pay for JoH until you can actually play it. Obviously, this won't be easy to perceive since DAI + DLC will cost more money than TW3 + DLC. (Bio can't really win a bang-for-the-buck contest with CDPR, since Bio has a higher cost structure and probably a higher cost of capital too.)

[9TailsFox]

The problem with gamers is they are ignorant of how game development works. The moment they hear DLC/expansion content is announced before release of the game, they instantly jump to the conclusion content has been cut from the base game. That's not how it works. In the case of The Witcher 3, the base game has been content complete for a few months. The reason it was delayed was for polishing and bug fixing. Regardless of the two delays, dlc and expansions were always planned further down the road. How people can rationalize a 10-hour story and a 20-hour story with a brand new environment as being cut from the base game is beyond me.

 

What's funny is BioWare obviously had the same process with Jaws of Hakkon. The difference is that BioWare did not announce they were working on this DLC add-on. Don't fool yourself into believing they hadn't started development on this before DAI was released. Had BioWare stated this was coming before launch, people would have been up and arms as well. It's just a lack of understanding how long it takes to make something go from concept into actual being.

I am sure Jaws of Hakkon was started at DA:I development time as maybe some area we don't even know exist and never know. Majority was done but for some reason not finished time, something don't work, someone spill tea on computer... and completed later, because quality is same as rest of the game. In You can feel DLC done later honestly Bioware mostly DLC are really good short but good. Yes price to big but it not make it less good.

[Dieb]

Those of us who simply don't enjoy The Witcher games, because the dude is as likeable as brick with bad breath & a svastika tattoo, and the combat about as clunky - us, we can't really benefit from the fact that CDPR is supposedly running a big charity. I wouldn't care to get the next Britney Spears record for free.

 

Sorry son, I disagree. BioWare (and From Software) DLC is the only stuff I buy blindly, because they delivered stuff I enjoyed each time. I gladly support them - that's just my inclination they've earned with that. As soon as that changes, my wallet will open a little less readily, but until then I'll gladly be part of the problem.

[AlanC9]

Not really. EA doesn't do something if it's not profitable. Including Awakening with the base game was obviously profitable, so they went ahead and did it. This isn't rocket science. The only reason Awakening probably even happened is because it was likely already a concept before EA bought out BioWare in 2007. BioWare had been working on Dragon Age since as early as 2004 after they finished KotOR I.

Hey, wait a minute. I thought the argument was that Bio made a "vast amount of money" from Awakening.

[Revan Reborn]

Those of us who simply don't enjoy The Witcher games, because the dude is as likeable as brick with bad breath & a svastika tattoo, and the combat about as clunky - us, we can't really benefit from the fact that CDPR is supposedly running a big charity. I wouldn't care to get the next Britney Spears record for free.

 

Sorry son, I disagree. BioWare (and From Software) DLC is the only stuff I buy blindly, because they delivered stuff I enjoyed each time. I gladly support them - that's just my inclination they've earned with that. As soon as that changes, my wallet will open a little less readily, but until then I'll gladly be part of the problem.

CDPR isn't "supposedly" running anything. They made all of the DLC in TW2 and made massive fixes and improvements ot the game. They added a full cinematic to the ending, created a tutorial, added an arena with a leaderboard, as well as new difficulty modes, quests, and other things.

 

With TW3, they are giving everybody 16 free DLCs over the course of the game's life, as well as offering two massive expansions (not to be confused with DLC) for the fair market price of what season passes, which offer far less content, go for. You don't have to be a fan of the series to recognize CDPR gives A LOT to fans of their games.

 

If you want to be a blind BioWare faithful and get ripped off by underhanded EA tactics, more power to you... I've been playing BioWare games for 12 years and I won't throw money at something that is curely nefarious in nature.

 

Hey, wait a minute. I thought the argument was that Bio made a "vast amount of money" from Awakening.

Perhaps if you would stop dancing to the tune of the Straw Man, you may actually see the original argument in the OP. Awakening was a success. If you understand how EA and big business works, a successful product doesn't then translate into reinvesting into that product. The ultimate addition was an excuse to sell DAO at full price again with a very successful expansion, Awakening, included with it. If Awakening wasn't successful, EA wouldn't have been able to get away with selling the ultimate edition at full price for a game that had been out for a while.

[Drago_28]

Revan you are still alive?

[Revan Reborn]

Revan you are still alive?

Revan will always live regardless of Disney retconning the entire Expanded Universe and BioWare ruining the character with SWTOR. As long as there is injustice and underhanded DLC such as Jaws of Hakkon being released at $15 adding little value to DAI, Revan will voice his concerns. There's always a better way. There's always a choice...

[AlanC9]

Perhaps if you would stop dancing to the tune of the Straw Man, you may actually see the original argument in the OP. Awakening was a success. If you understand how EA and big business works, a successful product doesn't then translate into reinvesting into that product. The ultimate addition was an excuse to sell DAO at full price again with a very successful expansion, Awakening, included with it. If Awakening wasn't successful, EA wouldn't have been able to get away with selling the ultimate edition at full price for a game that had been out for a while.

Look, if you don't want to have silly rhetoric like "vast amounts of money" critiqued, you shouldn't use silly rhetoric like "vast amounts of money." You're letting righteous indignation get in your way a bit.

The substance of your argument isn't really very clear. Are you saying that producing Awakening-size expansions really would be profitable, and EA is just leaving money on the table by not doing it? You seem to be wobbling between that and something more like Bio ought to accept lower RoI in order to generate more gamer goodwill. (Actually, the argument is starting to look like a pretext to sell the idea of doing big expansions by whatever means come to hand.)

I'm also not aware of DA:UE selling many copies at full price. Got any sales figures to back this up with? And was Awakening really the selling point of the UE? I was just as interested in the DLCs, myself -- but then again, I wasn't interested enough to buy DA:UE until it discounted to 20 USD. I'd be just as interested in ME2 or ME3 UEs.

Edit: hey, does anyone have a clue what DAI's dev costs were? I was wondering how they stacked up against TW3's 12M USD.

[Revan Reborn]

Look, if you don't want to have silly rhetoric like "vast amounts of money" critiqued, you shouldn't use silly rhetoric like "vast amounts of money." You're letting righteous indignation get in your way a bit.

The substance of your argument isn't really very clear. Are you saying that producing Awakening-size expansions really would be profitable, and EA is just leaving money on the table by not doing it? You seem to be wobbling between that and something more like Bio ought to accept lower RoI in order to generate more gamer goodwill. (Actually, the argument is starting to look like a pretext to sell the idea of doing big expansions by whatever means come to hand.)

I'm also not aware of DA:UE selling many copies at full price. Got any sales figures to back this up with? And was Awakening really the selling point of the UE? I was just as interested in the DLCs, myself -- but then again, I wasn't interested enough to buy DA:UE until it discounted to 20 USD. I'd be just as interested in ME2 or ME3 UEs.

Edit: hey, does anyone have a clue what DAI's dev costs were? I was wondering how they stacked up against TW3's 12M USD.

Let me be clear then. Awakening was profitable and expansions can work. The reason EA doesn't do it is because investors and publishers are short-term interested and do not like long-term commitments. Expansions are timely, costly, and investors want to see as quick of a return on their money as possible. Thus, they'd rather go the safe route and create cheap and short dlcs and sell them at an inflated price for a profit, because they know blind BioWare faithfuls will eat it up. That's how EA operates. Look at Battlefield Premium as another typical business practice adding really nothing more than new maps for $49.99.

[X Equestris]

Let me be clear then. Awakening was profitable and expansions can work. The reason EA doesn't do it is because investors and publishers are short-term interested and do not like long-term commitments. Expansions are timely, costly, and investors want to see as quick of a return on their money as possible. Thus, they'd rather go the safe route and create cheap and short dlcs and sell them at an inflated price for a profit, because they know blind BioWare faithfuls will eat it up. That's how EA operates. Look at Battlefield Premium as another typical business practice adding really nothing more than new maps for $49.99.

And where is your source that Awakening was profitable?

[In Exile]

Not really. EA doesn't do something if it's not profitable. Including Awakening with the base game was obviously profitable, so they went ahead and did it. This isn't rocket science. The only reason Awakening probably even happened is because it was likely already a concept before EA bought out BioWare in 2007. BioWare had been working on Dragon Age since as early as 2004 after they finished KotOR I.

 

Actually, the logic works in reverse. Bundles are done because the stand-alone product doesn't sell, and your price-point for the product your selling is above the cost to make it anyway (which in software is the cost of development because each extra unit costs essentially nothing).

 

Whenever software is bundled it's because the base standalone stops selling well. 

[Revan Reborn]

And where is your source that Awakening was profitable?

Doing research really doesn't take that long. I encourage more to take the time to do it:

 

https://steamdb.info/app/47810/graphs/(Steam statistics for UE)

http://www.vgchartz....akening/Global/(Awakening on Xbox 360)

http://www.vgchartz....gins-awakening/(Awakening on PS3)

http://www.vgchartz....gins-awakening/(Awakening on PC)

 

As you should be able to clearly see, when you combine the sales of Awakening on all platforms, it performed exceptionally well.

[In Exile]

Edit: hey, does anyone have a clue what DAI's dev costs were? I was wondering how they stacked up against TW3's 12M USD.

 

I don't think we've seen figures but it has to be substantially more. Even if CDPR paid its staff in Euros, the actual rates are much lower in Poland, which allows them to produce stuff with lower costs while still raking it in from lucrative western markets. 

[Heimdall]

Revan, may I point out what a ridiculous distinction you're making between short DLC and expansions?

People liked Awakening because it was good content. It sold well because it was good content. People liked LotSB because it was good content and it sold well for the same reason. You may not like how it's priced, but don't pretend expansions are automatically better content.

Personally I enjoy more frequent smaller adventures at least as much as expansions.

[Revan Reborn]

Actually, the logic works in reverse. Bundles are done because the stand-alone product doesn't sell, and your price-point for the product your selling is above the cost to make it anyway (which in software is the cost of development because each extra unit costs essentially nothing).

 

Whenever software is bundled it's because the base standalone stops selling well. 

You are missing a major component here. The reason bundles are done is because of the passage of time. Obviously, over a number of years a product will begin to underperform compared to initial sales. Bundles are a way to reinvigorate profits by including more content for the standard market price of software. This has nothing to do with the content in the bundle not selling well individually. It's merely a business practice of reinvigorating sales in something that was successful previously.

[In Exile]

Doing research really doesn't take that long. I encourage more to take the time to do it:

 

https://steamdb.info/app/47810/graphs/(Steam statistics for UE)

http://www.vgchartz....akening/Global/(Awakening on Xbox 360)

http://www.vgchartz....gins-awakening/(Awakening on PS3)

http://www.vgchartz....gins-awakening/(Awakening on PC)

 

As you should be able to clearly see, when you combine the sales of Awakening on all platforms, it performed exceptionally well.

This is a joke, right? What you've posted suggests DA:A sold 830,000 units (give or take). That's horrible, especially when DA:O moved millions of units. The math works out to something like only 1 in 4 DA:O users bought DA:A.  

[Revan Reborn]

Revan, may I point out what a ridiculous distinction you're making between short DLC and expansions?

People liked Awakening because it was good content. It sold well because it was good content. People liked LotSB because it was good content and it sold well for the same reason. You may not like how it's priced, but don't pretend expansions are automatically better content.

Personally I enjoy more frequent smaller adventures at least as much as expansions.

I can only speak for myself, but expansions, in my eyes, are superior to dlc. Obviously, the content has to be "good." That should go without saying. Again, the size, scope, and the story is ultimately what makes expansions a better choice. Looking at BGS as an example, Tribunal, Bloodmoon, Shivering Isles, Dawnguard, and Dragonborn all sold much better compared to the small DLC updates in Fallout 3. BGS intentionally experimented with expansions versus DLC to see which was better received and overall more appreiciated. They found out rather quickly that many prefer more content. It goes back to whether you want just an extension of the base game or if you want a brand new experience separate from the original.

[Heimdall]

You are missing a major component here. The reason bundles are done is because of the passage of time. Obviously, over a number of years a product will begin to underperform compared to initial sales. Bundles are a way to reinvigorate profits by including more content for the standard market price of software. This has nothing to do with the content in the bundle not selling well individually. It's merely a business practice of reinvigorating sales in something that was successful previously.

It doesn't mean that all individual products were overwhelmingly successful either.

[Revan Reborn]

This is a joke, right? What you've posted suggests DA:A sold 830,000 units (give or take). That's horrible, especially when DA:O moved millions of units. The math works out to something like only 1 in 4 DA:O users bought DA:A.  

It's not horrible at all when DA:A sold better cumulatively than some standalone AAA titles also featured in the various charts on that site. We are talking about an expansion competing on equal footing with base games. The other DLC in DAO doesn't even come close to the numbers that DA:A generated.

[Heimdall]

I can only speak for myself, but expansions, in my eyes, are superior to dlc. Obviously, the content has to be "good." That should go without saying. Again, the size, scope, and the story is ultimately what makes expansions a better choice. Looking at BGS as an example, Tribunal, Bloodmoon, Shivering Isles, Dawnguard, and Dragonborn all sold much better compared to the small DLC updates in Fallout 3. BGS intentionally experimented with expansions versus DLC to see which was better received and overall more appreiciated. They found out rather quickly that many prefer more content. It goes back to whether you want just an extension of the base game or if you want a brand new experience separate from the original.

What arbitrary measurement are you defining an expansion versus a DLC by? Because I classify every bit of content you just described as DLC.

[Legion of 1337]

Evidently some of you forget when you see the Bioware logo the "A Division of EA" part underneath.

 

EA will NEVER give free DLC. EVER. Because they know you Bioware fanatics are so blindly in love with their stuff that you'll buy it all anyway.

Stop encouraging them, for the love of God.

[Wulfram]

I prefer larger "expansions" to smaller DLC, too. There's not a clear line of distinction, but I'd expect an expansion to be a solid 10 hours of gameplay at least.

Partly because they tend to offer better value for money in terms of length to price, partly because they allow longer, deeper stories to be told.

Of course it doesn't have to be an either/or. Awakening didn't stop the release of DLC.

Evidently some of you forget when you see the Bioware logo the "A Division of EA" part underneath.

EA will NEVER give free DLC. EVER. Because they know you Bioware fanatics are so blindly in love with their stuff that you'll buy it all anyway.
Stop encouraging them, for the love of God.

They gave away the Extended Cut. And the multiplayer DLC is free.

Of course the first was a special case and multiplayer generates revenue for a different model.

[wolfhowwl]

This is a joke, right? What you've posted suggests DA:A sold 830,000 units (give or take). That's horrible, especially when DA:O moved millions of units. The math works out to something like only 1 in 4 DA:O users bought DA:A.  

 

Of course it's a joke. It's vgchartz.