812 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

You know what'd be hilarious? If TW3 flopped. Nothing against CDPR, but I almost want it to, just so the annoying fanboys will stop making a big deal about how CDPR and the Witcher are the Second Coming.

[wolfhowwl]

EA is not, will they ever, do anything to your benefit. They will sell whatever maximizes profits for them, even if it's crap. That's how business works. It doesn't matter how successful Awakening was. Again, this goes back to businesses being risk-averse and wanting short-term returns and no long-term commitments.

 

Of course, they are a business not a charity. If I like what they make I will buy it, if not I won't (lol Medal of Honor).

 

And really it actually does matter how successful Awakening was. BioWare, like any business, has limited resources and perhaps with access to all the information we don't have concluded that it is a more effective use of their employees to have a small team working on DLC and everyone else moving on to the next game.

 

The problem here is that you're using Awakening as an example of a success when you have no idea of the cost, revenue, profitability, opportunity cost, or ROI targets involved with the project. The numbers I've seen you post (VGchartz) are from a notoriously awful site that isn't trustworthy at all and even if it was would still give you only the sales numbers.

[Heimdall]

You know what'd be hilarious? If TW3 flopped. Nothing against CDPR, but I almost want it to, just so the annoying fanboys will stop making a big deal about how CDPR and the Witcher are the Second Coming.

As much as I enjoy the Witcher games, I kinda feel the same way.

I'm tired of all the "BW should do this thing because CDPR is doing it!" Threads. Especially about the DLC thing. The fact that they're doing it doesn't mean it will turn out to be a successful business model and they'll do it again.

[Heimdall]

Oh, I agree entirely, especially with the nostalgia comment. I didn't mean to suggest I was disagreeing; rather it was my intention just to build on how the distinction is arbitrary and really the product of historical accident.

Sorry, I tend to assume people are arguing on these boards.

[In Exile]

Sorry, I tend to assume people are arguing on these boards.

 

No worries. The BSN is, well, the BSN. And I tend to come off abrasive. 

[Revan Reborn]

Agree with everything, also a big fan of CDPR but I just cannot stand the general mentality of most of their community, especially recently. It is like people cannot have valid critiques and like both game. All the praise I have seen for this expansion pass is ridiculous when compared to the elitist mentality. 

Also I agree their content even the paid DLC is gonna to be better than most, that I have no doubt.

Ah if you are referring to the BioWare faithfuls and the CDPR diehards that hate the other games, then I agree completely. Both developers make great games. I don't believe one is necessarily superior over the other, just different. That being said, I do believe because of CDPR's autonomy, they are oftentimes able to address gamer concerns more directly.

 

So the vast majority of people hate season pass schemes and DLC like this, especially from games like Assassins Creed, Borderlands, or other EA projects that utilized season passes before people complained about them too much and decided to remove it from their repertoire. 

 

Yet when CD Projekt Red does it....it's ok because of...some vague reason regarding the content promised by being labeled as an expansion pack?

 

Man, you guys are hypocrites.

People do not hate the idea of season passes. People hate season passes that offer worthless content for another $25, like every Assassin's Creed title.

 

There is no hypocricy here. Either you played expansions such as Bloodmoon, Tribunal, Shivering Isles, and Awakening or you did not. If you haven't, then you obviously won't understand the difference between just "DLC" and an "expansion." They are very different and offer significantly different expectations.

 

Oh, I do care about the content.  Totally happy so far with JoH.  I have no complaints with Bioware's DLC overall in their games.  They do wonderful work.

 

Btw, you totally misrepresent Dragonborn.  It is completely integrated into Skyrim.  It is in no way isolated.  You can travel to there immediately after heaving Helgen if you want.  After the initial trip, it's just a loading screen during fast travel, no different than if you go from Falkreath to Winterhold.   Bounce back and forth as often as you like, easy peasy.

 

Finally...

 

"This isn't a "BioWare make DAI like TW3!""

 

"bioware-take-cues-from-cdpr-with-tw3-expansion-pass"

 

You misconstrue what I mean by "isolated." As you aptly pointed out, once you go through the Helgen tutorial, all you have to do is go to Windhelm and hop on a boat to Solstheim. What is "isolated" about Dragonborn is that you do not need to complete the base game to play it. You can go there whenever you want and engage in that content, just like Bloodmoon, Tribunal, and Shivering Isles. It's up to you when and how you want to approach it.

 

How is taking cues, in other words advice, from CDPR the same as blatantly copying them? You may want to reconsider your post again...

 

So when the Exec Producer says something contrary to what you believe, it's a conspiracy. Got it.

Instead of telling us what you believe we should believe, produce some numbers to back up your conspiracy theory. You have twice now indicated that Awakening sold quite well, both on it's own and as part of a package. Provide the links to where you're pulling this data from. I don't want "Because I think/said so", I want to see actual sales numbers that support your claim. Awakening was ok, to me. I played it once, maybe twice. Compared to the number of times I played through Origins, and ME 1-3 however, I didn't play it at all. So I need to see some numbers, not some more speculation where even Developer comments about why are disregarded. Can you provide that, or am I going to be wading through a lot more "But I'm right because ..."?

Pardon me for being blunt, but you continously fail to recognize this. Developers LIE. More often than we'd like, but they do it a lot. Sometimes it's for PR reasons. Sometimes it's because the game isn't ready yet. There are a whole host of reasons for why developers lie and BioWare has done it a lot in twelve years. MMORPGs are especially infamous for promises never kept and pages upon pages of lies. Look at SWTOR, a BioWare product, as a perfect example where BioWare lied a lot.

 

Now that you understand you can't be a blind sheep and believe everything a developer tells you in a controlled-interview for the purpose of spining a certain message... You need to be very careful what anybody tells you is the point. Whether Darrah's words were true or not is irrelevant. The point he was making was an excuse for why an Awakening-type expansion wouldn't happen in DAI. That is all you really need to take away from that interview.

 

I already provided a host of links on a previous page for Dragon Age: Awakening's sales. Please scroll back through. BioWare sold well over 830,000 copies of Awakening as a separate download on all platforms, alone. This isn't including how much was likely sold via the Ultimate Edition. Again, it's difficult to have the entire picture unless EA actually releases in their financial calls to investors how well particulr titles is performing. That's how we knew DAO was a triple platinum title, selling over 3.2 million copies globally.

[Heimdall]

Well, the argument seems to be that expansions have better value. Which is, of course, true.

Historicaflly, sure, but what do you call an expansion? The OP seems to think of Dragonborn as an expansion, even though most people I've encountered call it DLC and I don't recall it ever being billed as an expansion by the marketing. Everyone I've ever asked to define the distinction has been challenged to elaborate. It either comes down to content or they start talking about physical copies.

Like Exile said, it's a distinction born of historical accident in distribution method. That historical distinction doesn't really exist anymore now that you can download full games.

When people use it now, I feel it's the same as when Bioware said DAO was the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate: it's a blatant appeal to nostalgia that doesn't actually say much about the content it describes.

[Revan Reborn]

Of course, they are a business not a charity. If I like what they make I will buy it, if not I won't (lol Medal of Honor).

 

And really it actually does matter how successful Awakening was. BioWare, like any business, has limited resources and perhaps with access to all the information we don't have concluded that it is a more effective use of their employees to have a small team working on DLC and everyone else moving on to the next game.

 

The problem here is that you're using Awakening as an example of a success when you have no idea of the cost, revenue, profitability, opportunity cost, or ROI targets involved with the project. The numbers I've seen you post (VGchartz) are from a notoriously awful site that isn't trustworthy at all and even if it was would still give you only the sales numbers.

I am providing the best source there is. Unless EA actually releases the numbers, which is unlikely with just an expansion, there is just no way of knowing the full story. Again, we can only go based off of what BioWare has said and what others in the industry have said about expansions, and largely they do not do them because they are costly and time consuming. They do not see a value ultimately in doing an expansion. However, as some have alluded to, this perception may change with the convenience of digital download and how much hard drive space consoles now have.

 

On a side note, if other posters want to miss the point of the thread and just think this is a "CDPR fanboy wanting BioWare to be more like CDPR," you can go ahead and stop posting. You clearly do not understand what is being addressed, so feel free to move on.

[Revan Reborn]

Historicaflly, sure, but what do you call an expansion? The OP seems to think of Dragonborn as an expansion, even though most people I've encountered call it DLC and I don't recall it ever being billed as an expansion by the marketing. Everyone I've ever asked to define the distinction has been challenged to elaborate. It either comes down to content or they start talking about physical copies.

Like Exile said, it's a distinction born of historical accident in distribution method. That historical distinction doesn't really exist anymore now that you can download full games.

When people use it now, I feel it's the same as when Bioware said DAO was the spiritual successor to Baldur's Gate: it's a blatant appeal to nostalgia that doesn't actually say much about the content it describes.

Dragonborn has never been termed an "expansion" by BGS. All they have called it is a "content add-on." I call it an expansion because it is very similar in size and scope to Shivering Isles, for example, which BGS called an "expansion." Again, play Bloodmoon, Tribunal, Shivering Isles, or Awakening to gain an idea of what an "expansion" is. It's far easier to see it than explain it for you, apparently.

[leaguer of one]

 

I will give you, however, that no one talks very much, if at all, about "The Golems of Amgarrak".

That's because it's mixed with the discussions of taking about Orseno.

[LinksOcarina]

 

People do not hate the idea of season passes. People hate season passes that offer worthless content for another $25, like every Assassin's Creed title.

 

There is no hypocricy here. Either you played expansions such as Bloodmoon, Tribunal, Shivering Isles, and Awakening or you did not. If you haven't, then you obviously won't understand the difference between just "DLC" and an "expansion." There are very different and offer significantly different expectations.

 

 

Well, you are wrong about that one.

 

1) I don't hate the idea of season passes. I am just calling spades what they are in this case. I've seen it all over the internet and it bothers me a lot how quick people are to forget, lest judge, something that's not even out just because of some wordplay. There is no difference in content in say, a Borderlands Season Pass, to Assassins Creed, to Witcher 3 in my eyes. 

 

2) Expansion packs are DLC packs in the end. Let's face it, a rose by any other name in this case because both add content to a game. DLC for Borderlands has been sold as in-store codes like Dragon Age: Awakening and it's disk. We see game of the year editions with Skyrim and Witcher 2, Mass Effect: Complete Collection, and so forth, that take DLC and turn it into extra content or re-released as a whole content pack, with or without the full game intact. 

 

So what is really the difference here? Length in the end? A DLC like Dragonborn could technically be completed in twenty hours. Awakening iv'e finished in full in ten. Something like Jaws of Hakkon it seems to be around 5-6 hours, while the DLC's of Borderlands 2 range between 7-8 hours.

 

Or content. All of the DLC's I mention above give you more mission, plot, environments, upgrades/weapons/items, characters, secrets, enemies, challenges and achievements. What's the difference in the end? 

 

If length or content is the actual equation of what an "expansion" or "DLC" is, it's as just as much of an arbitrary label as "JRPG", which is to say it's a bullshit distinction because there is no difference to anything else except the content and price range offered for said content. It is using a word to appeal to an ideal that doesn't exist because the terms are interchangeable. 

[Heimdall]

On a side note, if other posters want to miss the point of the thread and just think this is a "CDPR fanboy wanting BioWare to be more like CDPR," you can go ahead and stop posting. You clearly do not understand what is being addressed, so feel free to move on.

You're pointing to CDPR's DLC model for TW3 as an example Bioware should follow, are you not?

If you didn't want people to comment on that, you probably shouldn't have put it in the title.

[wolfsite]

Frankly the Expansion Pass just shows that CDPR is no different then any other company.  The fact that they actually took pot shots at other companies for doing passes before the game is even released and then make a pass for there own game which has not even been released yet says a lot.

 

Also this pass has actually made a lot of people upset to the point where they cancelled there pre-order of the Witcher 3 and are now fearing that CDPR is going to adopt other less than desirable tactics in the future.

[Zjarcal]

You know what'd be hilarious? If TW3 flopped. Nothing against CDPR, but I almost want it to, just so the annoying fanboys will stop making a big deal about how CDPR and the Witcher are the Second Coming.

On the one hand, I do like TW series quite a bit so I want TW3 to be amazing (it looks like it will be anyway).

On the other hand, I do hate its fanbase with a passion, so anything that would make them go haywire is desirable.

The struggle is real.

EDIT: BW's fanbase can be equally annoying doe... actually **** all fanbases.

[Heimdall]

Dragonborn has never been termed an "expansion" by BGS. All they have called it is a "content add-on." I call it an expansion because it is very similar in size and scope to Shivering Isles, for example, which BGS called an "expansion." Again, play Bloodmoon, Tribunal, Shivering Isles, or Awakening to gain an idea of what an "expansion" is. It's far easier to see it than explain it for you, apparently.

Honestly, your definition of expansion appears to be "the large content packs that I prefer".

Again, how is JoH not an expansion by your definition? It has a new area, a decent amount of new quests, available at any point after reaching Skyhold (You'll be killed if you aren't a high level, but that's because the DAI doesn't scale levels and the same can be said of other expansions you've mentioned)

[wolfhowwl]

You know what'd be hilarious? If TW3 flopped. Nothing against CDPR, but I almost want it to, just so the annoying fanboys will stop making a big deal about how CDPR and the Witcher are the Second Coming.

 

Wishing failure just isn't healthy.

 

Now let me tell you about how awful those Nintendo fanboys are...

[LinksOcarina]

Wishing failure just isn't healthy.

 

Now let me tell you about how awful those Nintendo fanboys are...

 

Hey now, we are good people. 

 

Although I must admit it's fun to watch people eat crow after two years of hearing Nintendo is a failure and will go bankrupt soon over the Wii U...now folk's can't seem to stop praising them. 

[BobZilla84]

Dragon Age Origins had all great Dlcs I have no complaints there well if I had to pick one I disliked more than the others it would probably be Leliana's Song.Dragon Age 2 on the other hand had a good and a bad Dlc as I said Legacy was good and Mark of The Assassin was garbage.

Dragon Age Inquistion's first Dlc is ok but B-Ware you need to double no Triple down on the Story Content and Character Growth so more of these and no more pointless filler content.

[o Ventus]

Wishing failure just isn't healthy.

 

Now let me tell you about how awful those Nintendo fanboys are...

 

I want Nintendo to fail too, but that's not solely for the fanboys. They have a lot of business practices that I detest.

[In Exile]

Hey now, we are good people. 

 

Although I must admit it's fun to watch people eat crow after two years of hearing Nintendo is a failure and will go bankrupt soon over the Wii U...now folk's can't seem to stop praising them. 

 

I thought we were hating on them for their focus on mobile gaming? Man, I can't keep straight what the gaming hive-mind expects me to do. 

[LinksOcarina]

I thought we were hating on them for their focus on mobile gaming? Man, I can't keep straight what the gaming hive-mind expects me to do. 

 

Maybe that's the new trend in the end, who knows. You know me and trends in the end...

[DanteYoda]

I don't wish anyone failures, i just wish modern games stayed on track with their predecessors, Yes Origins and Awakening was great, all the DLC were great, DA I just isn't great sadly..

 

The topics, companions, story, mmo mechanics, combat all were hit and miss for me..more miss..

 

I hope Witcher 3 does well, i found Witcher 1 to be insanely boring, Witcher 2 was amazing though, so hopefully three is even better.

[AlanC9]

If we're going to start fellating pre-EA Bioware, then it's important to point out they were pioneers in the DLC business with the NWN premium modules, which went over as well as you'd think.

Right. Did Bio actually invent paid DLC, or were they just a very early adopter?

[In Exile]

Right. Did Bio actually invent paid DLC, or were they just a very early adopter?

 

I was too young back then to really have my finger on the industry pulse back then. Digital distribution of content on the PC was pretty rare back then from what I recall. I would imagine maybe MMOs did it? I'm trying to recall if Valve had DLC through e.g. team fortress or counterstrike. 

[Revan Reborn]

Well, you are wrong about that one.

 

1) I don't hate the idea of season passes. I am just calling spades what they are in this case. I've seen it all over the internet and it bothers me a lot how quick people are to forget, lest judge, something that's not even out just because of some wordplay. There is no difference in content in say, a Borderlands Season Pass, to Assassins Creed, to Witcher 3 in my eyes. 

 

2) Expansion packs are DLC packs in the end. Let's face it, a rose by any other name in this case because both add content to a game. DLC for Borderlands has been sold as in-store codes like Dragon Age: Awakening and it's disk. We see game of the year editions with Skyrim and Witcher 2, Mass Effect: Complete Collection, and so forth, that take DLC and turn it into extra content or re-released as a whole content pack, with or without the full game intact. 

 

So what is really the difference here? Length in the end? A DLC like Dragonborn could technically be completed in twenty hours. Awakening iv'e finished in full in ten. Something like Jaws of Hakkon it seems to be around 5-6 hours, while the DLC's of Borderlands 2 range between 7-8 hours.

 

Or content. All of the DLC's I mention above give you more mission, plot, environments, upgrades/weapons/items, characters, secrets, enemies, challenges and achievements. What's the difference in the end? 

 

If length or content is the actual equation of what an "expansion" or "DLC" is, it's as just as much of an arbitrary label as "JRPG", which is to say it's a bullshit distinction because there is no difference to anything else except the content and price range offered for said content. It is using a word to appeal to an ideal that doesn't exist because the terms are interchangeable. 

Just because you say I'm "wrong" doesn't make a true. Word of advice to you.

 

You would be ignorant of the difference then. Lets use ACIV:BF or ACU's gold edition (base game + season pass) as perfect examples. Both include one, small sort expansion, while the rest of the content is pointless fluff. This is Ubisoft's model for all of their season passes. I can't speak for Borderlands as I found that game to be incredibly boring. TW3's season pass, on the other hand, is offering 30 hours of content with a new area and stories to discover. This is much more akin to Shivering Isles, Tribunal, Bloodmoon, and Awakening, which were expansions.

 

Obviously expansions were before your time as you can only use current games as examples. This is part of the reason why CDPR is having difficulty explaining why their "expansion pass" is actually different because gamers, like yourself, cannot discern the difference. My advice? Play some older RPGs that actually have expansions. Then, you may understand what we are actually talking about here.

 

There is definitely a difference between JRPGs and RPGs... JRPGs tend to always be anime-influenced turn-based strategy RPGs with cheesy stories and stereotypical characters. The perfect example? Final Fantasy. RPGs, on the other hand, generally refer to the West with games going as far back as Ultima on PC. The two really have nothing in common.

 

You're pointing to CDPR's DLC model for TW3 as an example Bioware should follow, are you not?

If you didn't want people to comment on that, you probably shouldn't have put it in the title.

I'm pointing out CDPR's DLC model as something BioWare could take cues from, in other words learn and figure out ways of competing with. I never stated "hey BioWare, copy CDPR because they are better." That's essentially what some posters are suggesting and it's quite detrimental to the original OP.

 

Honestly, your definition of expansion appears to be "the large content packs that I prefer".

Again, how is JoH not an expansion by your definition? It has a new area, a decent amount of new quests, available at any point after reaching Skyhold (You'll be killed if you aren't a high level, but that's because the DAI doesn't scale levels and the same can be said of other expansions you've mentioned)

Again, I'll say it one last time. Play some expansions from older RPGs. If you don't know what it is, I won't bother telling you for the twentieth time. Many people, like yourself, are confused by the difference. That's part of the reason CDPR is getting heat for their "expansion pass" and why many seem to tolerate DLC these days, even though people hated DLC only ten years ago...

 

JoH isn't an expansion, for one, because BioWare has said it is not. Secondly, the size and scope of JoH compared to DAA are entirely different. Again, I'm not disputing that JoH isn't a bigger DLC, but it's not an expansion.

 

I don't wish anyone failures, i just wish modern games stayed on track with their predecessors, Yes Origins and Awakening was great, all the DLC were great, DA I just isn't great sadly..

 

The topics, companions, story, mmo mechanics, combat all were hit and miss for me..more miss..

 

I hope Witcher 3 does well, i found Witcher 1 to be insanely boring, Witcher 2 was amazing though, so hopefully three is even better.

Dragon Age Inquisition is a great game, I'd say. It just suffers from an awkward implementation of more open environments and exploration and some awkward storytelling with the main plot.

 

You thought The Witcher 1 was boring? You must not have given it a chance. The game gets extremely exciting later on in the experience. It's a bit dated by today's standards, but it is truly a gem and one of the great RPGs of the last generation. TW2 did improve upon it in almost every way, although TW1 was a bit better about relationships between Geralt and his friends. Hopefully TW3 is better than its predecessors in every way.