812 réponses à ce sujet

[X Equestris]

BioWare stated DAI was going to be approximately 150 hours of content, which I'd argue is an overestimation. Most of their "content" is just exploring empty environments and clicking on collectibles. $24.99 is the standard price for a season pass, and no other season pass on the market offers 30 hours of content.
 
I'm not discrediting Borderlands 2 at all. I'm merely skeptical because all you do in the game is run around with friends collecting randomized weapons and shooting things. Hence, how much "content" is there really? Again, I don't have the season pass so I cannot say for sure one way or the other.
 
Bioshock Infinite is a linear mediocre shooter on-rails with some thriller elements. Both parts of the Rapture DLC don't even come close to 30 hours of content. I don't have Dark Souls 2 so I can't speak on it. I believe Shadow of Mordor only had one story expansion, and I doubt it was 10 hours long as that game was actually rather brief. Metro Last Light is similar to Bioshock Infinite in that it's a linear shooter (actually very good and not mediocre) with some thriller elements. The DLC added some extra missions and you could play from different perspectives. It wasn't anything substantial in terms of what CDPR is suggesting.
 
Ubisoft is one of the big three... It may release more games than any of the other publishers. It's season pass is certainly a part of the equation and what they do is largely a standard for what many developers do with season passes.
 
Again, this has little to do with the season pass. I want BioWare to take note of the "expansion." The massive experiences which require 10+ hours that add plenty of new activities. I don't want just another quick episode of Shepard and friends. This is the distinction BioWare needs to see. That is why this thread is here.

Shadow of Mordor has two story add-ons now. And I find it hilarious that you offhandedly dismiss Bioshock Infinite as "mediocre". Also, it may be linear, but it's not on rails. While the two episodes of Burial at Sea aren't as big content wise, they are proportionate in size to the main game itself. I think you're giving CDPR a bit too much credit, especially when the main game isn't even out yet, much less the content in question.

[X Equestris]

I gave you multiple hours of footage, of which much of what is said are lies. SWTOR is the most ambitious game BioWare ever made and probably one of the most infamous ones they'll ever make. That is more than "one example." Feel free to use your inappropriate analogies that are in no way relevant to the point you are trying to make. This is not a debate. This is you trying to derail a thread you happen to not agree with. It's probably best you move on if you are content with the current approach BioWare has to DLC.

You accuse a man of lying, you better have the proof to back it up. Not proof that someone else in his company lied.

[Patient.Zero]

I'm quite confused, if Awakening was such a money maker then why wouldn't the EA or Bioware want to make something similar?

[Revan Reborn]

Shadow of Mordor has two story add-ons now. And I find it hilarious that you offhandedly dismiss Bioshock Infinite as "mediocre". Also, it may be linear, but it's not on rails. While the two episodes of Burial at Sea aren't as big content wise, they are proportionate in size to the main game itself. I think you're giving CDPR a bit too much credit, especially when the main game isn't even out yet, much less the content in question.

Bioshock Infinite isn't mediocre. The shooter aspects of the game is mediocre. Irrational Games has always been terrible at shooter gameplay. Why their games are so popular is because of the setting, characters, and the story.

 

Am I giving them too much credit? Or am I merely basing my assertion based on past practices with their previous games? All of their DLC and content updates for TW2 were free, and they added A LOT. Again, if you aren't familiar with The Witcher series, you won't appreciate how gamer-friendly CDPR actually is. That's an entirely different discussion, as this is meant to bring attention to BioWare about what will hopefully be the re-emergence of expansions.

 

You accuse a man of lying, you better have the proof to back it up. Not proof that someone else in his company lied.

Lying is a part of his job. He is an Executive Producer. He is there to make the game look good. It's not just BioWare. This is common practice for any AAA studio in the gaming industry. As they say, "it's nothing personal, it's just business."

[Revan Reborn]

I'm quite confused, if Awakening was such a money maker then why wouldn't the EA or Bioware want to make something similar?

This was established earlier. Compare an expansion to an MMORPG. Investors are wary of long-term commitments and "money sinks," especially when this isn't the base game. They want quick returns and immediate profit. Expansions are a long-term process and are not the kind of business model many large corporations will pursue. So again, it doesn't matter how profitable it was, it's the matter of how to develop it that prevents it from happening.

[Heimdall]

Lying is a part of his job. He is an Executive Producer. He is there to make the game look good. It's not just BioWare. This is common practice for any AAA studio in the gaming industry. As they say, "it's nothing personal, it's just business."

He's a producer, thus every word that comes out of his mouth must be a lie? All the time?

Wow

[Phoe77]

 

Lying is a part of his job. He is an Executive Producer. He is there to make the game look good. It's not just BioWare. This is common practice for any AAA studio in the gaming industry. As they say, "it's nothing personal, it's just business."

 

Again, the fact that he may or may not lie in general is not actually evidence that the statement in question is a lie.  

 

People continue to debate in this topic because they believe that you are using faulty logic.  This isn't anything new on the internet, but if you're goal is to influence the way a developer does their job in the future then they should certainly call you out on it.  

[Revan Reborn]

He's a producer, thus every word that comes out of his mouth must be a lie? All the time?

Wow

Yep. I said he lied all the time. Mind quoting where I said that specifically? What I did say was "lying is a part of his job," and more importantly, "he is there to make the game look good." I can understand how the traditional meaning of words can be lost in translation, but this is rather straight forward. You either haven't played many games or you are an expert wielder of the Straw Man.

[wolfhowwl]

I'm quite confused, if Awakening was such a money maker then why wouldn't the EA or Bioware want to make something similar?

 

We don't know if it was a money maker or a failure. No one outside of EA has access to that information.

 

I suppose someone here could pay for a NPD subscription but that would still only get us US physical sales.

[Heimdall]

Yep. I said he lied all the time. Mind quoting where I said that specifically? What I did say was "lying is a part of his job," and more importantly, "he is there to make the game look good." I can understand how the traditional meaning of words can be lost in translation, but this is rather straight forward. You either haven't played many games or you are an expert wielder of the Straw Man.

I'm just suggesting the same leap of logic you must have when you decided that this somehow proved he was lying in the specific instance previously discussed.

[Revan Reborn]

I'm just suggesting the same leap of logic you must have when you decided that this somehow proved he was lying in the specific instance previously discussed.

Not at all. My rationale is based on reason and precedent. I established that BioWare has knowingly and purposely lied to the public on a variety of occasions for PR purposes. It's not unreasonable to believe Mr. Darrah could be lying about how well Awakening performed, as the game received overwhelmingly positive reviews and sold on all platforms. Not to mention, it was subsequently released again via the Ultimate Edition which continued to sell copies.

 

I've also established that large publishers are anti-expansions for the very reason they are costly and a long-term commitment; two things investors avoid. Thus, we receive these shorter, episodic experiences that are lucky to provide us with 10 hours of entertainment priced at $14.99 each. No, there doesn't seem to be a similar leap in logic to the one you made. Mine seems to be grounded subsantially in reason based on a variety of levels and considerations. Nice try though.

[Giantdeathrobot]

BioWare stated DAI was going to be approximately 150 hours of content, which I'd argue is an overestimation. Most of their "content" is just exploring empty environments and clicking on collectibles. $24.99 is the standard price for a season pass, and no other season pass on the market offers 30 hours of content.

 

I'm not discrediting Borderlands 2 at all. I'm merely skeptical because all you do in the game is run around with friends collecting randomized weapons and shooting things. Hence, how much "content" is there really? Again, I don't have the season pass so I cannot say for sure one way or the other.

 

Bioshock Infinite is a linear mediocre shooter on-rails with some thriller elements. Both parts of the Rapture DLC don't even come close to 30 hours of content. I don't have Dark Souls 2 so I can't speak on it. I believe Shadow of Mordor only had one story expansion, and I doubt it was 10 hours long as that game was actually rather brief. Metro Last Light is similar to Bioshock Infinite in that it's a linear shooter (actually very good and not mediocre) with some thriller elements. The DLC added some extra missions and you could play from different perspectives. It wasn't anything substantial in terms of what CDPR is suggesting.

 

Ubisoft is one of the big three... It may release more games than any of the other publishers. It's season pass is certainly a part of the equation and what they do is largely a standard for what many developers do with season passes.

 

Again, this has little to do with the season pass. I want BioWare to take note of the "expansion." The massive experiences which require 10+ hours that add plenty of new activities. I don't want just another quick episode of Shepard and friends. This is the distinction BioWare needs to see. That is why this thread is here.

 

So it's just content if you deem it content? By that logic one could say any DLC of any RPG doesn't have too much content, since you just go around talking to people and doing Kill X or Go To Y quests, which is what almost every quest in a RPG is no matter what. Those fans of Borderlans (for instance) would point to the huge amount of loot and some of the boss fights introduced by X DLC and say it was well worth the price.

 

Bottom line is, not everyone agrees with you on what good content is. If your definition of expansion is ''good content'', it's no definition at all. Just an arbitrary monicker used to arbitrarily differenciate from DLC, which is bad. 

 

And again, TW3's DLC isn't out yet. Why in the blazes would we praise a season pass model for content that is due in months? We have no idea what that content is actually going to be beyond vague statements! Why is it put on a pedestal like that?

[Revan Reborn]

So it's just content if you deem it content? By that logic one could say any DLC of any RPG doesn't have too much content, since you just go around talking to people and doing Kill X or Go To Y quests, which is what almost every quest in a RPG is no matter what. Those fans of Borderlans (for instance) would point to the huge amount of loot and some of the boss fights introduced by X DLC and say it was well worth the price.

 

Bottom line is, not everyone agrees with you on what good content is. If your definition of expansion is ''good content'', it's no definition at all. Just an arbitrary monicker used to arbitrarily differenciate from DLC, which is bad. 

 

And again, TW3's DLC isn't out yet. Why in the blazes would we praise a season pass model for content that is due in months? We have no idea what that content is actually going to be beyond vague statements! Why is it put on a pedestal like that?

Not at all. I'm just merely stating from my own personal experience that there, in fact, wasn't a lot of content in Borderlands 2 from what I played. Again, I can't speak for the season pass. Clearly, you seem to believe otherwise.

 

I've stated what an expansion is. An experience that can be standalone from the main game and expands, improves, and adds a wealth of experiences for many hours of fun and enjoyment. This can consist of a new story, a new environment, new gameplay systems, and much more.

 

Lastly, and for the final time, this isn't about season passes. This is about the dichotomy between DLC and an expansion. CDPR has suggested they are going back to the traditional way of creating expansions worth their fan's money rather than just short DLC that BioWare has gotten in a habit of making.

 

We will know for sure when the expansions are released for TW3. However, that doesn't mean BioWare can't pay attention and be aware of its competitiors. BioWare learned a lot from BGS with Skyrim. Why should they not learn from CDPR with TW3 as well? This thread is ultimately for the benefit of BioWare because, if you didn't notice from all the games under my profile pic (the profile pic is also a dead giveaway), I'm a pretty big fan of BioWare games.

[Patient.Zero]

This was established earlier. Compare an expansion to an MMORPG. Investors are wary of long-term commitments and "money sinks," especially when this isn't the base game. They want quick returns and immediate profit. Expansions are a long-term process and are not the kind of business model many large corporations will pursue. So again, it doesn't matter how profitable it was, it's the matter of how to develop it that prevents it from happening.

 

Really? Does it matter how long it takes to make the money as long as you make it?

 

We don't know if it was a money maker or a failure. No one outside of EA has access to that information.

 

I suppose someone here could pay for a NPD subscription but that would still only get us US physical sales.

 

Oh I apologize I thought that was the basis for the whole argument. Fans like content like Awakening so EA and Bioware should look to make more content like it. I thought that would have meant that Awakening did rather well. 

[Heimdall]

Not at all. My rationale is based on reason and precedent. I established that BioWare has knowingly and purposely lied to the public on a variety of occasions for PR purposes. It's not unreasonable to believe Mr. Darrah could be lying about how well Awakening performed, as the game received overwhelmingly positive reviews and sold on all platforms. Not to mention, it was subsequently released again via the Ultimate Edition which continued to sell copies.

I've also established that large publishers are anti-expansions for the very reason they are costly and a long-term commitment; two things investors avoid. Thus, we receive these shorter, episodic experiences that are lucky to provide us with 10 hours of entertainment priced at $14.99 each. No, there doesn't seem to be a similar leap in logic to the one you made. Mine seems to be grounded subsantially in reason based on a variety of levels and considerations. Nice try though.

Okay, A: Saying "The company has lied before in some instances, so he could be lying now" does not prove that he's lying
B: Positive reviews don't mean good sales, and it's been established that we don't know how well the game sold
C: Its also been established that inclusion in the Ultimate Edition costs EA literally nothing to do and indicates nothing of substance, except that it wasn't a complete flop at most.

No, you said that he's lying because that's part of the job of AAA producers. But you have no proof that he's lying in this instance whatsoever.

EDIT: You do realize that adopting the most condescending tone possible won't make people miss the flaws in your argument, right?

[Giantdeathrobot]

Not at all. I'm just merely stating from my own personal experience that there, in fact, wasn't a lot of content in Borderlands 2 from what I played. Again, I can't speak for the season pass. Clearly, you seem to believe otherwise.

 

I've stated what an expansion is. An experience that can be standalone from the main game and expands, improves, and adds a wealth of experiences for many hours of fun and enjoyment. This can consist of a new story, a new environment, new gameplay systems, and much more.

 

Lastly, and for the final time, this isn't about season passes. This is about the dichotomy between DLC and an expansion. CDPR has suggested they are going back to the traditional way of creating expansions worth their fan's money rather than just short DLC that BioWare has gotten in a habit of making.

 

We will know for sure when the expansions are released for TW3. However, that doesn't mean BioWare can't pay attention and be aware of its competitiors. BioWare learned a lot from BGS with Skyrim. Why should they not learn from CDPR with TW3 as well? This thread is ultimately for the benefit of BioWare because, if you didn't notice from all the games under my profile pic (the profile pic is also a dead giveaway), I'm a pretty big fan of BioWare games.

 

Again, your definition is arbitrary beyond belief. Legacy provides a new story, new environment, new items, loads of new banter. DLC or expansion? Citadel has this, plus new gameplay systems (most notably the arena). LOTSB had the dossiers and videos in the Shadow Broker's ship in addition to the requisite story and gameplay. DLC or expansion? Dragonborn fits your definition, yet Bethesda has always marketed it as a DLC, not an xpac.

 

There is no distinction, not really. A DLC is a smaller expansion. That's the reality of it. There is no inherent quality to something being an expansion, there were ''expansions'' that were quite content light back in the day, such as Tales of the Sword Coast.

 

Not to mention, CDPR doesn't release one DLC, but two. The first one is supposed to be smaller, and I strongly doubt it will be much bigger than any of the Bioware DLCs that are apparently the devil and oh so different from pure-blooded real expansions.

 

And that's going to be my final word on the matter, because clearly this is going in circles. Bioware will maybe take notes when the DLC is actually released. For now, it's nothing but a season pass with promises. Nothing to get excited about.

[Revan Reborn]

Okay, A: Saying "The company has lied before in some instances, so he could be lying now" does not prove that he's lying
B: Positive reviews don't mean good sales, and it's been established that we don't know how well the game sold
C: Its also been established that inclusion in the Ultimate Edition costs EA literally nothing to do and indicates nothing of substance, except that it wasn't a complete flop.

No, you said that he's lying because that's part of the job of AAA producers. But you have no proof that he's lying in this instance whatsoever.

I've already connected the dots for you.

 

We know Awakening received overwhelmingly positive reviews. We know how many copies approximately were sold on all platforms. The only evidence to suggest DA:A "underperformed" is Mark Darrah, whose job it is to represent the game and build its image. If EA decides to give BioWare a limited budget that promotes the multiplayer game shop over making an actual expansion, do you really believe Darrah would tell that to the press? No. He's going to spin the story in such a way to justify not making an expansion.

 

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the game shop is the exact reason expansions are no longer happening, as there were no microtransactions in DAO. It's much more profitable to have players directly paying money to receive benefits in a never-ending multiplayer grind rather than making an expansion with a lot of content for a one-time purchase.

[o Ventus]

^ ME3 received a lot of high reviews and sold a ton of copies too, and that game isn't exactly loved by fans.

[Heimdall]

I've already connected the dots for you.
 
We know Awakening received overwhelmingly positive reviews. We know how many copies approximately were sold on all platforms. The only evidence to suggest DA:A "underperformed" is Mark Darrah, whose job it is to represent the game and build its image. If EA decides to give BioWare a limited budget that promotes the multiplayer game shop over making an actual expansion, do you really believe Darrah would tell that to the press? No. He's going to spin the story in such a way to justify not making an expansion.
 
In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the game shop is the exact reason expansions are no longer happening, as there were no microtransactions in DAO. It's much more profitable to have players directly paying money to receive benefits in a never-ending multiplayer grind rather than making an expansion with a lot of content for a one-time purchase.

And now we've established you're willingness to completely ignore any facts or logic that don't fit with your internal narrative.

I'll just show myself out then...

[Mirrman70]

I think the comparison of dlc with expansions is a bit of "the pot calling the kettle black". A modern expansion to me is simply a dlc with more content at a comparable price. Now its a different genre but I remember Warcraft 3's expansion was almost an entirely seperate game. Awakening on the other hand was full of bugs and didn't quite as satisfying as DA:O did. So I will be first to say that 1-2 expansions vs 3-4 dlc's doesn't make an ounce of difference to me its still me paying for entirely optional content.

[9TailsFox]

^ ME3 received a lot of high reviews and sold a ton of copies too, and that game isn't exactly loved by fans.

1)ME is good shooter, it is really great shooter from gameplay point. From story It's horrible and not just ending, Deus ex machina from the start of the game, basically only good parts  is Tuchanka, Rannoch what's it. Everything else is bad mess full of plot holes. Just ending so bad you don't even need to see how bad is rest of the game.

2)Why ME3 sales are good, ME1 and ME2, and marketing how great game is witch is majority lies.

[Revan Reborn]

^ ME3 received a lot of high reviews and sold a ton of copies too, and that game isn't exactly loved by fans.

This is purely subjective. The main gripe most fans had with ME3 was the ending more so than anything else. Most liked the game until the last ten minutes. Many also love the ME3 MP, so it's not really surprising that it received high reviews and sold a ton of copies. No game is perfect, but ME3 is far from terrible. It just took some creative leaps that some in the community didn't agree with.

 

Regardless, I have never talked to anyone (accept today apparently) that stated they didn't like Awakening. I also never suffered from any bugs in the game either, so I'm highly skeptical of many of these criticisms. If you were using mods on the PC, that may explain why your game was broken.

[o Ventus]

This is purely subjective. The main gripe most fans had with ME3 was the ending more so than anything else. Most liked the game until the last ten minutes. Many also love the ME3 MP, so it's not really surprising that it received high reviews and sold a ton of copies. No game is perfect, but ME3 is far from terrible. It just took some creative leaps that some in the community didn't agree with.

 

Regardless, I have never talked to anyone (accept today apparently) that stated they didn't like Awakening. I also never suffered from any bugs in the game either, so I'm highly skeptical of many of these criticisms. If you were using mods on the PC, that may explain why your game was broken.

 

"Purely subjective" is my point. You can't say that Awakening was good because of high reviews and sales, when someone else is more than capable of saying it's bad or that they didn't like it. ME3 was another example. As you've shown amply so far, any problem that one has with Awakening, you just handwave away as "subjective", and then you use sales and reviews as indicators of quality.

 

And yes, ME3 is pretty terrible, and not just in regards to the ending.

[Revan Reborn]

"Purely subjective" is my point. You can't say that Awakening was good because of high reviews and sales, when someone else is more than capable of saying it's bad or that they didn't like it. ME3 was another example. As you've shown amply so far, any problem that one has with Awakening, you just handwave away as "subjective", and then you use sales and reviews as indicators of quality.

 

And yes, ME3 is pretty terrible, and not just in regards to the ending.

While quality is subjective, what can be said by high reviews and good sales is that many people view the product as "good." The same applies to ME3, even if you perceive it as "pretty terrible." The former has evidence and support to back up their assertions while yours is merely your own voice and nothing more. Who is the random person the street more likely to believe? The evidence and recommendation that a product is good or your just because you said so?

[o Ventus]

While quality is subjective, what can be said by high reviews and good sales is that many people view the product as "good." The same applies to ME3, even if you perceive it as "pretty terrible." The former has evidence and support to back up their assertions while yours is merely your own voice and nothing more. Who is the random person the street more likely to believe? The evidence and recommendation that a product is good or your just because you said so?

This is the most illogical, inane drivel I've read in a long while.

 

"Quality is subjective, but it's good when it gets high reviews."

 

Do you have any idea how stupid the things you're typing really are?

 

Please, tell me you're aware of how much you're twisting the meaning of the word "subjective" to suit your agenda.