62 réponses à ce sujet

[o Ventus]

But the problem is not "timing of a discount." It's offering a discount to a select audience and not others who are similarly situated in that none of them yet own the DLC.

 

The discount is being offered to everybody. You aren't barred from purchasing the GOTY edition under any circumstances. If somebody bought the base game at or near launch and never bought the DLCs, then they have nothing to complain about. If they bought the base game at or near the time of the GOTY edition's announcement or release, then they're probably stupid.

[London]

That argument really distorts the issue. But I guess it might work on people who are incredibly foolish with their money.

[GithCheater]

If they bought the base game at or near the time of the GOTY edition's announcement or release, then they're probably stupid.

 

Stupid?  Very "nice".

 

 

That article doesn't seem to actually relate all that much to what we've been discussing. Which part, specifically, is relevant to the topic?

 

from Harvard Business Review:

 

https://hbr.org/2007...s-who-hate-them

 

Companies have found that confused and ill-informed customers, who often end up making poor purchasing decisions, can be highly profitable indeed.

 

What follows is a cautionary tale. Some companies consciously and cynically exploit customers in this way. 

 

Companies can profit from customers’ confusion, ignorance, and poor decision making in two related ways. The first evolves out of the legitimate attempt to create value by giving customers a broad set of offerings.

 

In the first case, a company creates a diverse product and pricing portfolio to offer various value propositions to different customer segments.  However, customers benefit from such diversity only when they are guided toward the offering that best suits their needs. A company is less likely to help customers make good choices if it knows that it can generate more profits when they make poor ones.

 

Of course, only the most flagrant companies would explicitly seduce customers into making bad choices. 

 

Are your most profitable customers those who have the most reason to be dissatisfied with you?

 

If the answer is yes, the company is extracting value from customers who do not feel they’re getting a fair return and, in the process, exposing itself to a range of risks. A yes answer doesn’t mean that customers are up in arms—yet. Rather, it means that they’re not receiving the value they’re paying for. It’s only a matter of time before they look for ways to retaliate: at best, by spreading bad word of mouth—at worst, by suing and defecting.

 

Great CEOs recognize and seize opportunities; they also identify and eliminate vulnerabilities. The company-centric strategies described here represent a vulnerability—and any CEO focused on long-term sustainability would be wise to identify these strategies in the firm and begin dismantling them. Clearly, such practices can work in the short term, as the profits of certain practitioners attest. But as competitors emerge to exploit consumers’ pent-up hostility, companies that bleed their customers in the ways described here should expect a punishing response, sooner or later.

 

Risk reduction is a good reason to purge antagonistic value-extracting practices. But doing so also presents companies with an opportunity for competitive differentiation. In industries where squeezing value from customers is commonplace, a transparent, value-creating offer can exploit customers’ dissatisfaction with incumbents and drive rapid growth.

[o Ventus]

 

Stupid?  Very "nice".

 

Yes. Stupid. If there is a GOTY edition of a game that is close to release, and somebody goes and buys the base edition of the game that is nearly a year old, they don't get my sympathy. If somebody has every opportunity to look up a potential GOTY collection for a game but don't do it, that's nobody's fault but theirs.

 

It's the economic equivalent to standing in a fire and complaining that it is hot.

[Giantdeathrobot]

 

 

snip

 

 

I don't see how this relates to the issue at hand.

 

This is no different than, say, being able to buy a HD TV today for a fifth, if not a tenth, of what it cost when the technology was introduced. if you bought the game early, you got access to it, knowing that it standard practice across, well, the entire entertainment industry to lower prices or make bundles eventually when the initial sales dry up and they want to give products a second life.

 

I bought the game and the DLCs at full price because I wanted them now. That does not entitle me to any future discounts or bundles that EA/Bioware make with the products I already own. That's not how business works at all. 

[AlanC9]

Yes. Stupid. If there is a GOTY edition of a game that is close to release, and somebody goes and buys the base edition of the game that is nearly a year old, they don't get my sympathy. If somebody has every opportunity to look up a potential GOTY collection for a game but don't do it, that's nobody's fault but theirs.

It's the economic equivalent to standing in a fire and complaining that it is hot.

Assuming you can know that a GOTY is upcoming. That wasn't predictable for DAI.

GithCheater, is that the point you were attempting to make with that article? EA's DLC pricing policy is clear, but the GOTY policy isn't. Though this has nothing much to do with the substance of that article. It's kind of the opposite, since the unclear policy is aimed at the least-profitable customers, not the most-profitable customers.

[o Ventus]

Assuming you can know that a GOTY is upcoming. That wasn't predictable for DAI.
 

 

Why wouldn't it be? It's a rather major release from one of (if not THE) largest publishers involved in Western game development. I would be rather confused if DAI didn't receive some kind of special edition post-release.

[Ariella]

Why wouldn't it be? It's a rather major release from one of (if not THE) largest publishers involved in Western game development. I would be rather confused if DAI didn't receive some kind of special edition post-release.

It's odd. DAO got the Ultimate edition, but none for DA2 but that's understandable considering the toxicity of the game at the time. As for ME series, there's the trilogy but that doesn't come with all the DLC for all the games. ME Platinum came out with Bring Down the Sky. ME2 Platinum has no DLC. I haven't been able to find if ME3 did. They've got a weird release thing about this stuff.

All that being said, I agree it shouldn't come as a tearing shock to anyone that Bioware put out a GotY edition for the game, since it's not like it's an unprecedented move. It feels like people are reacting as if no game company ever has done this before...

[o Ventus]

It's odd. DAO got the Ultimate edition, but none for DA2 but that's understandable considering the toxicity of the game at the time. As for ME series, there's the trilogy but that doesn't come with all the DLC for all the games. ME Platinum came out with Bring Down the Sky. ME2 Platinum has no DLC. I haven't been able to find if ME3 did. They've got a weird release thing about this stuff.

All that being said, I agree it shouldn't come as a tearing shock to anyone that Bioware put out a GotY edition for the game, since it's not like it's an unprecedented move. It feels like people are reacting as if no game company ever has done this before...

 

ME Trilogy does have the DLC for the PS3 version, but none for the PC version. I don't remember off the top of my head in regards to the Xbox version.

 

edit: The Trilogy collection does not have DLC for ME3 on the PS3, if memory serves. the only DLC available at the time for everybody would have been Leviathan, and Omega would have been out for PC and Xbox, but not PS3.

[AlanC9]

IIRC Arrival also isn't included for PS3, for some reason.

I don't see how someone would think that a GOTY including DLC would be highly probable given this track record.

[Ariella]

IIRC Arrival also isn't included for PS3, for some reason.

I don't see how someone would think that a GOTY including DLC would be highly probable given this track record.

I'd argue that none of those editions were GotY, which implies a specific standard. Now if Bioware were to put out a GotY without some of the DLC or any DLC, just slap the name on it, I'd see crying foul since it wouldn't conform to an expected standard with regard to GotY editions.

Here's a bit I have been able to find summarizing the concept of GotY:

http://www.giantbomb...tion/3015-3825/

And while this Kotaku article isn't directly about GotY except for how silly it all is there's an interesting quote.

Obviously, we need a better term that encompasses what 'Game of The Year' has actually come to mean—repackaged games that include all pieces of DLC, as well as some updates/tweaks. 'Ultimate' edition is kind of better/less misleading, no?

http://kotaku.com/ga...illy-1640412819


I find that quote funny considering our own circumstance with the DAO Ultimate release and how it plays into this conversation.

All I'm saying is people really shouldn't be surprised that DAI got one, especially given how well it did for EA. And let's be honest, despite the arguments, this really isn't being marketed to those of us who bought the game already, so it's not, as some people are implying, EA giving fans the finger.

No, what really gets me is the whole upgrade bit which is pretty much a season pass discounted. I went to look at the Steam site, and they have the SoM upgrade for 10 bucks, now I haven't been able to find a similar upgrade for SoM for my Xbox One, but I may be looking in the wrong place. And if there is one, then by these guys' logic, WB just pulled a major bait and switch on me because I paid 30 bucks for the season pass.

Now I'm not hammering down WB's door for this. I have several other things I'd like to tar and feather them over, but not this. I bought the season pass, because it was the best deal at the time.

EA has never done a season pass for Bioware stuff, unless you count Cerberus Network, which had two story type DLC in Zaeed and Normandy Crash Site (though I guess you could also put Genesis in there) and the rest was piddly weapons and such. So for me, expecting any kind of separate bundle of all DLC kind of makes me go: "huh?" I'd have been more surprised if they'd *done* a DLC season pass, to be honest.

[GithCheater]

Yeah, this is pissing me off quite a bit as well...

 

I bought the Digital Deluxe version of the game on 31/8 and saw recently that they have released the GotY version with all the DLC's for just a tenner more than the, at the time, best version available....

 

Now, if I want all the DLC's I have to pay almost another 50 euro, which is more than I paid for the game in the first place.....

 

This, I feel, is bloody ridiculous.....EA needs to release a DLC pack for those of us that bought earlier versions as it feels like a kick in the 'nads for buying games within the first year of release :-/

 

 

Assuming you can know that a GOTY is upcoming. That wasn't predictable for DAI.

GithCheater, is that the point you were attempting to make with that article? EA's DLC pricing policy is clear, but the GOTY policy isn't. Though this has nothing much to do with the substance of that article. It's kind of the opposite, since the unclear policy is aimed at the least-profitable customers, not the most-profitable customers.

 

I was especially referring to someone like Kutchek who "mistakenly" bought DAI at a moderate discount less than a month before the GotY was announced.

 

He did not complain about his moderately discounted purchase of DAI, but rather complained about the undiscounted price of individual DLC.

[AlanC9]

But that's no different from any other price cut.