36 réponses à ce sujet

[Jimbe2693]

pvt_java wrote...

mcvxiii wrote...

Oh come on now EA is not respsonible for everything you do not like in the game. .

 Yeah, pretty much.

-They ruined Spore.
-DRM
-Pay-to-Play DLC

 On another note, I'm hoping that we'll see some free missions and such for people who chose to continue their games.

Ah, spore.... such great potential, but it was butchered and dumbed down...
Makes me sad just thinking about it:crying:

[ilikeicehockey]

Calibration wrote...

twitter.com/masseffect2/status/8601887217

I'm guessing it's the Hammerhead.

you're probably right. When you take the elevator down to the engineering floor. One of the things in the description (before you click where to go in the elevator) says hammerhead so that's probably what's coming out.

[zimm4973]

i really hate EA, almost as much as i hate microsoft lol, but I love bioware, also off topic a little I want mod dev kit so bad but NOOO would ruin dlc sales. (yes i am aware that if infact the tools were released would be so overwhelmingly complex that almo0st nobody would be able to use them for some time)( i think my mod fetish comes from to much time playing TES4 and Fallout 3 and screwing around with the mod kits for them) (for the record ME 2 is better then both of those games imo but unfurtunitly shorter) lol (sorry for spelling im to tired to correct any of it)

[zimm4973]

Modifié par zimm4973, 04 février 2010 - 02:53 .

[zimm4973]

RIP will wright's vision, may some great mind enact a lazures project for his ideas some day far away from EA

[Rip504]

EA is not the devil.(They own sports in gaming .)



This is really simple to answer.Why give it away,when you can sell it and make money?

Loyal fans will stay loyal if they have to pay for dlc or not.Their fanbase will not be affected by selling dlc,the number of dl's might be affected but if the sell a millon dlc's for w.e. price they choose,is better then 2 millon free dl's.Why don't they give us the game for free?Because they put hard work time effort etc into making these items,we should want to pay these ppl for their time,YOU DON"T WORK FOR FREE,why should they.

I support making money every way you can,ppl who don't are broke.

[Neodylliphan]

Rip504 wrote...

EA is not the devil.(They own sports in gaming .)

This is really simple to answer.Why give it away,when you can sell it and make money?
Loyal fans will stay loyal if they have to pay for dlc or not.Their fanbase will not be affected by selling dlc,the number of dl's might be affected but if the sell a millon dlc's for w.e. price they choose,is better then 2 millon free dl's.Why don't they give us the game for free?Because they put hard work time effort etc into making these items,we should want to pay these ppl for their time,YOU DON"T WORK FOR FREE,why should they.
I support making money every way you can,ppl who don't are broke.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. Maybe THEY don't work for free, but plenty of companies have and do release free DLC's and they make money and maintain a loyal fanbase. And yes, DLC's free or otherwise, always affect the fanbase. What it comes down to is: will the company make money? In one scenario, a company gives away DLC's for free (assuming you purchased the game), while the other company charges for DLC's. The company that charges will result in less players getting the due to lack of funds (or not convinced it's worth the money), and of those players, some will acquire it illegally. The other company has more people playing the game, building hype and appreciation while word of mouth travels faster because, who doesn't want to buy a game if the company regularly expands it free of charge? I'd buy a game if it got free stuff every few months, ESPECIALLY if there was a sequel in the making. That way, although they make less money int he SHORT RUN, when part 2 comes out, many more people will purchase it because many will regret missing out on the first one.

EA only sees things in the short run. They want to see money up front and if a product doesn't match their profit margin fast enough, they take charge and turn the game into something that will make money now, regardless of whether it lasts in the long run. It's an old business strategy and generally seen as the stepping stones to a monopoly: buy a company, then adjust it to maximise profits regardless how it turns out, then use that profit to buy another company. Repeat.  That's why EA has so few sequels when compared to other companies (generic shooters and sports games excepted), because their (series/original titles) tend to lose fans fast, or fail utterly to make new fans, because they tend to be horrible, or at least not as good as before EA showed up. Remember Godfather 2? Or Spore? Or Dead Space? All sold big, but not very many people ever talk abotu how good they were, or how they can't wait for a sequel.

Their "fans" either buy their games because:

A - they advertise the hell out of the game and make you think it'll be great
B - the fans firmly believe that the sequel will be just as good, even thoguh EA dug into it
C - there are no other companies releasing interesting games atm
D - the players haven't played enough non-EA games to know the difference betwwen good and mediocre-with-great-graphics

So once again: free DLC does not make a company lose money, it builds its fan base and EA only cares about fast money, which is why anything they give out for free will be negligible, like a small item or a brief side mission. The decent stuff will cost money and the sequels will always be worse.

Wait until Mass Effect 3 comes out to see if I'm bitter or if I'm right.

[Neodylliphan]

Sorry I somehow double-posted

Modifié par Neodylliphan, 05 février 2010 - 08:46 .

[Inverness Moon]

This is EA we're talking about. Free (significant) DLC when pigs fly.

[Moogliepie]

Neodylliphan wrote...

I'm not against charging money for DLC. I'm against releasing a single one or two hour mission, a new item or power, then charging $10 for it when you can buy a whole new game for $50 and get tons of items, powers and many hours of gameplay. It just seems disproportionate. You can run the company for the purpose of making money and still not try to squeeze your customers. Then again, maybe I'm paranoid. Also, I just love free stuff, there I said it.

You should get Ace Combat 6, you'd love it.

[Moogliepie]

As long as its not like Fallout 3, I won't have a problem paying for one big expansion later on. But don't release 4 different add-ons that together, nearly cost the price of a new game, and then screw those people over buy releasing a Game of the Year Edition.

[Neodylliphan]

And Fallout 3 DLC was worth it. There were a lot of problems with Crash to Desktop later on, but for the amount they gave, it was alright to pay extra. I'm not saying all DLC should be free (although that would be nice), I'm just saying that sometimes it's better for a company to just give a little, rather than expect payment for every single thing.

And it spans all business. For instance: when I get a phone contract, I look for the ones that have the least hidden fees, and have some sort of reward program for customer loyalty. EA doesn't reward loyalty, they charge extra for it.

Modifié par Neodylliphan, 05 février 2010 - 08:52 .