230 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

Isavald wrote...
More examples of pseudo-intellectual flaunting on a subject that shouldn't even be looked at with such scrutiny.

Every purchase should be approached with such scruitiny. The people who have a lot of money are the ones who are very thoughtful about how they spend it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You should only be comparing prices to other video game RPGs.

Why?
 
You've made an assertion, but no one's going to accept it as true unless you can support it.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
There is no such thing as a fair price.  There are prices you are willing to pay and prices you are not.  The concept of fairness doesn't apply.  I am, however, willing to listen to counter-arguments.

I am not discussing this with you again. I have gone over very explicit definitions with you in the very recent past and you simply refuse to accept them. It's an impasse, and that is that.

Here I think you're misusing the concept of fairness, and as such have rendered your complaints meaningless.

The results are painfully short bits of content for unreasonable prices.

I also think you're misusing "unreasonable".

Your rigid adherence to technicalities is more than I can really bear. And this is coming from someone that usually argues about semantics.

Fairness = the same explanation I gave before. Replace "unreasonable" with "poorly justifiable." There, are you satisfied now? 

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
You should only be comparing prices to other video game RPGs.

Why?
 
You've made an assertion, but no one's going to accept it as true unless you can support it.

Because it is the only type of comparison that will give you accurate and telling results. You don't compare the flavor of a steak to the flavor of a pear to determine which is worth more money.

[Monica21]

the_one_54321 wrote...
All of that is the developer and publisher's issue to manage. I'm not talking about project cost analysis. I'm talking about market cost analysis. Comparing game prices to movies, coffee, lunch, or whatever you migh have lined up is inaccurate and produces skewed and misinformative results. You should only be comparing prices to other video game RPGs. You should be comparaing based on historical costs, inflation, what little you might know about production costs and the companies historical reported profits. There is no "play" in this. It boils down to creating yoru subjectve value judgment from a list of objective market factors.

You know, I do understand your point. If you're being asked to pay $5 for additional content, then said content should be equivalent to $5 of playtime from the original game. The problem is that your working from your perceived value. Most people don't take 100 hours to finish a playthrough. I finished my first in a little over 40 hours. And even that perceived value doesn't hold water.

What the development time for each DLC? What is the development cost? What's the delivery cost? Most important, does the customer enjoy the experience? Speaking only for myself, I do. I liked all three DLCs and would buy them again. I found all three to be valuable entertainment purchases and will very likely play through them with each character.

Marketers can number-crunch all they want, but all it boils down to is that they'll charge what the consumer is willing to pay.

[grieferbastard]

the_one_54321 wrote...

All of that is the developer and publisher's issue to manage. I'm not talking about project cost analysis. I'm talking about market cost analysis. Comparing game prices to movies, coffee, lunch, or whatever you migh have lined up is inaccurate and produces skewed and misinformative results. You should only be comparing prices to other video game RPGs. You should be comparaing based on historical costs, inflation, what little you might know about production costs and the companies historical reported profits. There is no "play" in this. It boils down to creating yoru subjectve value judgment from a list of objective market factors.

Correction. The costs of the developers and publishers are what determines if a product is cost effective to produce. For example, DLC may have less of a margin due to flat licensing costs for release to xbox/ps3 that are absorbed into a $50 price point but make a considerable impact on DLC profitability. Economies of scale.

Nobody else has ever approached DLC in a similar format - DLC clearly has a different price point than game production and a completely different impact on finances. Game developement is generally a hit-driven business. You invest several years in a product you expect to produce a great deal of revenue over a short period of time. One, maybe two quarters. DLC is faster to get to market and by its nature extends the lifespan of the original product. The money we are paying for DA:O is not recouping costs for DA:O, it's paying for DA:2. DLC however is generating immediate revenue AND impacting the longevity of your original product in the market.

Yet historically DLC has been a short term, limited endeavor. Bethesda is the best example. They produced DLC for Oblivion for a few months after the game came out and two expansions down the road and then wrote it all off. Most of it, by the way, is priced comperably to what's already here.

To make a reasonable comparison you have to have comperable initial products. You can't do that with DA:O as there isn't a comperable market product. 120 hours of playtime with heavy voice acting and a well-written storyline and pretty clearly targetted at producing a loyal and long-term customer base.

So name a comperable product presented in a comperable price structure.

In the end though, again, being an entertainment product pricing is set by the market. The only thing the above aspects set is the minimum entry point for it to be profitable. Beyond that it's market demand. Which is, running full circle again, a matter of personal opinion.

[the_one_54321]

grieferbastard wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
All of that is the developer and publisher's issue to manage. I'm not talking about project cost analysis. I'm talking about market cost analysis. Comparing game prices to movies, coffee, lunch, or whatever you migh have lined up is inaccurate and produces skewed and misinformative results. You should only be comparing prices to other video game RPGs. You should be comparaing based on historical costs, inflation, what little you might know about production costs and the companies historical reported profits. There is no "play" in this. It boils down to creating yoru subjectve value judgment from a list of objective market factors.

Correction. The costs of the developers and publishers are what determines if a product is cost effective to produce. For example, DLC may have less of a margin due to flat licensing costs for release to xbox/ps3 that are absorbed into a $50 price point but make a considerable impact on DLC profitability. Economies of scale.
Nobody else has ever approached DLC in a similar format - DLC clearly has a different price point than game production and a completely different impact on finances. Game developement is generally a hit-driven business. You invest several years in a product you expect to produce a great deal of revenue over a short period of time. One, maybe two quarters. DLC is faster to get to market and by its nature extends the lifespan of the original product. The money we are paying for DA:O is not recouping costs for DA:O, it's paying for DA:2. DLC however is generating immediate revenue AND impacting the longevity of your original product in the market.
Yet historically DLC has been a short term, limited endeavor. Bethesda is the best example. They produced DLC for Oblivion for a few months after the game came out and two expansions down the road and then wrote it all off. Most of it, by the way, is priced comperably to what's already here.
To make a reasonable comparison you have to have comperable initial products. You can't do that with DA:O as there isn't a comperable market product. 120 hours of playtime with heavy voice acting and a well-written storyline and pretty clearly targetted at producing a loyal and long-term customer base.
So name a comperable product presented in a comperable price structure.
In the end though, again, being an entertainment product pricing is set by the market. The only thing the above aspects set is the minimum entry point for it to be profitable. Beyond that it's market demand. Which is, running full circle again, a matter of personal opinion.

It is a subjective value assignment, which does boil down to opinion. And that opinion should be based on current market standards and trends, not on random cost comparisons between unrelated services.

The only appropriate comparison is between this DLC experiment and previous market conditions. It's a compare and contrast situation, as they are wildly different approaches. I should clarify again that I am not averse to paying more money to the developers, it's just that the way in which they charge for that extra money is incredibly important. In a lot of ways that have put their own foot in it over this. The previously accepted pricing scheme for games was one of their own making and it mired them down in constantly increasing costs and constantly deflating revenue. That's not my fault, and I am not going to take responsibility for it by participating in wildly market inappropriate new cost schemes. And I am flabbergasted by the way these new price schemes have been so readily accepted by the market. It's like mass brain washing in a number of ways.

I'll take this the next step further and explain what I think would be fair. Games, across the board, increase in cost based on inflation. This means games should run in the area of $80-90USD at this juncture. If they were to do that (or rather, if they had been doing that over the passed 30 years like every other industry out there) they wouldn't have to worry about making up their profit margin with comparatively horribly priced bits of extra add-ons.

[the_one_54321]

Monica21 wrote...
What the development time for each DLC? What is the development cost? What's the delivery cost?

These are fair questions. Consider this:

All of the footwork for the game has already been done. The background writing. The setting. Most of the characters. The toolset. The engine. The animation templates. Most of the creatures and almost all of the mechanics. It's all finished. It's like writng a new module in the toolset. Amatures are doing this already. Have done so already with DA:O, giving fully complete new stories to play through.

It is digitally distributed. This means no cost for physical product or physical distribution. All they need is servers. Not free, for certain, but not anywhere near the scale of materials, disk writing, packaging, and shipping.

[grieferbastard]

the_one_54321 wrote...
It is a subjective value assignment, which does boil down to opinion. And that opinion should be based on current market standards and trends, not on random cost comparisons between unrelated services.

The only appropriate comparison is between this DLC experiment and previous market conditions. It's a compare and contrast situation, as they are wildly different approaches. I should clarify again that I am not averse to paying more money to the developers, it's just that the way in which they charge for that extra money is incredibly important. In a lot of ways that have put their own foot in it over this. The previously accepted pricing scheme for games was one of their own making and it mired them down in constantly increasing costs and constantly deflating revenue. That's not my fault, and I am not going to take responsibility for it by participating in wildly market inappropriate new cost schemes. And I am flabbergasted by the way these new price schemes have been so readily accepted by the market. It's like mass brain washing in a number of ways.

I'll take this the next step further and explain what I think would be fair. Games, across the board, increase in cost based on inflation. This means games should run in the area of $80-90USD at this juncture. If they were to do that (or rather, if they had been doing that over the passed 30 years like every other industry out there) they wouldn't have to worry about making up their profit margin with comparatively horribly priced bits of extra add-ons.

Holy crap. Let me start by saying that I didn't expect a genuinely well considered argument on the topic. Thank you.

I really can't argue the flawed pricing structure of games save to say that any sort of entertainment product (be it movies, games, books or the like) don't function like any other sort of product. You've got to have an initial pre-development investment just to take it to a publisher who then fronts the full development costs. By the time your product is generating revenue you're actually spending your money as a business on another product. Your capital expenses and development upgrade costs (moving to new software and platforms) have to fit into the process somewhere, generally at the expense of current projects. I.E. you're working on Dragon Age DLC but in pre-development for DA: 2 which will need some new hardware and training expenses to bring new people on board to move into full production. It'll be 2 years or more before DA:2 generates revenue so you've got to rob Peter to pay Paul to get there. As publishers (like EA) don't really have secondary revenue streams like many businesses they are in a perpetual game of catch-up.

Ideally games like DA:O will help break the old hit-driven model where you have to be constantly burning bridges on potentially great titles in order to drive your current product to market as a hit in order to start generating a revenue stream before you finish spending all the money your last hit generated. Not every game even meets costs.

Having DLC generates additional revenue that's realized in the same fiscal year it's developed and extends sales on a larger core product. Also DA:O sought out and licensed a tabletop RPG, not to mention two books with possibly more to come. A franchise generates revenue outside that initial two or three quarters after a products release.

Yet the market already struggles to support the $60 mark for xbox games. While I would logically agree that an upfront $100 investment and a set post-production support timeframe is a more 'honest' marketing model it's not one the market itself supports. Consumers don't work that way.

Cell phones are a great example. Subsidized handsets. You generally get a discount on a new phone about every two years. What isn't clear is that you're paying more for your service in order to offset that expense. Consumers don't want to pay $400-$500 for a phone in return for a lower monthly cost even if it's more profitable for them in the long run. People will choose to pay an extra $20 a month in order to save $200 every 24 months on a phone.

Credit cards. Most rediculous scam in the world. You're effectively paying someone else for the right to spend your own money. The market for entertainment especially is driven by a paycheck to paycheck budget.

Hence, in order for a larger, richer, higher-quality game to be cost effective to product you've got to stretch the revenue stream it generates out to recover those costs. Otherwise what you're really going to get is correspondingly worse and worse games as production cost rises while the markets support for entertainment products stays even.

[grieferbastard]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Monica21 wrote...
What the development time for each DLC? What is the development cost? What's the delivery cost?

These are fair questions. Consider this:

All of the footwork for the game has already been done. The background writing. The setting. Most of the characters. The toolset. The engine. The animation templates. Most of the creatures and almost all of the mechanics. It's all finished. It's like writng a new module in the toolset. Amatures are doing this already. Have done so already with DA:O, giving fully complete new stories to play through.

It is digitally distributed. This means no cost for physical product or physical distribution. All they need is servers. Not free, for certain, but not anywhere near the scale of materials, disk writing, packaging, and shipping.

Not quite true. Licensing costs apply to any cross-platform product. Also as DLC requires the original version to work you are guaranteed less sales than the initial product. Less sales equals a higher cost per unit in order to meet projections.

[NetBeansAndJava]

I love the cheap dlc. $5 is cheaper than a movie and the dlc last longer than a movie too. I just wish they changed the mechanics of the game also... breath some life into the old content.



Moreover, these dlc keep me interested in DA:O until the expansion comes out that should really add sizable content.

[the_one_54321]

See my problem is with the idea that it should be ok for them to grow their profit margin as a result of a poor margin on the original product. I have to approach this from the point of view of the consumer and not the producer. If I think about it from their point of view, the highest margin is the best margin and that hurts me, the consumer, the most. The best approach is for me, the consumer, to seek the worst profit margin for them, the producer, and let them worry about seeking the best profit margin. In this way they make sure to keep profitable, and I make sure to keep their pricing fair.



And this leads to all my ire over this DLC nonsense. DLC has effectively tricked the majority of consumers to look at it from the producers perspective and accept incredible profit margins. I, on the other hand, recognize just what is going on here, and am choosing not to participate. And when the topic comes up around here, I say that I will refuse to participate, and I will explain exactly why when someone asks.

[TheKnave69]

pastypus wrote...

If you guys like paying 5 bucks for about 20 minutes of content my hats of to you. And i have a nice bridge in the desert to sell ya.enjoy

I would rather pay 5 bucks for 20 minutes than 20 bucks for 5 minutes...

[Monica21]

the_one_54321 wrote...
And this leads to all my ire over this DLC nonsense. DLC has effectively tricked the majority of consumers to look at it from the producers perspective and accept incredible profit margins. I, on the other hand, recognize just what is going on here, and am choosing not to participate. And when the topic comes up around here, I say that I will refuse to participate, and I will explain exactly why when someone asks.

First, the majority of consumers are not posting on this forum, so we don't know whether they feel tricked or not. Second, there's a minority of gamers who don't view anything as trickery, but are rather interested in keeping good game companies in business. Count me among those. I liked Bethesda's Fallout 3 DLCs and I bought them because I liked the original product. I liked DA:O and want to see the continued success of this franchise so I bought those DLCs. It just so happens that I also enjoy playing them. 

[the_one_54321]

Monica21 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
And this leads to all my ire over this DLC nonsense. DLC has effectively tricked the majority of consumers to look at it from the producers perspective and accept incredible profit margins. I, on the other hand, recognize just what is going on here, and am choosing not to participate. And when the topic comes up around here, I say that I will refuse to participate, and I will explain exactly why when someone asks.

First, the majority of consumers are not posting on this forum, so we don't know whether they feel tricked or not. Second, there's a minority of gamers who don't view anything as trickery, but are rather interested in keeping good game companies in business. Count me among those. I liked Bethesda's Fallout 3 DLCs and I bought them because I liked the original product. I liked DA:O and want to see the continued success of this franchise so I bought those DLCs. It just so happens that I also enjoy playing them.

And that is a fair and informed choice, and I don't begrudge you of it. I, on the other hand, am more concerned with not supporting such business approaches, so that they are not viewed as successful and viable in the future. Also, while I cannot speak with certainty, I would venture a confident guess that most people just don't put the proper amount of thought into the purchases they make. As evidenced, even around here, they think "one less cup of coffee a week and I can pay for this easy." And they never have any incling of the mistake they are making.

[Tottenham]

NetBeansAndJava wrote...

I love the cheap dlc. $5 is cheaper than a movie and the dlc last longer than a movie too. I just wish they changed the mechanics of the game also... breath some life into the old content.

Moreover, these dlc keep me interested in DA:O until the expansion comes out that should really add sizable content.

if the DLC lasted longer than a movie, say at least 2- 3 hours worth of gameplay for the $5 charge, I wouldn't have any problem with that and would consider it fair enough

I do have a problem if it was only around 30 mins to an hour gameplay, thats not enough

Modifié par Tottenham, 09 février 2010 - 11:19 .

[grieferbastard]

the_one_54321 wrote...

See my problem is with the idea that it should be ok for them to grow their profit margin as a result of a poor margin on the original product. I have to approach this from the point of view of the consumer and not the producer. If I think about it from their point of view, the highest margin is the best margin and that hurts me, the consumer, the most. The best approach is for me, the consumer, to seek the worst profit margin for them, the producer, and let them worry about seeking the best profit margin. In this way they make sure to keep profitable, and I make sure to keep their pricing fair.

And this leads to all my ire over this DLC nonsense. DLC has effectively tricked the majority of consumers to look at it from the producers perspective and accept incredible profit margins. I, on the other hand, recognize just what is going on here, and am choosing not to participate. And when the topic comes up around here, I say that I will refuse to participate, and I will explain exactly why when someone asks.

Yet your logic is flawed. Show me the 'incredible' profit margins. Hell, show me 'fair' profit margins even. Your attitude that somehow any desire for profit is a desire to screw you is what puts a lot of game developers out of business and has helped create the market issues we're looking at now. Profit margins are considered, on Wall Street, to be so slim as to equate to an undesireable risk. Hence perpetual market issues for game publishers and developers without a rock-solid franchise. What you are doing is supporting the idea that the business should not even be as profitable as, say, the shoe sales business.

A smart consumer wants the production of the products they enjoy to not only be profitable but more profitable than another product or another business model. If you prevent larger, richer games like DA:O from being profitable then you are supporting smaller, less developed games. This is what makes the DLC model a brilliant one. You get to pay the same initial price as any other game - a flat buy-in so to speak. Then vote with your dollar via DLC and other post-production content to stretch the profit margin on games that you want to see more of. If a developer makes a game you don't like and don't feel is worth more investment then don't buy any DLC. It will inherently be less profitable than games you do buy DLC for.

Get it? The DA:O DLC model effectively allows for better games to be more profitable based on consumer response after product release. Currently you can have a crappy game that still does well based on marketing buzz not what it delivers in quality to the consumer. Also you have a hard cap of $50 on per-unit price for games to hit the market. This means that in the long run the games that will survive will be A) cheaper to produce (lower quality) or  appealing to the largest market.

I don't like the exact same games everyone else does. By having DLC for DA:O I am able to take a game that might otherwise be a 'niche' game and make it as profitable or more so than the next shooter a la mode. Hence my dollar is driving up the investment value of my prefered niche market.

Am I paying more for DLC in comparsion to the original game? Absolutely. Intently and knowingly so. Yet as an informed consumer I do so knowing that the gaming market is already drastically under-valued and hence my money is not being 'wasted' and that in order to keep my prefered type of game, the classical RPG with a very rich and well deveoped storyline that's good for a dozen replays and hundreds of hours of game time that plays well on my top of the line computer I need to fight against the buying power of millions of shooter kiddies on their xboxes.

You seem like an educated consumer. The real question is what sort of game do you want to be profitable? The ones that best appeal to the mass market or the ones that appeal to your personal preference? The $50 price point isn't flexible. The only way for you to add value to your prefered products is with something like DLC.

[cipher86]

If you don't feel the DLC is worth the price, don't buy it. If enough people are buying it, Bioware will continue to make boosterpack DLC with a price reflecting the content.



I personally have bought all DA:O DLC so far, even though I haven't had the time to play it all. I just really like the game and want to show Bioware my continued support, in hopes that it will provide more funds for future titles and make them better.

[the_one_54321]

grieferbastard wrote...
Yet your logic is flawed. Show me the 'incredible' profit margins. Hell, show me 'fair' profit margins even. Your attitude that somehow any desire for profit is a desire to screw you is what puts a lot of game developers out of business and has helped create the market issues we're looking at now. Profit margins are considered, on Wall Street, to be so slim as to equate to an undesireable risk. Hence perpetual market issues for game publishers and developers without a rock-solid franchise. What you are doing is supporting the idea that the business should not even be as profitable as, say, the shoe sales business.

Games prices should have been increasing with inflation for the last 3 decades, along with every other industry in the market place. It's not my fault that they didn't and I will not be the one that is held responsible for it. They put their own foot in this, not me.

grieferbastard wrote...
A smart consumer wants the production of the products they enjoy to not only be profitable but more profitable than another product or another business model. If you prevent larger, richer games like DA:O from being profitable then you are supporting smaller, less developed games. This is what makes the DLC model a brilliant one. You get to pay the same initial price as any other game - a flat buy-in so to speak. Then vote with your dollar via DLC and other post-production content to stretch the profit margin on games that you want to see more of. If a developer makes a game you don't like and don't feel is worth more investment then don't buy any DLC. It will inherently be less profitable than games you do buy DLC for.

This would be acceptable if the price was proportionate to the return. It is not. $2, maybe even $3 would be a different story. And yes, ever $ counts when holding businesses accountable.

grieferbastard wrote...
You seem like an educated consumer. The real question is what sort of game do you want to be profitable? The ones that best appeal to the mass market or the ones that appeal to your personal preference? The $50 price point isn't flexible. The only way for you to add value to your prefered products is with something like DLC.

I want DA:O to be profitable, but for the right reasons. The approach is more imprtant than the outcome, because the approach is what has the largest effect on the future market. I bought DA:O, and I would have willingly paid more for it. The DLC, as it is priced now, I refuse to support because of what it will encourage in the future.

[Monica21]

the_one_54321 wrote...
And that is a fair and informed choice, and I don't begrudge you of it. I, on the other hand, am more concerned with not supporting such business approaches, so that they are not viewed as successful and viable in the future. Also, while I cannot speak with certainty, I would venture a confident guess that most people just don't put the proper amount of thought into the purchases they make. As evidenced, even around here, they think "one less cup of coffee a week and I can pay for this easy." And they never have any incling of the mistake they are making.

That may be true and it may not be, but I'm not the steward of anyone's budget but my own.

[Realmzmaster]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. the_one_54321 feels that the DLC is overpriced in comparison to the original product. In my opinion I do not care! I have the disposable income to purchase the DLC and will do so if I see fit.

If the developer and publisher make money because of that more power to them. If I get the value I perceive for my money I am happy. I have been happy with all the DLC I have bought and gotten free.

In my opinion, the only thing that matters to me is that I believe I got my money's worth. If I feel I did not get my money's worth I tell the publisher and developer why? I give concrete reasons so that they can improve. I do not care about the relationship between full game, expansions and DLCs. I will buy it if I want it and my budget allows me to buy it. That is the bottom line for me.

[PSRdirector]

I like little downloads

[grieferbastard]

the_one_54321 wrote...
Games prices should have been increasing with inflation for the last 3 decades, along with every other industry in the market place. It's not my fault that they didn't and I will not be the one that is held responsible for it. They put their own foot in this, not me.

This would be acceptable if the price was proportionate to the return. It is not. $2, maybe even $3 would be a different story. And yes, ever $ counts when holding businesses accountable.

I want DA:O to be profitable, but for the right reasons. The approach is more imprtant than the outcome, because the approach is what has the largest effect on the future market. I bought DA:O, and I would have willingly paid more for it. The DLC, as it is priced now, I refuse to support because of what it will encourage in the future.

Game prices have not increased with inflation because the market didn't support it. It's that simple. Entertainment product. $50 per unit. Saying that somehow you're not 'responsible' for it is pretending that somehow you're not part of the market.

Show me an example of relative profit for DLC. You don't know if they are more or less profitable. Based on market comparisons they are less profitable as up until now everyone else has produced little, if any, DLC. Not more. If DLC was more profitable at this price point (the same one everyone else charges) it would be the market standard. It's not, thus without some evidence to support that it's somehow the magical missing revenue magnet that nobody in the gaming industry has ever picked up comes to light I'd say that DLC is not individually profitable so much as effective in extending the sales window of the original product.

As to the last part, you're a freak. That's not an insult, just an observation. The market, most consumers if you will, supports a hard cap of $50 on games and a lot of pretty FPS games for their consoles. That is what you are supporting. If that's you then great. If not then you need to seriously consider your position.

As to what it will encourage in the future it will encourage investing more money in rich, well-developed classical style RPGs in the supported belief that their fans are willing ton continue to spend money on additional content for them. You won't see DLC driven under $5 for the same reason $50 is the cap. It's a matter of percieved value. It's the same reason a lot of goods have to be priced higher to sell; if you set the price point for DLC under $5 people will feel it's not worth anything and want it for free - which of course means it's not profitable at all. If the DLC doesn't feel like $5 worth of content however you'll weaken future sales of your own DLC. I found RtO worth $5 entertainment considering how much I'll replay it. The market will determine if enough people felt so to make that the $5 standard or if that needs to change. What it won't do however is slip below the point of profitability. Another hard point on the price scale.

Fundamental marketing concept - the people who spend their money have more market power than the people who don't spend it. Your refusal to purchase the product puts you in the exact same demographic as people who'd rather play a shooter. You'd see more impact for your money by, say, buying Shale but not RtO because it reflects a varience in DLC sales.

Make sense?

[the_one_54321]

grieferbastard wrote...
Show me an example of relative profit for DLC. You don't know if they are more or less profitable. Based on market comparisons they are less profitable as up until now everyone else has produced little, if any, DLC. Not more. If DLC was more profitable at this price point (the same one everyone else charges) it would be the market standard. It's not, thus without some evidence to support that it's somehow the magical missing revenue magnet that nobody in the gaming industry has ever picked up comes to light I'd say that DLC is not individually profitable so much as effective in extending the sales window of the original product.
As to the last part, you're a freak. That's not an insult, just an observation. The market, most consumers if you will, supports a hard cap of $50 on games and a lot of pretty FPS games for their consoles. That is what you are supporting. If that's you then great. If not then you need to seriously consider your position.
As to what it will encourage in the future it will encourage investing more money in rich, well-developed classical style RPGs in the supported belief that their fans are willing ton continue to spend money on additional content for them. You won't see DLC driven under $5 for the same reason $50 is the cap. It's a matter of percieved value. It's the same reason a lot of goods have to be priced higher to sell; if you set the price point for DLC under $5 people will feel it's not worth anything and want it for free - which of course means it's not profitable at all. If the DLC doesn't feel like $5 worth of content however you'll weaken future sales of your own DLC. I found RtO worth $5 entertainment considering how much I'll replay it. The market will determine if enough people felt so to make that the $5 standard or if that needs to change. What it won't do however is slip below the point of profitability. Another hard point on the price scale.
Fundamental marketing concept - the people who spend their money have more market power than the people who don't spend it. Your refusal to purchase the product puts you in the exact same demographic as people who'd rather play a shooter. You'd see more impact for your money by, say, buying Shale but not RtO because it reflects a varience in DLC sales.
Make sense?

DLC isn't a market standard because it's only just started testing it's feet. It may very well become a market standard in the near future.

I know that I am an exception in terms of typical market behavior. I take it as a compliment.

I recognize percieved value, and reject it. It's a misperception in this case. It's a lot of people comparing it to movie prices and cups of coffee and not realizing the mistake they are making. The phrase "if all your friends jumped a bridge, would you do it too" is applicable here.

I have spent my money. I spent it on DA:O, and also Shale, considering that it came free with the box. I exercise both my forms of potential market influence. I spend where I think it's worth it, and I don't spend where I think it's not worth it. I believe that DLC is ultimately bad for the consumer, and so I will not support it.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 09 février 2010 - 11:49 .