379 réponses à ce sujet

[the_one_54321]

stubbieAussie wrote...
And I am happy to pay $5 for download content. I think that is good value. Cost of a cup of coffee or a schooner of beer.

Much better than paying $20 a month just to be allowed to play your game

As much as I agree that $20 monthly fees for a repetative game requires some kind of brain deficiency, everything about the comparisons you've made is all wrong. I sugest you go back to page 5 and have a read through the exchanges starting from there.

[Horace the Well Meaning Hybrid]

It's only $5 which is about what lunch would cost me to buy and an hour of DA > lunch.

[the_one_54321]

Horace the Well Meaning Hybrid wrote...
It's only $5 which is about what lunch would cost me to buy and an hour of DA > lunch.

Read page five and maybe page six.

[RetrOldSchool]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Horace the Well Meaning Hybrid wrote...
It's only $5 which is about what lunch would cost me to buy and an hour of DA > lunch.

Read page five and maybe page six.

In a way the game/DLC price vs food/dvd/movie/music comparison works, because it all boils down to personal opinion of value. It's not a good comparisson for discussing whether the DA:O pricing is correct, but neither is the game-time vs DLC-time neither. It is however a good comparison for stating your personal opinion of the value you put in your money.

At any rate, pricing DLC after the game time of the full game doesn't work neither (except on the personal plane ofc). Why? Because (as stated before) that logic would mean that the longer the game, the cheaper the DLC. I guess there is som ekind of backwards logic in that, but it can't be considered realistic or even "fair".

I mean, just because a gamer can get 120 hours the first run through of DA:O and then replay the game to get all possible endings, resulting in 300 hours all in all, doesnt mean that the gamer should consider the games DLC being worth 0.2$ (if the gamer bought the game for $60).

However (as I also stated in previous threads) a pretty good comparison would be to compare DA:O DLC to other existing DLC, such as the Borderlands, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Fable 2, ME1 etc DLC.

That's at least a way to try to analyze if Bioware is pricing in the same way as their competitors.

Please observe that it's not a way to define value though, because that's too subjective.
This is what I got in the Knothole Island DLC for Fable 2 for 800 MSpoints:
-A new region
-Multiple dungeons
-A new town with stores and NPC's
-Multiple quests
-New items and lore

Now if comparing content back to back with what I got for 400 MS points with RtO it was:
-A previously visited area that was a bit altered
-1 dungeon
-1 quest
-New items and lore

Now some people will think Knothole Island had a higher value, though IMO RtO gave me much more value.

Conclusion: Trying to convince people that RtO is good because it's as much as a lunch is as irrelevant as trying to convince people that it's bad because it's not the same gamehours/$ as the full game.

And, yes, that's me sounding like broken record....

[the_one_54321]

RetrOldSchool wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...

Horace the Well Meaning Hybrid wrote...
It's only $5 which is about what lunch would cost me to buy and an hour of DA > lunch.

Read page five and maybe page six.

In a way the game/DLC price vs food/dvd/movie/music comparison works, because it all boils down to personal opinion of value. It's not a good comparisson for discussing whether the DA:O pricing is correct, but neither is the game-time vs DLC-time neither. It is however a good comparison for stating your personal opinion of the value you put in your money.

At any rate, pricing DLC after the game time of the full game doesn't work neither (except on the personal plane ofc). Why? Because (as stated before) that logic would mean that the longer the game, the cheaper the DLC. I guess there is som ekind of backwards logic in that, but it can't be considered realistic or even "fair".

I mean, just because a gamer can get 120 hours the first run through of DA:O and then replay the game to get all possible endings, resulting in 300 hours all in all, doesnt mean that the gamer should consider the games DLC being worth 0.2$ (if the gamer bought the game for $60).

However (as I also stated in previous threads) a pretty good comparison would be to compare DA:O DLC to other existing DLC, such as the Borderlands, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Fable 2, ME1 etc DLC.

That's at least a way to try to analyze if Bioware is pricing in the same way as their competitors.

Please observe that it's not a way to define value though, because that's too subjective.
This is what I got in the Knothole Island DLC for Fable 2 for 800 MSpoints:
-A new region
-Multiple dungeons
-A new town with stores and NPC's
-Multiple quests
-New items and lore

Now if comparing content back to back with what I got for 400 MS points with RtO it was:
-A previously visited area that was a bit altered
-1 dungeon
-1 quest
-New items and lore

Now some people will think Knothole Island had a higher value, though IMO RtO gave me much more value.

Conclusion: Trying to convince people that RtO is good because it's as much as a lunch is as irrelevant as trying to convince people that it's bad because it's not the same gamehours/$ as the full game.

And, yes, that's me sounding like broken record....

Note that my first post in the thread says cost vs benefit analysis is much more complicated than $ vs hours.

It seems you made a well informed decision and were happy with what you were got. My valuation was significantly different. That's much better than what 70-90% of the other game owners can say about it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

I ask again: Even if we accept that your theory of a fair price makes any sense at all, what difference does it make if buyers and sellers (particularly sellers) have no incentive to price their products based on that fair price? Since they maximise revenue by sticking with the market price, they'll keep doing that. Asking them to do something that isn't in their best interests seems pointless.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Since they maximise revenue by sticking with the market price, they'll keep doing that. Asking them to do something that isn't in their best interests seems pointless.

It's a balancing act, whereby together they determine the accepted market price.

Basically, any changes they make will be based on consumer response. Market price is "set" but it may not be deemed acceptable by the paying public. It'll be related ot what they target as their expected additional sales percentage and if they can meet that target with the current price scheme.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 15 février 2010 - 06:18 .

[Rictras Shard]

the_one_54321 wrote...


Basically, any changes they make will be based on consumer response. Market price is "set" but it may not be deemed acceptable by the paying public. It'll be related ot what they target as their expected additional sales percentage and if they can meet that target with the current price scheme.

You seem to be a fairly intelligent person. Surely you realize that the majority of people find the DLC prices acceptable, and that you lost your argument before you even began it.

[Sylvius the Mad]

More importantly, the marginal impact of one person's preferences is effectively zero.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...
 Market price is "set" but it may not be deemed acceptable by the paying public. It'll be related ot what they target as their expected additional sales percentage and if they can meet that target with the current price scheme. 

I think you and Sylvius aren't using "market price" to mean the same thing at all.

Sylvius, do you mean equilibrium price? Actually, since the DLC market is a monopoly, more or less, I don't think that's the right concept to apply anyway. I forget what the term for a monopolist's chosen price is.

Also note that EA and Bioware both have an interest in maintaining relatively high prices for DLC regardless of the economics of a particular product. Sell RtO for $1 or $2 and they'll have trouble ever charging more in the future.

Modifié par AlanC9, 15 février 2010 - 09:01 .

[the_one_54321]

Rictras Shard wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
Basically, any changes they make will be based on consumer response. Market price is "set" but it may not be deemed acceptable by the paying public. It'll be related ot what they target as their expected additional sales percentage and if they can meet that target with the current price scheme.

You seem to be a fairly intelligent person. Surely you realize that the majority of people find the DLC prices acceptable, and that you lost your argument before you even began it.

I hold that most of those people are irrisponsible spenders, as most consumers everywhere tend to be. In that context, I don't feel I've "lost" the argument. In reality it's not strictly a matter of right or wrong, anyway.

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
More importantly, the marginal impact of one person's preferences is effectively zero.

You're repeating what someone said a few pages back. Response is on page 6, I think.

[Sylvius the Mad]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius, do you mean equilibrium price? Actually, since the DLC market is a monopoly, more or less, I don't think that's the right concept to apply anyway. I forget what the term for a monopolist's chosen price is.

But it's a luxury item.  The presence of a monopoly only means that there is no competition to drive down the price (which explains why the $/gameplay ratio is higher for DLC), and so the only factor at play is whether the consumers are willing to pay it.

Since the seller always wants to maximise revenue, the price goes up until it reaches a level that drives down sales.  With less price elasticity in the sales numbers, the price can go very high.

the_one_54321 wrote...

You're repeating what someone said a few pages back. Response is on page 6, I think.

Page 6 was not a productive discussion.  You should probably stop directing people there.

[Bann Duncan]

corebit wrote...

OP you forgot to substract all the costs (development, marketing, staff) from that $200 million.
You DO know the difference between revenue and actual profit, do you??

hahaha no. The idiot actually posted with full confidence that he reached his number by multiplying the price by units sold.

[the_one_54321]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...

Page 6 was not a productive discussion. You should probably stop directing people there.

Sorry, it was page 8. Here is the post.

[AlanC9]

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Since the seller always wants to maximise revenue, the price goes up until it reaches a level that drives down sales.  With less price elasticity in the sales numbers, the price can go very high.

Yeah -- I'm just not sure what the term for that price is. "Monopoly price"? "Market price" just means whatever the price is at a particular point in time. Eventually that converges with whatever the economic fundamentals would have it be, but we're early enough in the development of the DLC market that there's no reason to think that the current market price means all that much. 

Come to think of it, I wonder if the price for Stone Prisoner is something of an experiment to see what the DLC market will bear. It's a safe one to fool with; you can't tick off the serious Bio fans since they bought DA new in the first place.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

I hold that most of those people are irrisponsible spenders, as most consumers everywhere tend to be. In that context, I don't feel I've "lost" the argument. In reality it's not strictly a matter of right or wrong, anyway.

Irresponsible probably isn't the best word here -- not particularly caring about the value of cheap things is rational for people who are rich enough.

[the_one_54321]

AlanC9 wrote...

the_one_54321 wrote...
I hold that most of those people are irrisponsible spenders, as most consumers everywhere tend to be. In that context, I don't feel I've "lost" the argument. In reality it's not strictly a matter of right or wrong, anyway.

Irresponsible probably isn't the best word here -- not particularly caring about the value of cheap things is rational for people who are rich enough.

Heedless, then?

[ladydesire]

AlanC9 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
Since the seller always wants to maximise revenue, the price goes up until it reaches a level that drives down sales.  With less price elasticity in the sales numbers, the price can go very high.

Yeah -- I'm just not sure what the term for that price is. "Monopoly price"? "Market price" just means whatever the price is at a particular point in time. Eventually that converges with whatever the economic fundamentals would have it be, but we're early enough in the development of the DLC market that there's no reason to think that the current market price means all that much.

To me, "Market Price" is pretty close to the mark; while it's true that they don't have competition on the consoles since modders can't put their stuff on there legally yet (likely never for Xbox 360), they have to consider the PC toolset users and what they can make available for the PC/Mac version of the game when pricing their content.

Come to think of it, I wonder if the price for Stone Prisoner is something of an experiment to see what the DLC market will bear. It's a safe one to fool with; you can't tick off the serious Bio fans since they bought DA new in the first place.

I think Stone Prisoner is the exception, since it contains more content than Warden's Keep and Return to Ostagar combined.

[nubbers666]

greed makes the world such a lovely place for the poor



doubt they care enough so long as there is pepole willing to spend they will continue to be greedy

[Babaghanouj]

There's greed involved, but it's mostly going the other way...

[DragonDefender]

Squeelookle wrote...

Topic title causes rantage to me. Why bother yourself equating price to length? It does nothing and accomplishes even less. BioWare originally wanted to release it for $5, then dropped it by $1. Then with the amount of bugfixing they had to do, they HAD to bump it back to original price. Not because they WANTED to, but because the DLC teams were being stretched and stressed to fix what they broke. YOU try developing professional DLC and see how much YOU enjoy doing it for free. And then see if you still can **** like this about it afterward. Even *laughs at you* 1 Hour takes a lot of effort to organise with the Vocals and planning and what will actually interest players. This kind of garbage, ie "$5 for 1Hr? NO tnx!" makes me want to rip off someone's head and throw it against my wall until it bursts. That's how pissed off this kind of trash topic makes me in general. I'm more than happy to pay the price for it. €5 isn't that much in the long run. Though it should be €3.67 for an equal price about now. You claim that $5 is too much? How about $6.80? That make you feel better? Because that's exactly (today) how much Europeans are being forced to pay for the DLC if they want it. Perhaps that may grant you some perspective on this matter.

* Picks up a stick* Ok I want to beat this dead horse one more time.

 To begin with noone is asking for anything free, what they are saying is make my 5$ opp. cost worth the investment. Some people are in a financial situation where all the money they have is 20$ a month to spend on lesuire activities, well at 5$ thats a quarter of their monthly allocation of funds for said activities. I cant say I feel that pinch but having been in a tight financial situation when I was younger I can see it from their view point. However flaming someone for that view point really shows a maturity level of a teenager.

 As far as $6.80 for what Americans are paying $5.00 for well noone asked anyone in Europe to join the EU, yeah artificial hyper inflation is a pain. But that is a political discusion that we can carry over into messages. *Sorry Euro guys and gals I had to make one dig at ya*. But much love to ya.

[DragonDefender]

Squeelookle wrote...

Topic title causes rantage to me. Why bother yourself equating price to length? It does nothing and accomplishes even less. BioWare originally wanted to release it for $5, then dropped it by $1. Then with the amount of bugfixing they had to do, they HAD to bump it back to original price. Not because they WANTED to, but because the DLC teams were being stretched and stressed to fix what they broke. YOU try developing professional DLC and see how much YOU enjoy doing it for free. And then see if you still can **** like this about it afterward. Even *laughs at you* 1 Hour takes a lot of effort to organise with the Vocals and planning and what will actually interest players. This kind of garbage, ie "$5 for 1Hr? NO tnx!" makes me want to rip off someone's head and throw it against my wall until it bursts. That's how pissed off this kind of trash topic makes me in general. I'm more than happy to pay the price for it. €5 isn't that much in the long run. Though it should be €3.67 for an equal price about now. You claim that $5 is too much? How about $6.80? That make you feel better? Because that's exactly (today) how much Europeans are being forced to pay for the DLC if they want it. Perhaps that may grant you some perspective on this matter.

* Picks up a stick* Ok I want to beat this dead horse one more time.

 To begin with noone is asking for anything free, what they are saying is make my 5$ opp. cost worth the investment. Some people are in a financial situation where all the money they have is 20$ a month to spend on lesuire activities, well at 5$ thats a quarter of their monthly allocation of funds for said activities. I cant say I feel that pinch but having been in a tight financial situation when I was younger I can see it from their view point. However flaming someone for that view point really shows a maturity level of a teenager.

 As far as $6.80 for what Americans are paying $5.00 for well noone asked anyone in Europe to join the EU, yeah artificial hyper inflation is a pain. But that is a political discusion that we can carry over into messages. *Sorry Euro guys and gals I had to make one dig at ya*. But much love to ya.

[DragonDefender]

Squeelookle wrote...

Topic title causes rantage to me. Why bother yourself equating price to length? It does nothing and accomplishes even less. BioWare originally wanted to release it for $5, then dropped it by $1. Then with the amount of bugfixing they had to do, they HAD to bump it back to original price. Not because they WANTED to, but because the DLC teams were being stretched and stressed to fix what they broke. YOU try developing professional DLC and see how much YOU enjoy doing it for free. And then see if you still can **** like this about it afterward. Even *laughs at you* 1 Hour takes a lot of effort to organise with the Vocals and planning and what will actually interest players. This kind of garbage, ie "$5 for 1Hr? NO tnx!" makes me want to rip off someone's head and throw it against my wall until it bursts. That's how pissed off this kind of trash topic makes me in general. I'm more than happy to pay the price for it. €5 isn't that much in the long run. Though it should be €3.67 for an equal price about now. You claim that $5 is too much? How about $6.80? That make you feel better? Because that's exactly (today) how much Europeans are being forced to pay for the DLC if they want it. Perhaps that may grant you some perspective on this matter.

* Picks up a stick* Ok I want to beat this dead horse one more time.

 To begin with noone is asking for anything free, what they are saying is make my 5$ opp. cost worth the investment. Some people are in a financial situation where all the money they have is 20$ a month to spend on lesuire activities, well at 5$ thats a quarter of their monthly allocation of funds for said activities. I cant say I feel that pinch but having been in a tight financial situation when I was younger I can see it from their view point. However flaming someone for that view point really shows a maturity level of a teenager.

 As far as $6.80 for what Americans are paying $5.00 for well noone asked anyone in Europe to join the EU, yeah artificial hyper inflation is a pain. But that is a political discusion that we can carry over into messages. *Sorry Euro guys and gals I had to make one dig at ya*. But much love to ya.

[AlanC9]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Heedless, then?

I guess so. This isn't the easiest concept to get across in English. 

@ ladydesire: it's just that "market price " is a term of art. The worst thing about economics jargon is that the terms penetrate the language while leaving their meanings behind. That's what I meant upthread; Sylvius and the_one_54321 didn't really have a dispute about how pricing works in this market -- though I suspect they might have different perceptions of what Bioware's prices should actually be.

[Phonantiphon]

Oh I wanna go too! :OD

Personally if you don't want to pay for it then don't. I think DLC is a great idea and well worth it. Besides, why should you get something for nothing? Neither EA nor Bioware owes you anything. Nobody forced you to buy the game and nobody is forcing you to buy the DLC.

I really don't see what the big deal is tbh.