379 réponses à ce sujet

[ladydesire]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Babaghanouj wrote...

ladydesire wrote...
I'd love for someone from Bioware to post what it costs for them to make a one hour DLC, and how much they actually get from the sales of said DLC. If those numbers were known, I wonder how many people would still claim they are being overcharged for such content.

Facts count for nothing. This is the Internet, truth has no place! It would make little difference. They'd just find something else to whine about. Some people simply do not want to be pleased. The game and all DLCs could be free, yet they'd still ****** and moan.

ONCE AGAIN, feel free to read some of the many many posts that have already been made. It may help you to avoid putting your feet in your mouths.

Many of us aren't asking, in the slightest, that this stuff be free.

I know you haven't, and there are a lot of those that agree with you that it shouldn't be free; my mentioning this in this thread was to point out that there have been such posts doing it.

Several considerations for the cost of production have also already been addressed in this very thread. When you consider all the work that has already been done by virtue of the fact that there is already a 100% complete game and all the tools and foot work have been completed along with it, the whole "it costs a lot to produce this" dried up really quickly.

The problem with this is that the lion's share of the cost in DA is quite likely not in the game engine or toolset; it's in the creation of assets to use in the game, which does not change when talking about DLC.

I would never argue that they spend nothing to produce it, but, in yet one more way, DLC just doesn't compar to the original game. There is no way the rates of expendature are the same between the two. The largest expense they could possibly have would be paying voice actors to return to the studio.

I'm not saying they are exactly the same; what I am saying is that the proportion of the costs for creating DLC content is higher, due to the fact that there is less of a need for people to code game engine changes specifically for the DLC. Also, as I keep bringing up, we don't know how the costs are split (how much of the cost does Bioware get for each unit sold, or is it a preset price that EA charges them for each DLC, etc.) or how much it costs Bioware to produce.

[the_one_54321]

You know, for any DLC the volume of writing will literally be proportional to the length of play. And any item or terrain creation will be done in a system that is already well established. Not to mention that for the most part locations have been recycled for the DLC. I have to be honest, from a cost estimation standpoint, I don't see this running BioWare anywhere near the rates that developing DA:O must have.

[rob123971]

well the fact that bioware is a company and has employees who enjoy payment and get actors who probably don't come cheap is possibly a contributing factor.

[grieferbastard]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You know, for any DLC the volume of writing will literally be proportional to the length of play. And any item or terrain creation will be done in a system that is already well established. Not to mention that for the most part locations have been recycled for the DLC. I have to be honest, from a cost estimation standpoint, I don't see this running BioWare anywhere near the rates that developing DA:O must have.

Flat costs - licensing for example. Also team size for work involved. It's already been said that DLC have a smaller group of people working on it. Economy of scale again.

Lower number of units that can be sold - it will only sell to a percentage of your original product market. Thus to break even on set costs like voice acting and licensing you need a higher cost per unit.

Every other example of DLC I can think of has been done almost as a sacrifice to the fans. If it were profitable everyone would be doing it and would still be doing it a year after release. I've never seen any real evidence anywhere that shows DLC as being as profitable or more so than core game design and distribution.

Then again this approach to DLC (a year at least of steady releases, mixed smaller DLC and larger expansions through out all the way until DA2) is new. I can see the marketability potential - sustained market presence and it's created a large, solid fan base that should jump on DA2 like starving wolves. In a franchise, hit-driven business that is an excellent investment to make in a product. Can DA become a Halo or Warcraft sized franchise? I hope so.

[AlanC9]

The only thing I'd add to grieferbastard's list is management focus. Back at my old publishing gig we used to pass up projects that would have turned a profit just because it wasn't enough profit to keep anyone's interest

[casedawgz]

gnowai, they're running a business? who'd a thunk it?

[Rictras Shard]

the_one_54321 wrote...
........ ...............AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok......

Economic price comparisons don't work that way. There is an in depth discussion about it in the rest of the thread. Really. Feel free to read it.

Economic price comparisons do work that way. It is a matter of which is worth more to you.

Should I get Chinese food, or should I go to the movies?
Do I want that pair of pants, or do I want the video game?
Should I get munchies and watch that movie on tv, or would I rather buy a new book and spent the night reading?

And so on.

[the_one_54321]

@Grieferbastard
EA has been doing DLC for a while with The Sims. It hasn't seen much wide spread use outside of there. But that's just the point, isn't it. Whether or not we, the customers allow it to be succesful.

Rictras Shard wrote...
Should I get Chinese food, or should I go to the movies?

Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly.

Are you hungry, or were you wanting to wach a movie? Two completely different markets with different consumer behaviors.

Or were you thinking along the lines of "I'm hungry, so let's go watch a movie!" Because I don't think that makes much sense.

[Kalfear]

the_one_54321 wrote...

@Grieferbastard
EA has been doing DLC for a while with The Sims. It hasn't seen much wide spread use outside of there. But that's just the point, isn't it. Whether or not we, the customers allow it to be succesful.

Rictras Shard wrote...
Should I get Chinese food, or should I go to the movies?

Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly.

Are you hungry, or were you wanting to wach a movie? Two completely different markets with different consumer behaviors.

Or were you thinking along the lines of "I'm hungry, so let's go watch a movie!" Because I don't think that makes much sense.

Thats actually really on point!

ME1 was a movie and meal
ME2 was a movie
Bioware and EA advertised ME2 as a movie and meal

After you bought the package you ended up with "The Godfather" as a movie (thats not a insult by the way) and a bag of "Salt and Vinegar" chip (that is a insult for those keeping records)

Technically they didnt lie, TECHNICALLY.

[Feraele]

purplesunset wrote...

Coldcall01:

The arguement that people will use against you is: "If people want to spend $5 for 1-hour DLC, then they have a right to. If you don't want it, DON'T buy it."


However, what this fails to take into consideration, is that  Bioware could potentially  release the cheapest-to-make,  lowest possible quality content that they can for $5.

Then even the people who choose not to buy will suffer, because the company will have no incentive to increase the quality of the content at that price. A company could start making 10-minute long DLC and sell it for $5,and if enough people bought it, they will have no incentive to give players more content at that price.

It's kindof like saying, "if people want to spend $40 for snake oil, then they have a right to. If you don't like snake oil, DON'T  buy it."

This fails to take into consideration the fact that even the people who choose not to buy the snake oil will suffer because the salesman will have no incentive to start selling  a better quality product at that price (in this case real medicine.)

I tried my best to spell this out better at the bottom
of this thread , but I guess I wasn't clear enough.  

How do you suffer if you do not buy it?

'splain that one Lucy?

[Feraele]

the_one_54321 wrote...

You know, for any DLC the volume of writing will literally be proportional to the length of play. And any item or terrain creation will be done in a system that is already well established. Not to mention that for the most part locations have been recycled for the DLC. I have to be honest, from a cost estimation standpoint, I don't see this running BioWare anywhere near the rates that developing DA:O must have.

I think you should personally go to Bioware's offices, sit down with them and interview them on costs.   That way you may become enlightened.

Don't forget that each and every time they produce something..they have to re-employ those voice actors.

If you want a dlc for free...then that means they have to do zero quality in order to produce it.   No voice acting..everything exact copy of what went before, no new art assets, no new characters...no new story.

Because all the employees that produce these assets have to be paid.   Their overhead etc has to be paid.

Their advertising has to be paid for.

Five bucks is cheap.......in comparison.  

And yes I expect a company or business to keep making money on product they produce, unless it suddenly becomes obsolete, unpopular or whatever.

Thats how businesses work.   They also pay taxes.......its all about money.

So expecting them to all of a sudden go...okay we made 'x' amount of dollars on this game..NOW we are just going to go mad giving it all away for free....is irrational and unreasonable.

Bottom line...don't like the price? Don't buy it.   Buy something else. 

[Phonantiphon]

It boils down to this - $5 (approx £3) - is nothing in the great scheme of things, if they made a film of Dragon Age you would not be able to watch it in the cinema for $5, most of us had voucher code for some of the DLC when we bought the game, also there were the free bits in Journeys. Incentive or no; it was something that did not have to be done - if you want the extra bits over and above that, you'll have to pay for them.

What is the problem with that?

Just because EA/Bioware have made a decent wedge off the game why SHOULD they give you more stuff for free? Why do you think that you are owed it?

They are a business, they make a quality product which is enjoyed by a large number of people and hopefully they turn a profit so they make new bits. Fair play.

As has been said endlessly - If you don't want to spend the money don't.

[Rictras Shard]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Thank you for illustrating my point perfectly.

Are you hungry, or were you wanting to wach a movie? Two completely different markets with different consumer behaviors.

Or were you thinking along the lines of "I'm hungry, so let's go watch a movie!" Because I don't think that makes much sense.

Nice dodge.

Of course, you ignored the point, which is that expenditures of different types are indeed comparable.

[Phonantiphon]

Ladies & Gentlemen, I believe this post: social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/9/index/1263988/1#1265348 would be worth your while to read.
(I agree with it).

Modifié par bassmunkee, 17 février 2010 - 01:34 .

[the_one_54321]

Feraele wrote...
I think you should personally go to Bioware's offices, sit down with them and interview them on costs. That way you may become enlightened.

So expecting them to all of a sudden go...okay we made 'x' amount of dollars on this game..NOW we are just going to go mad giving it all away for free....is irrational and unreasonable.

Bottom line...don't like the price? Don't buy it.   Buy something else.

You're not saying anything that hasn't already been considered five or six times before. Feel free to read the rest of th thread where it all already is.

Yes, of course there are costs. The only one that will compare in scale will be the scriptors who need to be paid wages
or salary, the voice actors which will have to come back to the studios, and the licensing for consoles. Everything else has already been done. There is a 100% complete game already there, after all.

As for not buying it, are you people slowly mutating into a broken record? No [feces] I don't have to buy it. We know! That's why we're not buying it. We're not posting here because we want to come up with some imaginary solution for how we bought it and want it to be different. We're here because we want BioWare to know that we didn't buy it and why we didn't buy it.

And most of us aren't asking for anything for free.

SERIOUSLY PEOPLE PLEASE READ THE REST OF THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING. It just sounds stupid when you say exactly the same thing 50 people have said before you, and that has been responded to each time. Some of you actually post new thoughts when you've read the responses and responses to responses.

Rictras Shard wrote...
Of course, you ignored the point, which is that expenditures of different types are indeed comparable.

Actually, you're still ignoring the point.

Different markets have different consumer behaviors. People looking for a movie do not behave the same way as people looking for a cup of coffee do not behave the same way as people looking for a video game. The $:product ratios are all completely different, and they evolve differently. That's why they are not comparable. You get misleading results.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 17 février 2010 - 03:39 .

[SheffSteel]

I believe it's been adequately explained why the DLC should be more expensive than the game. That might surprise some people, but there you go.

I believe plenty of people have also posted to say that they're not buying the DLC because of its price. That should not surprise anyone.

It's all broken records.

[Feraele]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Feraele wrote...
I think you should personally go to Bioware's offices, sit down with them and interview them on costs. That way you may become enlightened.

So expecting them to all of a sudden go...okay we made 'x' amount of dollars on this game..NOW we are just going to go mad giving it all away for free....is irrational and unreasonable.

Bottom line...don't like the price? Don't buy it.   Buy something else.

You're not saying anything that hasn't already been considered five or six times before. Feel free to read the rest of th thread where it all already is.

Yes, of course there are costs. The only one that will compare in scale will be the scriptors who need to be paid wages
or salary, the voice actors which will have to come back to the studios, and the licensing for consoles. Everything else has already been done. There is a 100% complete game already there, after all.

As for not buying it, are you people slowly mutating into a broken record? No [feces] I don't have to buy it. We know! That's why we're not buying it. We're not posting here because we want to come up with some imaginary solution for how we bought it and want it to be different. We're here because we want BioWare to know that we didn't buy it and why we didn't buy it.

And most of us aren't asking for anything for free.

SERIOUSLY PEOPLE PLEASE READ THE REST OF THE THREAD BEFORE POSTING. It just sounds stupid when you say exactly the same thing 50 people have said before you, and that has been responded to each time. Some of you actually post new thoughts when you've read the responses and responses to responses.

Rictras Shard wrote...
Of course, you ignored the point, which is that expenditures of different types are indeed comparable.

Actually, you're still ignoring the point.

Different markets have different consumer behaviors. People looking for a movie do not behave the same way as people looking for a cup of coffee do not behave the same way as people looking for a video game. The $:product ratios are all completely different, and they evolve differently. That's why they are not comparable. You get misleading results.

Okay here's an example...there still has to be new artwork, for instance..for the next expansion.  New story board...

So you are stating nothing is different its already there?   I don't think so.   What about the new creatures created for the expansion..ie: the Children?

I STILL think you need to put your money where your mouth is..and actually go visit their studios...sit down with someone and talk costs.   Go through a day  as a pseudo Bioware employee..and just see what its all about.

I'm serious.

Oh heh..one other thing........just curious are you still playing DA:O or not?

Modifié par Feraele, 17 février 2010 - 05:43 .

[Feraele]

the_one_54321 wrote...

Sylvius the Mad wrote...
The seller wants to sell it for the price that maximises revenue.  This is based on a lot of factors, not the least of which is the price elasticity of demand.

There is no direct analog for this from the buyer's perspective.  The seller wants to sell it at a price buyers generally will pay.  No seller will sell a product for nothing, so that desire you describe (wanting the prduct for free) is nonsensical.

This is just plain wrong. Indeed the seller wants to sell it for the price that maximises revenue. What's the maximum revenue? All the money that the buyer has. Of course, that will never happen. Alternatively, if the seller were offing it for free, the buyer would not see to pay for it. The buyer would just accpet it, assuming that the buyer wants to have it.

The vast majority of the time, niether of these things will happen. So the buyer seeks the lowest price that the seller will accept and the seller seeks the highest price that the buyer will accept. I'm sure you've heard of the concept of haggling before? Or is that another thing you insist doesn't exist since you can't touch it? 

Its called "charging what the market will bear".

It doesn't remove the option of choice from the buyer.   So therefore I don't see where the problem is, nobody is twisting your rubber arm to buy..now are they?

As a matter of fact...since we know that dlc items (for now) don't port over to expansions...I may not be buying dlc ever again til this is remedied.

In this we have choice.   At the same time...I am sure over time, Bioware will come to realize that perhaps..dlc content not porting over to the next expansion, is perhaps a bad idea, and they will strive to change this fact.

[the_one_54321]

Feraele wrote...
Okay here's an example...there still has to be new artwork, for instance..for the next expansion.  New story board...

So
you are stating nothing is different its already there?   I don't think so.   What about the new creatures created for the expansion..ie: the Children?

I STILL think you need to put your money where your mouth is..and actually go visit their studios...sit down with someone and talk costs.   Go through a day  as a pseudo Bioware employee..and just see what its all about.

I'm serious.

Oh heh..one other thing........just curious are you still playing DA:O or not?

No one is saying it doesn't cost them any money to make it. But it's an hour of content in a preexisting area, and 90% of the background writing for the story has already been done. The cost scale vs volume isn't going to be anywhere near that of the full game if they have any concept of efficiency in their production.

I am still playing DA:O, because I haven't had the free time to finish it.

Feraele wrote...
Its called "charging what the market will bear".

It doesn't remove the option of choice from the buyer.   So therefore I don't see where the problem is, nobody is twisting your rubber arm to buy..now are they?

As a matter of fact...since we know that dlc items (for now) don't port over to expansions...I may not be buying dlc ever again til this is remedied.

In this we have choice.   At the same time...I am sure over time, Bioware will come to realize that perhaps..dlc content not porting over to the next expansion, is perhaps a bad idea, and they will strive to change this fact.

Yes, I know. We've had a rather long winded discusion about it in this thread. And other threads.

Modifié par the_one_54321, 17 février 2010 - 05:54 .

[Kalfear]

SheffSteel wrote...

I believe it's been adequately explained why the DLC should be more expensive than the game. That might surprise some people, but there you go.
I believe plenty of people have also posted to say that they're not buying the DLC because of its price. That should not surprise anyone.
It's all broken records.

Im sorry but it hasnt been adequately explained at all how DLC should be more expensive then the game.

I could go on for hours talking about law and the legalities and you know, Id be talking out my arse as much as those that claim it costs more to makle DLC. They simply have failed on every front, be it business practices or common sence to explain their theories.

FACTS (I know, how dare me) are it doesnt cost as much to make DLC. Writing costs and Voice Acting the same but thats where it ends. Development costs are a fraction of what it cost to create the tool set and engine originally. Also DLC is digitally transfered so there is no packaging costs or material costs, usually no advertising costs.

FACTS are it costs proabbly in the area of 1/3rd the initial game games to creates DLC so if the initial game can do $1.00 per 1 hour + of content (which it does) then there is no reason DLC cant be created at the same ratio!

Oh and as for developer costs, not sure what world some of these posters in but if you pay $500 for 5 developers, you pay $300 for 3, not still $500 for 3. Your costs for developers do NOT go up because its a smaller developer team being utilized. What a stupid and idiotic concept to try and pass off.

Amazes me how many of you "kids" try to pass fiction off as fact!

nothing for the DLC more expencive to make crowd been adequately explained, its the exact opposite as a matter of fact! Hell Bioware hasnt even tried to make that claim, only kids with no clue what their yammering about said that.

[DoggyDaddyX]

I do think part of this comes up because DAO is such an amazing value (dollar/hour) to begin with. The DLC couldn't hope to compete with that. The Stone Prisoner was a great included DLC if you bought DAO new and I thought Warden's Keep was well worth the $7 I paid. RtO's story just wasn't that compelling, but then I haven't taken the secret character there...so I could change my mind on that yet.



My wife and I collectively have completed 3 run throughs and starting a 4th and 5th...so I don't know how much that is, but I think we are over 200 hrs of play so far. Hard to argue with the best hour per dollar gaming value since I would say Civ II (and that only because I was a nut for the game). Beats movies, DVDs and cable TV!



Plus the DLC adds value every run through.

[Rictras Shard]

Kalfear wrote...
Oh and as for developer costs, not sure what world some of these posters in but if you pay $500 for 5 developers, you pay $300 for 3, not still $500 for 3. Your costs for developers do NOT go up because its a smaller developer team being utilized. What a stupid and idiotic concept to try and pass off.

Actually, it is possible the costs will go up.

For example, that team of five is being paid $500 each day. It takes them 30 work days to finish their project. The developer cost is $15 000.

The team of three is being paid $300 each day. However, because there are less of them doing the work, the project takes them 53 days. The developer cost is $15 900.

[the_one_54321]

Rictras Shard wrote...
The team of three is being paid $300 each day. However, because there are less of them doing the work, the project takes them 53 days. The developer cost is $15 900.

You're talking about efficiency, and unless they are terrible at efficiency, there is no way it's going to take them longer to work on a product that much shorter with that much work already done on it.

[SheffSteel]

This particular "kid" has earned a living from game development since 1992. You might at least consider the possibility that I know what I'm talking about.



No?



Let's stick with the facts, then.



Dragon Age Origins (DAO) cost more to develop than most games (in absolute terms), yet it is being sold at a lower cost, in dollars-per-gameplay-hour (DPH) terms, than the vast majority of games.

Development for consoles has fixed costs and variable costs (measured e.g. in DPH). Fixed costs are higher, as a proportion of revenue, when selling smaller products such as downloadable content (DLC). Now, for DLC the cost per sale may be lower than the full game (though non-zero since the platform owner always takes a cut) but the total sales of DLC will also be lower than sales of the game.

EA lost money last year. Neither the bosses nor the shareholders are happy with that. This state of affairs tends to end with studio closures and redundancies, unless the bottom line improves. How can they improve profitability? (I'm assuming here that you want Bioware to stay in business).

When EA execs look at the balance sheet for DAO and its DLC, on the one hand they see a main title that sells for less than its competition (in DPH terms), and on the other hand they see new DLC items that cost more to develop (again in DPH) but will sell fewer units. How can you be surprised that the DLC costs more in DPH terms?

[the_one_54321]

SheffSteel wrote...
Dragon Age Origins (DAO) cost more to develop than most games (in absolute terms), yet it is being sold at a lower cost, in dollars-per-gameplay-hour (DPH) terms, than the vast majority of games.

That's not my fault. They should have charged what it was worth. I would have been happy to pay it. The DLC is a separate product. It shouldn't be more expensive just because DA:O was less expensive.

SheffSteel wrote...
Development for consoles has fixed costs and variable costs (measured e.g. in DPH). Fixed costs are higher, as a proportion of revenue, when selling smaller products such as downloadable content (DLC). Now, for DLC the cost per sale may be lower than the full game (though non-zero since the platform owner always takes a cut) but the total sales of DLC will also be lower than sales of the game.

Proportionality should be maintainted. I accept a fixed cost, but I expect them to account or the lower cost per sale as well.

SheffSteel wrote...
EA lost money last year. Neither the bosses nor the shareholders are happy with that. This state of affairs tends to end with studio closures and redundancies, unless the bottom line improves.

I don't care. They need to figure out a way to do it that doesn't screw me over. It's that kind of behavior in the past that has so many gamers wary of buying anything with "EA" on the cover.

SheffSteel wrote...
How can they improve profitability? (I'm assuming here that you want Bioware to stay in business).
When EA execs look at the balance sheet for DAO and its DLC, on the one hand they see a main title that sells for less than its competition (in DPH terms), and on the other hand they see new DLC items that cost more to develop (again in DPH) but will sell fewer units. How can you be surprised that the DLC costs more in DPH terms?

I'm not surprised, I'm unhappy about it. And I am really unhappy that so many people are so completely unable to see exactly what you've just pointed out. It's a smoke job. They're trying to cover costs because they are really bad at making their money back. I refuse to take the hit as a result of that. They'll just need to find a fairer way.