791 réponses à ce sujet

[TJSolo]

RiouHotaru wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

"I just see a $2 DLC with 3 skins - something trivial with a trivial price."

A wonderful view EA is counting on.
Another thing EA is counting on is customers that lack addition skills.

Why is it when something is completely optional and totally within YOUR FREE WILL to buy people throw hissy fits?  No, I'm serious.  Everyone in this thread thinks that its cool to insult anyone who wants to buy it.

I mean yes, it's just 2 dollars.  Over the long term it might add up, but then so does buying any optional luxury items, like eating take out instead of cooking a meal.  You'd probably save more money never eating another take-out burger again than on the ME2 DLC.  If you're going to use this whole "mob mentality" then be sure to mention the part where it's entirely up to the consumer whether they want to purchase it or not, based on a price/reward.

If you like the skins, and the price is reasonable, then you'll buy it.  If you don't like the skins, or the cost is not reasonable, you won't buy it.

/Thread

There is no "might addup" it will add up. That is why it is being done this way to make it appear to shortsighted people that that amount is insignificant. The way the ME2 DLC is being rationed, if I use you burger example would be buying a cheeseburger, eating half of it and then going to buy fries one fry at a time.

[Darth Drago]

Mercuron wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

"I just see a $2 DLC with 3 skins - something trivial with a trivial price."

A wonderful view EA is counting on.
Another thing EA is counting on is customers that lack addition skills.

Dude really ... the fact that there MAY be some additional DLCs of this kind that MAY all add up to a grand total of $8 in however long ... isn't reasonable grounds to conclude evil schemes and mustache-twirling to be afoot, in my opinion.

Here is an example of EA at its best when they nickel and dime you to death that I posted several pages back. http://social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/103/index/1805409/6#1807377

[RiouHotaru]

 

TJSolo wrote...

RiouHotaru wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

"I just see a $2 DLC with 3 skins - something trivial with a trivial price."

A wonderful view EA is counting on.
Another thing EA is counting on is customers that lack addition skills.

Why is it when something is completely optional and totally within YOUR FREE WILL to buy people throw hissy fits?  No, I'm serious.  Everyone in this thread thinks that its cool to insult anyone who wants to buy it.

I mean yes, it's just 2 dollars.  Over the long term it might add up, but then so does buying any optional luxury items, like eating take out instead of cooking a meal.  You'd probably save more money never eating another take-out burger again than on the ME2 DLC.  If you're going to use this whole "mob mentality" then be sure to mention the part where it's entirely up to the consumer whether they want to purchase it or not, based on a price/reward.

If you like the skins, and the price is reasonable, then you'll buy it.  If you don't like the skins, or the cost is not reasonable, you won't buy it.

/Thread

There is no "might addup" it will add up. That is why it is being done this way to make it appear to shortsighted people that that amount is insignificant. The way the ME2 DLC is being rationed, if I use you burger example would be buying a cheeseburger, eating half of it and then going to buy fries one fry at a time.

Add up to how much, exactly?  Let's say over the course of the year or so that it takes for them to do ME3, the total cost of all DLC comes out to around $100 (An unlikely number, but I like solid, round, hypothetical numbers, easy on the eyes too).  To use the burger analogy, consider every DLC that costs 5 bucks or more to be a full combo, and anything less than 5 bucks to be a single burger (anything from a Big Mac to a Dollar Menu burger).  Now over the course of a year, even assuming you only ate out once a week, each week, for a year, and each meal only cost 5 bucks that still adds to well over $100 bucks.

The DLC we've been seeing has been at most...possibly 10-12 dollars total (2 bucks for the costumes, 8-10 for Kasumi)  This whole complaint about the Cerberus Network "not being free" seems to forget all the weapons, Armor, and Zaeed, all of which could EASILY add up to well over 20 bucks or more.  I might add that any argument about the content "being cut out" or "rushed" is null and void, since we had a developer come forward about Kasumi to dismiss those claims completely.

Again, even if it is a marketing ploy by EA, it's still completely at the free will and decision of the individual consumers.  Ultimately, while EA/BW can set the price, they have to set it at a range where the average consumer feels it's worth the cost.  Too low, and no profit is made.  Too high, and no one purchases, resulting in no profit.  So really, 2 bucks, even for 3 outfits, is fine.  Most people can spare 2 bucks out of their paychecks, so the price isn't unreasonable.  What it comes down to is personal preference.

So I think it'd simply be better if people stopped insulting the intelligence of those who wished to purchase it.  We're not idiots for wanting it or for "falling into EA's trap".  We simply believe the cost is worth the content.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 20 mars 2010 - 07:10 .

[Mercuron]

TJSolo wrote...

Mercuron wrote...

xDarkicex wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Mercuron wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

"I just see a $2 DLC with 3 skins - something trivial with a trivial price."

A wonderful view EA is counting on.
Another thing EA is counting on is customers that lack addition skills.

Dude really ... the fact that there MAY be some additional DLCs of this kind that MAY all add up to a grand total of $8 in however long ... isn't reasonable grounds to conclude evil schemes and mustache-twirling to be afoot, in my opinion.

Good luck, let me know how everything adds up down the line since clearly all that matters is the immediate 2 bucks and 3 reskins for 1/4 of the planned characters.

EA has had some real bad Q's in the past they are counting on Mass effect and BFBC2 to get them closer to the black and they are going to do it through DLC it is very clever 2$ here 5$ there keep it cheaper then a cheese burger and they will buy it with out thinking about it, but over the span of 2 years with 30 or so DLCs released which are 2-5 maybe a few 10$ ones ADDS up

The significance of this being ... what, exactly?

The significance means a future of nickel and dimeing customers with low quality DLC.
To see that this is the case you have to read up on EA, Project $10, and the various intent statements BW has said about ME2 and DLC.
If all of that seems untrue to you; then all I can tell you to do is wait and see.

The notion BW attempted with small constant DLC packages was interesting and I never experienced it before but I have to say I much prefer it when a disc game is full of lauch content and then after a few months larger DLC is released to extend and refresh the play. Ala GTA, FO, and Borderlands.

I'm aware of all those things; what I don't see is any reasonable proof that this approach is going to be worse than creating a more traditional DLC that is larger and charging the sum of its components.  You ostensibly can get the same thing in pieces over time that you could in a full pack all at once, so all this brooding over 'nickel and diming' sounds like scaremongering.

Quality is entirely subjective, so that really doesn't count for much.  Some would get it if it's free, some wouldn't no matter what, some are content to pay the $2 and some would pay twice that for just one particular skin they like.

[RiouHotaru]

Mercuron wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Mercuron wrote...

xDarkicex wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Mercuron wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

"I just see a $2 DLC with 3 skins - something trivial with a trivial price."

A wonderful view EA is counting on.
Another thing EA is counting on is customers that lack addition skills.

Dude really ... the fact that there MAY be some additional DLCs of this kind that MAY all add up to a grand total of $8 in however long ... isn't reasonable grounds to conclude evil schemes and mustache-twirling to be afoot, in my opinion.

Good luck, let me know how everything adds up down the line since clearly all that matters is the immediate 2 bucks and 3 reskins for 1/4 of the planned characters.

EA has had some real bad Q's in the past they are counting on Mass effect and BFBC2 to get them closer to the black and they are going to do it through DLC it is very clever 2$ here 5$ there keep it cheaper then a cheese burger and they will buy it with out thinking about it, but over the span of 2 years with 30 or so DLCs released which are 2-5 maybe a few 10$ ones ADDS up

The significance of this being ... what, exactly?

The significance means a future of nickel and dimeing customers with low quality DLC.
To see that this is the case you have to read up on EA, Project $10, and the various intent statements BW has said about ME2 and DLC.
If all of that seems untrue to you; then all I can tell you to do is wait and see.

The notion BW attempted with small constant DLC packages was interesting and I never experienced it before but I have to say I much prefer it when a disc game is full of lauch content and then after a few months larger DLC is released to extend and refresh the play. Ala GTA, FO, and Borderlands.

I'm aware of all those things; what I don't see is any reasonable proof that this approach is going to be worse than creating a more traditional DLC that is larger and charging the sum of its components.  You ostensibly can get the same thing in pieces over time that you could in a full pack all at once, so all this brooding over 'nickel and diming' sounds like scaremongering.

Quality is entirely subjective, so that really doesn't count for much.  Some would get it if it's free, some wouldn't no matter what, some are content to pay the $2 and some would pay twice that for just one particular skin they like.

THIS.  THANK YOU.  My entire argument in a nutshell.

[TJSolo]

Mercuron wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Mercuron wrote...

xDarkicex wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Mercuron wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

"I just see a $2 DLC with 3 skins - something trivial with a trivial price."

A wonderful view EA is counting on.
Another thing EA is counting on is customers that lack addition skills.

Dude really ... the fact that there MAY be some additional DLCs of this kind that MAY all add up to a grand total of $8 in however long ... isn't reasonable grounds to conclude evil schemes and mustache-twirling to be afoot, in my opinion.

Good luck, let me know how everything adds up down the line since clearly all that matters is the immediate 2 bucks and 3 reskins for 1/4 of the planned characters.

EA has had some real bad Q's in the past they are counting on Mass effect and BFBC2 to get them closer to the black and they are going to do it through DLC it is very clever 2$ here 5$ there keep it cheaper then a cheese burger and they will buy it with out thinking about it, but over the span of 2 years with 30 or so DLCs released which are 2-5 maybe a few 10$ ones ADDS up

The significance of this being ... what, exactly?

The significance means a future of nickel and dimeing customers with low quality DLC.
To see that this is the case you have to read up on EA, Project $10, and the various intent statements BW has said about ME2 and DLC.
If all of that seems untrue to you; then all I can tell you to do is wait and see.

The notion BW attempted with small constant DLC packages was interesting and I never experienced it before but I have to say I much prefer it when a disc game is full of lauch content and then after a few months larger DLC is released to extend and refresh the play. Ala GTA, FO, and Borderlands.

I'm aware of all those things; what I don't see is any reasonable proof that this approach is going to be worse than creating a more traditional DLC that is larger and charging the sum of its components.  You ostensibly can get the same thing in pieces over time that you could in a full pack all at once, so all this brooding over 'nickel and diming' sounds like scaremongering.

Quality is entirely subjective, so that really doesn't count for much.  Some would get it if it's free, some wouldn't no matter what, some are content to pay the $2 and some would pay twice that for just one particular skin they like.

And you would have some that would buy a used gum wrapper if it had BW(or whatever company they are attached to) printed on it, the fact there are people that don't care about money their own or someone elses. Those numbers are not large enough to form a strong business plan around.
Seeing proof requires you to look for it and ask people and converse with people that may not share your opinion.
I hear and read more horse armor comments then people saying the DLC plan is awesome.
But you seem you need more proof then people that share the opinion on this DLC.
My statement addressing how this DLC is panning out, small bits, is that I haven't experienced a plan like this until now and at the time I first got ME2 I thought it sounded great.
However in implementation the smaller bits feel more shallow then larger spread out DLC.
Even the game to me feels trimmed in a way to make it more suited for smaller bit DLC.

It didn't take me all year to come to my conclusion of the DLC plan for ME2.
By me and others saying it adds up only matters if one can do financial addition over time as opposed to just an immediate situation. The ones capable of adding seem only to be EA.

[jgordon11]

TJSolo wrote...

Mercuron wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Mercuron wrote...

xDarkicex wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Mercuron wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

"I just see a $2 DLC with 3 skins - something trivial with a trivial price."

A wonderful view EA is counting on.
Another thing EA is counting on is customers that lack addition skills.

Dude really ... the fact that there MAY be some additional DLCs of this kind that MAY all add up to a grand total of $8 in however long ... isn't reasonable grounds to conclude evil schemes and mustache-twirling to be afoot, in my opinion.

Good luck, let me know how everything adds up down the line since clearly all that matters is the immediate 2 bucks and 3 reskins for 1/4 of the planned characters.

EA has had some real bad Q's in the past they are counting on Mass effect and BFBC2 to get them closer to the black and they are going to do it through DLC it is very clever 2$ here 5$ there keep it cheaper then a cheese burger and they will buy it with out thinking about it, but over the span of 2 years with 30 or so DLCs released which are 2-5 maybe a few 10$ ones ADDS up

The significance of this being ... what, exactly?

The significance means a future of nickel and dimeing customers with low quality DLC.
To see that this is the case you have to read up on EA, Project $10, and the various intent statements BW has said about ME2 and DLC.
If all of that seems untrue to you; then all I can tell you to do is wait and see.

The notion BW attempted with small constant DLC packages was interesting and I never experienced it before but I have to say I much prefer it when a disc game is full of lauch content and then after a few months larger DLC is released to extend and refresh the play. Ala GTA, FO, and Borderlands.

I'm aware of all those things; what I don't see is any reasonable proof that this approach is going to be worse than creating a more traditional DLC that is larger and charging the sum of its components.  You ostensibly can get the same thing in pieces over time that you could in a full pack all at once, so all this brooding over 'nickel and diming' sounds like scaremongering.

Quality is entirely subjective, so that really doesn't count for much.  Some would get it if it's free, some wouldn't no matter what, some are content to pay the $2 and some would pay twice that for just one particular skin they like.

And you would have some that would buy a used gum wrapper if it had BW(or whatever company they are attached to) printed on it, the fact there are people that don't care about money their own or someone elses. Those numbers are not large enough to form a strong business plan around.
Seeing proof requires you to look for it and ask people and converse with people that may not share your opinion.
I hear and read more horse armor comments then people saying the DLC plan is awesome.
But you seem you need more proof then people that share the opinion on this DLC.
My statement addressing how this DLC is panning out, small bits, is that I haven't experienced a plan like this until now and at the time I first got ME2 I thought it sounded great.
However in implementation the smaller bits feel more shallow then larger spread out DLC.
Even the game to me feels trimmed in a way to make it more suited for smaller bit DLC.

It didn't take me all year to come to my conclusion of the DLC plan for ME2.
By me and others saying it adds up only matters if one can do financial addition over time as opposed to just an immediate situation. The ones capable of adding seem only to be EA.

If your willingness to pay for DLC<Cost then buy it b/c you gain from the transaction as does Bioware
If your willingness to pay for DLC>Cost then don't buy it b/c you don't gain from the transaction
Simple as that.  If you fall into the latter don't complain that you don't want to buy it would you rather they make the firewalker dlc cost $2 and this one be free.

This DLC adds nothing to the game gameplay wixse meaning that if you don't get it you only miss out on asethetic bonuses.  This is even more of a reason to stop complaining b/c everything in the world is not free or extremely cheap.

[TJSolo]

"If your willingness to pay for DLC
If your willingness to pay for DLC>Cost then don't buy it b/c you don't gain from the transaction
Simple as that. If you fall into the latter don't complain that you don't want to buy it would you rather they make the firewalker dlc cost $2 and this one be free.
This DLC adds nothing to the game gameplay wixse meaning that if you don't get it you only miss out on asethetic bonuses. This is even more of a reason to stop complaining b/c everything in the world is not free or extremely cheap."

Yea yea, people that are talking about this DLC knows basic economics and consumer choice. Harping on people being able to vote with their wallets is known, thanks. Consumers want to pay a little as possible for products while corporations want to charge the most possible, been there done that.
Now that we are done with Econ101 can we move on to the topic?
The point is I want to spend money on DLC. I want to add to the replay value of ME2.
But looking at the type and quality of the DLC being offer coupled with the price,..oh there is a problem as my wants are getting defeated by my common sense.

Modifié par TJSolo, 20 mars 2010 - 08:05 .

[J HG T]

Only those three outfits: Probably not buying.
Outfits for the whole team: Probably buying.

Modifié par J HG T, 20 mars 2010 - 08:07 .

[Mercuron]

TJSolo wrote...

Mercuron wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Mercuron wrote...

xDarkicex wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

Mercuron wrote...

TJSolo wrote...

"I just see a $2 DLC with 3 skins - something trivial with a trivial price."

A wonderful view EA is counting on.
Another thing EA is counting on is customers that lack addition skills.

Dude really ... the fact that there MAY be some additional DLCs of this kind that MAY all add up to a grand total of $8 in however long ... isn't reasonable grounds to conclude evil schemes and mustache-twirling to be afoot, in my opinion.

Good luck, let me know how everything adds up down the line since clearly all that matters is the immediate 2 bucks and 3 reskins for 1/4 of the planned characters.

EA has had some real bad Q's in the past they are counting on Mass effect and BFBC2 to get them closer to the black and they are going to do it through DLC it is very clever 2$ here 5$ there keep it cheaper then a cheese burger and they will buy it with out thinking about it, but over the span of 2 years with 30 or so DLCs released which are 2-5 maybe a few 10$ ones ADDS up

The significance of this being ... what, exactly?

The significance means a future of nickel and dimeing customers with low quality DLC.
To see that this is the case you have to read up on EA, Project $10, and the various intent statements BW has said about ME2 and DLC.
If all of that seems untrue to you; then all I can tell you to do is wait and see.

The notion BW attempted with small constant DLC packages was interesting and I never experienced it before but I have to say I much prefer it when a disc game is full of lauch content and then after a few months larger DLC is released to extend and refresh the play. Ala GTA, FO, and Borderlands.

I'm aware of all those things; what I don't see is any reasonable proof that this approach is going to be worse than creating a more traditional DLC that is larger and charging the sum of its components.  You ostensibly can get the same thing in pieces over time that you could in a full pack all at once, so all this brooding over 'nickel and diming' sounds like scaremongering.

Quality is entirely subjective, so that really doesn't count for much.  Some would get it if it's free, some wouldn't no matter what, some are content to pay the $2 and some would pay twice that for just one particular skin they like.

And you would have some that would buy a used gum wrapper if it had BW(or whatever company they are attached to) printed on it, the fact there are people that don't care about money their own or someone elses. Those numbers are not large enough to form a strong business plan around.
Seeing proof requires you to look for it and ask people and converse with people that may not share your opinion.
I hear and read more horse armor comments then people saying the DLC plan is awesome.
But you seem you need more proof then people that share the opinion on this DLC.
My statement addressing how this DLC is panning out, small bits, is that I haven't experienced a plan like this until now and at the time I first got ME2 I thought it sounded great.
However in implementation the smaller bits feel more shallow then larger spread out DLC.
Even the game to me feels trimmed in a way to make it more suited for smaller bit DLC.

It didn't take me all year to come to my conclusion of the DLC plan for ME2.
By me and others saying it adds up only matters if one can do financial addition over time as opposed to just an immediate situation. The ones capable of adding seem only to be EA.

Well, I can understand if you dislike the content and the way it's delivered, sure, but saying you can discern that ME2's DLC will add up over time is ... well, pretty obvious? I just don't see how that can be construed as something underhanded or immoral in and of itself.

[TJSolo]

My comments about the pacing, smaller bits building up, for ME2 DLC was that it is not aiding in replay value for me.

Nothing really about underhandedness or immorality. A good idea just isn't working the way BW stated it would, for me at least. It is having the opposite effect. Instead of making want to play I feel I have to build up the DLC until it is significant enough to warrant a play through.



Now comments I have about the pricing is a different story.

Being advantageous in pricing is not immoral but there is a line between being advantageous and greedy. The parent company of Bioware is always pushing that line, always.

[phordicus]

reposting here for the fanboys who'd buy bioware's used and torn underwear if it came with a logo sewn into it:

------------------

[let me preface by emphasizing price and value are no issue for me. i wouldn't sneeze twice at paying for 5 copies of ME2 and tossing them out the window at the local jr high for the kids to enjoy.]

this is fluff. it's not an issue of cost, it's an issue of propriety. before encrypted compression, modders produced unbelievable amounts of content of equal or higher quality (have you seen jack's sunglasses?/images/forum/emoticons/lol.png) at a zero cost. there's not even a need to list the games that were out-of-the-box great as ME2 is that were significantly improved through the efforts of the mod community. time is something modders have in abundance. the resources are already present in the game, they're just under EA's lock and key which, as ubisoft recently found out, is never for long.



two other ingrediants besides time and resources are creativity and inspiration. you think they intentionally left out some great ideas and are going to include them as DLC? really? and what's their inspiration? from EA's point of view, like with movies, the point of greatest sales has already happened. the rest is maintainting just enough interest from the consumers so they get a steady trickle of nearly 100% profit from the content-starved masses. if their competition were the amateur texturers, animators, and scripters lying in wait for access to the toolshed, no one in their right mind would care about the DLC since there'd be more content of equal or better quality (again, full-game NPCs with VA notwithstanding). look at DAO and understand how many people bought WK before they realized there was a free mod with the storage chest. nearly all of the complaints about WK were based on no usability after completion (scripting in a few texture changes would have at least made it as useful as an inn) and the storage chest. they don't sell nearly as many WK if that mod is universally known of since many bought it thinking it was the only way to keep all their stuff. by locking away the modding potential in proprietary filetypes, EA throws you fish and bread and you think it's a gourmet meal.



no, i'm not going to rejoice at being charged for something myself and many others can and have produced for free and for fun.

[Pimmeh667]

The only one i like is garrus'

[Hyper Cutter]

This isn't worth anything NEAR $2...



Honestly, it's like they drew a line in the sand right after the Hammerhead and said "everything past this point is paid DLC, no matter how little actual sense this makes".

[cruc1al]

I can't believe how many people are actually falling for the "hey, it's just $2, so why not." A low price does not make something cheap, low price/content does. That ratio of this DLC is light years away from reasonable. Trust me I want the outfits, but I'm not going to pay for them because they're WAY overpriced.

[Bhaal]

Utterly unnecessary DLC to buy yet I'm totally sure if it was free people would rage againts Bioware nevertheless.

" That Bioware! They charge us for proper DLC like Kasumi and then teasing us by ridiciulus free contents, If Cerberus Network only for new outfits, we been deceived!"

and then they would add an usual: "This is an outrage!".

Bioware makes a weak (if not sad) attempt to milk some money over Firewalker's release. It's plain as daylight. Please guys 2$? Can buy another Snickers if don't like the DLC.

Nonetheless, I have to agree that, such DLC is nothing but poisoning the well. DLCs like horse armor or alternate appearance pack are bad business, free or not.

Modifié par Adakutay, 20 mars 2010 - 10:18 .

[grellas]

Dahm it. This peace of sh*** doesnt cost even 30 cent. But i will buy it coz i m tired to watch at this hole and blood on Garrus armor.

[JediMB]

Who let The Matrix into my Mass Effect?



Oh, well. I have 240 points just lying around, since I accidentally purchased too much when I got myself Warden's Keep, so I might as well get this.

[SkyJackal]

Seriously though, regardless of what people think of value for money, there's a single piece of clear and concise feedback Bioware needs to understand. People DO NOT like characters eyes been hidden. Behind helmets or behind glasses or behind whatever. I remember in a making of somewhere the devs talking about how important it was to make realistic eyes and eye movement for their games to be emotionally engaging. That still holds true and any piece of additional content that helps to degrade that experience is going to be negatively received.

[cruc1al]

JediMB wrote...

Who let The Matrix into my Mass Effect?

Oh, well. I have 240 points just lying around, since I accidentally purchased too much when I got myself Warden's Keep, so I might as well get this.

Later you'll wish you had the points for something that's actually worth the money.

[ProjectEclipse]

All this new DLC with new formal wear and alternate appearances for squaddies got me thinking.... Playing through Kasumi's quest would be awesome if Female Shepard had a pretty long dress that showed off one leg and was wearing heels.

[Senalda]

While I'm cheering at the thought of actually putting some clothes on Jack I'm at the same time saddened by the certainty that those sunglasses cannot be removed separately. Which means we can't see the characters eyes in conversations. Which in turn means the whole setup is as much waste of time and money as are all the optional armors with glued-in helmets for Shepard.

The subtle movements of characters faces as they talk are a BIG part of Mass Effect. Not being able to see them just dimishes the whole experience. I wonder how long it will take for the developers to get that.

Also, just for the record, I have to say that I don't really care if this costs something or not. If it would be useful (i.e. w/o those sunglasses) I'd get it. Now I won't. Few bucks won't tilt the scale in any direction.

Modifié par Senalda, 20 mars 2010 - 11:06 .

[GurenNishiki]

Imo the DLC should be coupled with another one or at least throw in more than just 3 different costumes to justify paying for it