TotSC cost about half as much as the full game, and provided about 50% of the game's content. It provided about the same amount of value per dollar as the main game (depending on how pleased you were with the game, but I found it to be pretty much more of Baldur's Gate, and that was good.)
I think how long (time wise) it was really depends on how much time you spent trying to get past that damn assassin at the first town. It's cool, I'm over it, got past the assassin only to get killed by the next one repeatedly...
Grr.
BGII has been slightly more forgiving, thankfully. Except for the mindflayers and my idiot bard.
It doesn't matter how much content you get for the price, it matters how much people are willing to pay for it. They wouldn't charge $10 for a 1 hour mission pack if people weren't willing to pay for it. It's demand-based pricing, not content-based pricing. Any business is going to price a product at the highest price point they can get away with and still collect a good number of sales. The only way this changes is if people stop shelling out for it, but since everyone is a completionist consumerist whore at this point, that won't happen.
Are you actually defending BioWare and EA for fleecing consumers, or are you complaining that consumers allow them to get away with it?
Any business is going to price a product at the highest price point they can get away with and still collect a good number of sales.
NO! Not any business. Some businesses realize that getting the most money now is not always the best long term strategy. Smart businesses will charge a price that makes them a profit, while also being a price that consumers are happy to pay. Customers who don't feel cheated stick around and buy more products in the future.
NO! Not any business. Some businesses realize that getting the most money now is not always the best long term strategy. Smart businesses will charge a price that makes them a profit, while also being a price that consumers are happy to pay. Customers who don't feel cheated stick around and buy more products in the future.
That only applies when the products you're selling aren't as addictive as crack.
That only applies when the products you're selling aren't as addictive as crack.
Bullshit. First, there is piracy. Second, people can and do go without playing video games. I'm sick of whiny little spoiled brats acting like a luxury is something they can't give up. It's not an addiction. Third, Valve games have rabid fans as well, they still provide free DLC, regular price-drops/discounts and generally treat customers well. Lastly, bringing in new customers becomes more difficult if you have a reputation for treating customers poorly.
Bullshit. First, there is piracy. Second, people can and do go without playing video games. I'm sick of whiny little spoiled brats acting like a luxury is something they can't give up. It's not an addiction. Third, Valve games have rabid fans as well, they still provide free DLC, regular price-drops/discounts and generally treat customers well. Lastly, bringing in new customers becomes more difficult if you have a reputation for treating customers poorly.
First, most people don't pirate games. Second, the vast majority of people can't stop themselves from buying crap they don't need for prices they can't afford. Could they give it up? Sure. Will they? No. If high priced DLC or exploitative DLC weren't bringing in cash by the motherfucking boatload, it wouldn't still be an issue. People can and will buy every scrap of it that is released. They might whine and complain the whole time, but at the end of the day, they still go out and buy it anyway. And if you don't think a video game can be addicting, clearly you have never played an MMO.
Third, Valve makes the VAST majority of their income from Steam, and they don't honestly have to give a damn what they spend on developing a game, Gabe's even come out and said as much in the past. They are quite possibly the single worst example you could use to make a point about DLC prices.
Lastly, it's hardly "treating customers poorly" by offering products to them at a price point they are quite clearly willing to pay. And if they don't want to pay it, you aren't doing anything negative to them, they have made a conscious decision that your product is not valuable enough to them to spend money on. They can't be pissed off that you have priced a product higher than what they are willing to spend on it. I would get an iPad if they were cheaper, but I'm not pissed off that they aren't cheaper, because that makes no sense at all.
TotSC cost about half as much as the full game, and provided about 50% of the game's content.
Can you remind me again how? No new characters, only one village with a 6-7 hours campaign and the Tower that was an additional 5-6 hours. Did I miss something in TotSC?
I've written a lengthy post about this yesterday and the forum just eat it. Yeah, this happens to moderators as well, kind of unfair don't you think? After this, the discussion seems to have exploded... I hope I can cut yesterday's thoughts real short.
Getting a straight moral line in the DLC question is very difficult. For the sake of terminology, let's call it "additional game content" (or ALC if you wish), because the DLC dogma doesn't get the discussion anywhere.
Can the developer pack content on his disc and have the customer pay again to unlock that stuff? From a legal standpoint, yes of course. From the customer's perspective, it's a very odd thing to do, because once you go out and "buy" that retail disc, you would assume that you buy everything that's on it as well. Yet from a moral standpoint, there is no real difference whether the content is already on the disc or artificially removed from the game to be sold as "real" DLC online. It doesn't make a difference. I don't think that was the real question in ME's "From Ashes" DLC.
I believe Chyron has already stated precisely what (let's exemplarize, EA's) customers actually demand: That the entire effort that goes into a certain game until release be sold at one retail price. I can absolutely understand the idea, but with only a slight look behind the business scenes, it's hard to pin an absolute moral value on it. EA has many irons in the fire at the same time. They attribute a certain amount of their capital to the "main" game and a different amount to DLC, so it's pretty irrelevant when exactly both are finished. Although I hate to say it, I think it's an interesting business idea.
EA puts more money into their games than most of their competitors, and they are of course trying to make the most money out of it. Only if their products aren't bought are they forced to re-think their strategy, here Shodan is very right.
Yet here are some thoughts to relativize these assumptions.
1) EA/Bioware have accepted the customer's (doubtlessly oppressive!) moral ideas about "no DLC until game release". They are trying to avoid the impression that DLC development is part of the game production process. They are trying to give the impression that "From Ashes" was produced independently and finished "too late". From a company that ruthlessly introduces all-encompassing DRM measures with a decided "if you don't like it, don't buy it, mofo" attitude, that is quite remarkable. I can not get behind the "no DLC until game release" idea itself really, but if that's the one straw EA is still reaching out and holds itself somehow responsible for its maintenance, it would be extremely stupid of customers not to enforce this moral.
2) From a storyteller's perspective, DLC in narrative games is bullshit. The stories told in there are either important to the main game and should have been included in it, or they are not important and should have been cut anyway. For "a good story", it's as simple as that. We're in the age of expanded-universe stuff or 178-part or 25-main-character fantasy/science fiction series though, so defining where a story begins, ends or what its integral parts are is very difficult. Let's face the facts here: the more integral to a story a DLC feels, the better it is; the feeling of story "completion" is a major purchase incentive for DLC; and DLC additions are planned from the very earliest of game designer meetings, where it is decided what is left in the main game and what is taken out for later. I hardly see where the advantage for the customer is, who is at the dire risk of buying an artificially emptied main game or DLCs that inflate the story way beyond its narrative limits, thus starwarsifying the experience as a whole.
One example of DLC I do like is Valkyria Chronicle's Selvaria's Mission, which is a set of side missions following one of the main antagonists of the game. I don't know if SEGA forsaw her popularity, but I think that was a pretty good move, since it did add another layer to an already liked antagonist,
The problem with DLC is that people keep buying it, in particular people keep buying what I label as "bad" DLC. This is your alternative skins, 2 extra weapons and horse armours, i'm as guilty as anyone. I've played some great DLC (Deus Ex The Missing Link was really good, if somewhat overpriced) As a gamer here's my DLC manifesto.
1. No day one DLC unless it's used as part of an "Online pass" scheme (free for new buyers costs for second-hand purchasers) I think this is fair.
2. Retailer specific bonuses out, just get rid of them forever.
3. DLC should ideally not split a playerbase, it's generally just bad design. I've no clever solution for how to get round this on the console boxes where you aren't allowed to dish out freebies even if you want to, but it's my manifesto so stuff it!
4. Do not try to sell me 5 maps (two of which are recycled) for £11.
5. Do something cool with the DLC why not eh? Not just more of the same!
The Sims 3 still does expansion packs, and it is implied that, if Skyrim were to ever get something that is close to DLC, it would more likely be likened to an expansion pack.
It does both imo. Just because the XXXXX-stuff packs are sold retail doesn't make them less DLC-ish. And then there are the Addon packs that are just a bunch of DLCs too.
EA Sports have just announced that instead of releasing a whole separate game for the UEFA Euro 2012 tie in that it'll be released as an expansion for FIFA 12. Now I'm not a fan of the current game (but I did like the series for a few iterations before this one) but I think it's one of the few times that EA (well at least the Sports part of them) have had a good idea.
That's not the point. It's like saying a bicycle is not only a vehicle but also an object. If I state that a bicycle is a vehicle, the rest doesn't matter. If I'm saying The Sims 3 does expansion packs, it doesn't matter that it also does DLC. The point was that it does expansion packs, regardless of what it also does.
Comments
I think how long (time wise) it was really depends on how much time you spent trying to get past that damn assassin at the first town. It's cool, I'm over it, got past the assassin only to get killed by the next one repeatedly...
Grr.
BGII has been slightly more forgiving, thankfully. Except for the mindflayers and my idiot bard.
Are you actually defending BioWare and EA for fleecing consumers, or are you complaining that consumers allow them to get away with it?
NO! Not any business. Some businesses realize that getting the most money now is not always the best long term strategy. Smart businesses will charge a price that makes them a profit, while also being a price that consumers are happy to pay. Customers who don't feel cheated stick around and buy more products in the future.
That only applies when the products you're selling aren't as addictive as crack.
Bullshit. First, there is piracy. Second, people can and do go without playing video games. I'm sick of whiny little spoiled brats acting like a luxury is something they can't give up. It's not an addiction. Third, Valve games have rabid fans as well, they still provide free DLC, regular price-drops/discounts and generally treat customers well. Lastly, bringing in new customers becomes more difficult if you have a reputation for treating customers poorly.
First, most people don't pirate games. Second, the vast majority of people can't stop themselves from buying crap they don't need for prices they can't afford. Could they give it up? Sure. Will they? No. If high priced DLC or exploitative DLC weren't bringing in cash by the motherfucking boatload, it wouldn't still be an issue. People can and will buy every scrap of it that is released. They might whine and complain the whole time, but at the end of the day, they still go out and buy it anyway. And if you don't think a video game can be addicting, clearly you have never played an MMO.
Third, Valve makes the VAST majority of their income from Steam, and they don't honestly have to give a damn what they spend on developing a game, Gabe's even come out and said as much in the past. They are quite possibly the single worst example you could use to make a point about DLC prices.
Lastly, it's hardly "treating customers poorly" by offering products to them at a price point they are quite clearly willing to pay. And if they don't want to pay it, you aren't doing anything negative to them, they have made a conscious decision that your product is not valuable enough to them to spend money on. They can't be pissed off that you have priced a product higher than what they are willing to spend on it. I would get an iPad if they were cheaper, but I'm not pissed off that they aren't cheaper, because that makes no sense at all.
Can you remind me again how? No new characters, only one village with a 6-7 hours campaign and the Tower that was an additional 5-6 hours. Did I miss something in TotSC?
Getting a straight moral line in the DLC question is very difficult. For the sake of terminology, let's call it "additional game content" (or ALC if you wish), because the DLC dogma doesn't get the discussion anywhere.
Can the developer pack content on his disc and have the customer pay again to unlock that stuff? From a legal standpoint, yes of course. From the customer's perspective, it's a very odd thing to do, because once you go out and "buy" that retail disc, you would assume that you buy everything that's on it as well. Yet from a moral standpoint, there is no real difference whether the content is already on the disc or artificially removed from the game to be sold as "real" DLC online. It doesn't make a difference. I don't think that was the real question in ME's "From Ashes" DLC.
I believe Chyron has already stated precisely what (let's exemplarize, EA's) customers actually demand: That the entire effort that goes into a certain game until release be sold at one retail price. I can absolutely understand the idea, but with only a slight look behind the business scenes, it's hard to pin an absolute moral value on it. EA has many irons in the fire at the same time. They attribute a certain amount of their capital to the "main" game and a different amount to DLC, so it's pretty irrelevant when exactly both are finished. Although I hate to say it, I think it's an interesting business idea.
EA puts more money into their games than most of their competitors, and they are of course trying to make the most money out of it. Only if their products aren't bought are they forced to re-think their strategy, here Shodan is very right.
Yet here are some thoughts to relativize these assumptions.
1) EA/Bioware have accepted the customer's (doubtlessly oppressive!) moral ideas about "no DLC until game release". They are trying to avoid the impression that DLC development is part of the game production process. They are trying to give the impression that "From Ashes" was produced independently and finished "too late". From a company that ruthlessly introduces all-encompassing DRM measures with a decided "if you don't like it, don't buy it, mofo" attitude, that is quite remarkable. I can not get behind the "no DLC until game release" idea itself really, but if that's the one straw EA is still reaching out and holds itself somehow responsible for its maintenance, it would be extremely stupid of customers not to enforce this moral.
2) From a storyteller's perspective, DLC in narrative games is bullshit. The stories told in there are either important to the main game and should have been included in it, or they are not important and should have been cut anyway. For "a good story", it's as simple as that. We're in the age of expanded-universe stuff or 178-part or 25-main-character fantasy/science fiction series though, so defining where a story begins, ends or what its integral parts are is very difficult. Let's face the facts here: the more integral to a story a DLC feels, the better it is; the feeling of story "completion" is a major purchase incentive for DLC; and DLC additions are planned from the very earliest of game designer meetings, where it is decided what is left in the main game and what is taken out for later. I hardly see where the advantage for the customer is, who is at the dire risk of buying an artificially emptied main game or DLCs that inflate the story way beyond its narrative limits, thus starwarsifying the experience as a whole.
1. No day one DLC unless it's used as part of an "Online pass" scheme (free for new buyers costs for second-hand purchasers) I think this is fair.
2. Retailer specific bonuses out, just get rid of them forever.
3. DLC should ideally not split a playerbase, it's generally just bad design. I've no clever solution for how to get round this on the console boxes where you aren't allowed to dish out freebies even if you want to, but it's my manifesto so stuff it!
4. Do not try to sell me 5 maps (two of which are recycled) for £11.
5. Do something cool with the DLC why not eh? Not just more of the same!
We def need an expansion pack revival methinks.