Please upgrade your browser for the best possible experience.

Chrome Firefox Internet Explorer
×

Finally, its happening!


Eillack's Avatar


Eillack
05.23.2013 , 04:50 PM | #21
Battlefront 3 and Star Wars: Frontlines are already finished products almost haha. If EA just starts all over that'll be disappointing.
With unity, comes strength...with strength, comes power...with power...comes obedience.....
CE Owner '09 Account
Quote: Originally Posted by BruceMaclean View Post
..I think it's ultimately our fault for not communicating enough.

Beniboybling's Avatar


Beniboybling
05.23.2013 , 04:54 PM | #22
Quote: Originally Posted by MiaRB View Post
hard to take you seriously with that kind of stuff but ill try.

you can disagree with what I said but its actually the truth. another reason for DLC is devs are less limited by release dates set by the publishers. take KOTOR 2 for example, all the stuff that was cut out of the game was done so because they had to meet deadlines. with DLC, unfinished stuff can easily be added to the game in DLC and the publishers are happy to allow extra work to be done after a game launches because of DLC. would have been really nice to have DLC for KOTOR 2 to add in all the stuff that was cut out.

you can wear your tinfoil hate if you want, but the truth is, game companies can only ever charge what people are willing to pay. that is how our economic system works. DLC is popular because people are willing to pay for it. you can hate on EA all you want but they do make and publish a large number of successful games. and they make money like every good business is supposed to do.
This doesn't exactly explain how Skyrim and other AAA games were incredibly successful without the aid of DLC. And how many other developers do well without messing their customers around. Indeed EA wouldn't find themselves spending so much money if they didn't waste it on overblown marketing.

Your point about release dates if only supporting my point: mismanagement, one of the many reasons the games fail. Games should never be released unfinished in the manner that KOTOR 2 was released. DLC may be an effective way of mopping up a mess but that mess shouldn't be their in the first place.

Of course people are willing to pay for it, but that doesn't make it necessary, or a good thing. I'm not disputing the quality of the content, that's definitely there, and that's why people buy it - but they are still milking their customers either way. For example if your a massive fan of Mass Effect your going to pay for DLC aren't you? Even if you do realise your being exploited. And then of course you have the more 'casual' gamers who are content to buy into EA's schemes without realizing the damage EA is doing to the industry as a whole. Such questionable business practices wouldn't happen if they weren't viable - unless your denying their existence and application?

And anyone who thinks that EA are a 'good business' are out of their mind. They are a terrible business. Nobody gets voted Worst Company in America twice for being a 'good' business. However if business just means making money then yeah, they're great at that. Its no conspiracy that EA are a terrible business, and have no respect for their customers, its blatantly obvious.

P.S. Saying 'its actually the truth' unfortunately doesn't make it so.

P.P.S Do you know what I could accuse you of right now? An EA hired troll - yeah cause EA actually does that. They are that bad. (Not actually accusing you of being one, unless you are....

Euphrosyne's Avatar


Euphrosyne
05.23.2013 , 05:13 PM | #23
Quote: Originally Posted by Beniboybling View Post
I disagree. DLC is unnecessary if the game you produce is good quality, well marketed, managed and subsequently successful. For example: Skyrim - I highly successful game and no DLC whatsoever.
Skyrim has had three DLC packs released: Dawnguard, Hearthfire, and Dragonborn. The first and last of these, both of which introduced new (or "new", depending on your point of view) areas and quests, were initially priced at $20, while Hearthfire, which was mostly just a customization upgrade, initially cost $5. So if you wish to make an argument that DLC is unnecessary for AAA game title production and pricing, then Skyrim is not your best angle.

Bethesda was in fact one of the first companies to really ride the paid DLC idea, with Fallout 3 and Oblivion. They used it both for relatively benign, justifiable things, like extensions and epilogues to the main game story, and for silly things, like the Horse Armor pack. They also, famously, used DLC to rewrite Fallout 3's ending.

And that's just the objective stuff. You can make an argument that Skyrim was not of particularly good quality or well managed, but that it enjoyed excellent marketing and a sizable built-in fanbase that was willing to accept purchasing a mediocre product because of its large and skilled modding community. But that's an argument, and it's intrinsically subjective, and you may very well disagree.
Euphrosynē (n., Greek) - "mirth, merriment"
Fanfic: Beyond Good and Evil

Beniboybling's Avatar


Beniboybling
05.23.2013 , 05:25 PM | #24
Quote: Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
Skyrim has had three DLC packs released: Dawnguard, Hearthfire, and Dragonborn. The first and last of these, both of which introduced new (or "new", depending on your point of view) areas and quests, were initially priced at $20, while Hearthfire, which was mostly just a customization upgrade, initially cost $5. So if you wish to make an argument that DLC is unnecessary for AAA game title production and pricing, then Skyrim is not your best angle.

Bethesda was in fact one of the first companies to really ride the paid DLC idea, with Fallout 3 and Oblivion, both for relatively benign, justifiable things, like extensions and epilogues to the main game story, and for silly things, like the (in)famous Horse Armor pack.

And that's just the objective stuff. You can make an argument that Skyrim was not of particularly good quality or well managed, but that it enjoyed excellent marketing and a sizable built-in fanbase that was willing to accept purchasing a mediocre product because of its large and skilled modding community. But that's an argument, and it's intrinsically subjective, and you may very well disagree.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used DLC as a blanket term. What I meant is not launching with cut content (which would later be given to players at a price), day-one DLC etc. On the other hand Dawnguard and Dragonborn are essentially the modern day equivalent to expansion packs and given the fact that there were released 1-2 years after the game's initial release, we can assume they were not cut content.

But I'm not saying Bethesda are a perfect example, Valve would probably be a better example of how to treat your customers right. And Witcher 2 (as far as I'm aware) is another AAA game without DLC, yet. And I doubt you'll get very far with the argument that Skyrim was poor quality... I'm not even a massive fan and yet can still realise it as a very, very good game indeed.

TheBBP's Avatar


TheBBP
05.23.2013 , 05:47 PM | #25
Quote: Originally Posted by Beniboybling View Post
I disagree. DLC is unnecessary if the game you produce is good quality, well marketed, managed and subsequently successful. For example: Skyrim - I highly successful game and no DLC whatsoever. EA on the other hand are naturally going to opt for DLC - being the Worst Company in America they don't exactly have a dedicated fan base wanting to buy their games, nor do they have much in the dept. of respect for the medium they are handling. If EA weren't so crap at producing games, they wouldn't be relying on DLC to prop themselves up.

Battlefront 3 - with its massive fan base of Star Wars fans - has no need for DLC, so if they introduce it I'll now that what the real incentive is. Money.
At some point you need to stop letting your distaste for EA for these "facts" of yours. A while back you were talking about how BF was mass-produced with over a dozen titles in 3 years. I explained that to you so that you understood that most of those titles were DLC.

Skyrim has no DLC? For real? Again, stop letting your distaste for EA manufacture your facts.

You are also claiming that EA cut ME3 short so that they could sell DLC later. The main quest line is known to fall in between 20 and 41 hours by itself. Does that sound like folks were shortchanged to you?

EA, regardless of what you think of them are still a premier publisher of games and they do indeed have a fanbase of gamers who buy their titles.
REPUBLIC TROOPERS
Crosswire - Heavy GunnerElíta-one - Combat Medic
Canonball - Pointman

Ebon Hawk

Euphrosyne's Avatar


Euphrosyne
05.23.2013 , 05:56 PM | #26
Quote: Originally Posted by Beniboybling View Post
Perhaps I shouldn't have used DLC as a blanket term. What I meant is not launching with cut content (which would later be given to players at a price), day-one DLC etc. On the other hand Dawnguard and Dragonborn are essentially the modern day equivalent to expansion packs and given the fact that there were released 1-2 years after the game's initial release, we can assume they were not cut content.

But I'm not saying Bethesda are a perfect example, Valve would probably be a better example of how to treat your customers right. And Witcher 2 (as far as I'm aware) is another AAA game without DLC, yet. And I doubt you'll get very far with the argument that Skyrim was poor quality... I'm not even a massive fan and yet can still realise it as a very, very good game indeed.
The day-one DLC thing is a bit more complicated than that. Lots of that stuff is the sort of thing that wouldn't have made it into a game without having its dev costs paid for by an alternative means, or the sort of thing that wasn't totally ready for the QA period but which could be worked on during testing by the remaining devs, and so on, and so forth. The fact that something was cut content does not automatically make it a cash grab. And sure, you'll get content that was deliberately cut less out of those concerns and more out of a desire to make more money at launch. But it's not as simple even as saying that day-one DLC is all a ripoff.

The Witcher 2 hasn't had any DLC, no. Projekt RED released an enhanced version of the game about a year after launch with a great deal of content that wasn't in the original game for various reasons (wasn't fully ready yet, wasn't totally off the drawing board yet, etc.). Whether you think that's effectively the same thing as releasing DLC is a matter of opinion.

And I, personally, thought Skyrim was a game that did one thing really really really well - create a vast, beautiful, immersive setting - and most other things (like character creation, storytelling, and voice acting) mediocre to badly. Whether that constitutes an acceptable trade-off for players is a matter of opinion, like I said, not fact. It's unquestionable, too, that the Skyrim suffered from a truly epic amount of bugs for the first few months (longer for PS3 players). You can chalk that up to Bethesda's notoriously shoddy QA process if you like, but it was still a fairly serious flaw.

As for Valve, well, they might not add paid DLC to their own games, but through Steam, they've done a very great deal to encourage other companies to add paid DLC to their titles. Valve gets money from those sales, too.

For what it's worth, I don't really consider DLC in and of itself - or microtransactions for that matter - to be an intrinsically good or bad thing. They're just part of how game buying and developing is these days. Companies can do good things through DLC, and they can do bad things because of it. I think both kinds of doomsayers about DLC - the anti-DLC people and the anti-anti-DLC people - have gone overboard, though. Spending money on DLC is not going to cause prices for "full" games to skyrocket while launch-day released products get more and more crummy and insipid. And not spending money on DLC is not going to cause the gaming industry to collapse from inability to make a profit.
Euphrosynē (n., Greek) - "mirth, merriment"
Fanfic: Beyond Good and Evil

Beniboybling's Avatar


Beniboybling
05.24.2013 , 02:28 AM | #27
Quote: Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post
For what it's worth, I don't really consider DLC in and of itself - or microtransactions for that matter - to be an intrinsically good or bad thing. They're just part of how game buying and developing is these days. Companies can do good things through DLC, and they can do bad things because of it. I think both kinds of doomsayers about DLC - the anti-DLC people and the anti-anti-DLC people - have gone overboard, though. Spending money on DLC is not going to cause prices for "full" games to skyrocket while launch-day released products get more and more crummy and insipid. And not spending money on DLC is not going to cause the gaming industry to collapse from inability to make a profit.
I think I agree. TBH I think DLC is actually a pretty good idea - in the end its just another means of delivering new content to your customers. However I think its often misused. Day-one DLC may sometimes be necessary, but at a cost? Personally I think a lot more DLC should be free and DLC that does cost should be substantial additions to the game. Dawnguard and Dragonborn would be could examples of how it should be handled (don't quote me on that) even if Bethesda aren't entirely clean. Whereas disk-locked content is completely unacceptable, not matter what the reasons.

I think, generally, that the misuse of DLC regardless of economic viability etc. is a disservice to customers, and is breaking down the trust that should exist between gamer and developer.

P.S. BBP I said nothing about ME3 DLC - if your going to attack me about misusing facts, get your own straight first. I come to these forums for friendly debate and it frustrates me when people assume that because I have a differing opinion, that I am some sort of stubborn opinionist who refuses to change his mind.

P.P.S Nonetheless I think its actually been proven that part of the 'From the Ashes' DLC was actually already on the game dsc, despite BioWare and EA claiming this was not the case. I'm not sure what universe you have to be living in to think that's acceptable.

TheBBP's Avatar


TheBBP
05.24.2013 , 09:49 AM | #28
Quote: Originally Posted by Beniboybling View Post

P.S. BBP I said nothing about ME3 DLC - if your going to attack me about misusing facts, get your own straight first. I come to these forums for friendly debate and it frustrates me when people assume that because I have a differing opinion, that I am some sort of stubborn opinionist who refuses to change his mind.

P.P.S Nonetheless I think its actually been proven that part of the 'From the Ashes' DLC was actually already on the game dsc, despite BioWare and EA claiming this was not the case. I'm not sure what universe you have to be living in to think that's acceptable.
That is in response to where you called ME DLC exploitive and a scheme. In your blind hatred for EA you also claim that they do not have a fanbase and were crap at producing games and needed DLC to stay up.

Brother, if you want to argue, at least argue objectively.
REPUBLIC TROOPERS
Crosswire - Heavy GunnerElíta-one - Combat Medic
Canonball - Pointman

Ebon Hawk

Beniboybling's Avatar


Beniboybling
05.24.2013 , 11:53 AM | #29
Quote: Originally Posted by TheBBP View Post
That is in response to where you called ME DLC exploitive and a scheme. In your blind hatred for EA you also claim that they do not have a fanbase and were crap at producing games and needed DLC to stay up.

Brother, if you want to argue, at least argue objectively.
To quote 'You are also claiming that EA cut ME3 short so that they could sell DLC later.' I never said that. I'd appreciate it is you didn't put words in my mouth. And I stand by my comment that EA are bad at producing games. Call me subjective but getting voted Worst Company in America twice would seem to imply that a lot of fellow customers out there agree with me. On the other hand, you have proved no evidence to why this is not true. Instead you've just made arbitrary statements that amount to nothing more than 'your wrong and what I'm saying is the truth'. And then we have MiaRB who is basically implying that my opinions are a joke. That's not the way to encourage an objective response.

EA may have a fanbase, but using the same evidence as above, its clear that their hate-base negates any fans that they've collected. We also have to remember that these people are fans of the developers (both within EA and outside) nobody is a fan of the corporate chiefs running the show and causing the problems.

Really all this negativity is unnecessary, there is no such thing as an objective perspective so I'm not going to pretend. I don't like EA because of the way they've treated me and others as a customer. I am therefore biased. Though you also seem to have a personal angst against me and at every opportunity attempt to shoot me down with statements like 'stop with the EA hate' and 'stop manufacturing facts' without providing any counter arguments. I would call that subjective. I think you could take a leaf out of Euphrosyne's book. She doesn't seem to need to resort to that kind of behavior.

Anyway this thread is getting to heated, we just need to calm down and have a friendly debate. I'm sure we're all capable of that. We don't need to come down on eachother like a ton of bricks when one of us gets are facts wrong or has a differing opinion. I'm not here just to spout my opinions, I want to know what other people think too and and perfectly happy to adjust my stance - that's how discussion works. Shouting at me isn't convincing argument so let's just stop with that.

TheBBP's Avatar


TheBBP
05.24.2013 , 05:40 PM | #30
Quote: Originally Posted by Beniboybling View Post

Anyway this thread is getting to heated, we just need to calm down and have a friendly debate. I'm sure we're all capable of that. We don't need to come down on eachother like a ton of bricks when one of us gets are facts wrong or has a differing opinion.
Very true. Good call.
REPUBLIC TROOPERS
Crosswire - Heavy GunnerElíta-one - Combat Medic
Canonball - Pointman

Ebon Hawk