Commentary re DLC

[Slowtrain]

Ironically DLCs, because of their different business model, allowed developers to set lower budgets on them. But then people began to cry foul because they felt not getting enough for their money.

 

 

Its all a personal line where the gamer feels like they aren't getting value for the money. If Bethesda's DLC price to content ratio was standard for all games, I would neither want to nor be able to afford to spend my money on gaming. $10 for 1-2 hours of gaming isn't worth it

 

So for me DLC's are too expensive at their current price point.

[Mamoulian War]

Ironically DLCs, because of their different business model, allowed developers to set lower budgets on them. But then people began to cry foul because they felt not getting enough for their money.

 

 

Its all a personal line where the gamer feels like they aren't getting value for the money. If Bethesda's DLC price to content ratio was standard for all games, I would neither want to nor be able to afford to spend my money on gaming. $10 for 1-2 hours of gaming isn't worth it

 

So for me DLC's are too expensive at their current price point.

 

that's why some people prefer to wait for compilation if you dont need e-peen stroking, you realy do not need to buy the games on release day and you save a lot of money for the same fun

Edited November 20, 2009 by Mamoulian War

[TheHarlequin]

How much money did Obsidian waste developing AP and the Aliens crpg? Didn't Bioware completely reboot Dragon Age at some point during development?

 

I think a lot of financial loss in games development occurs due to poor or unfocused internal processes.

 

Obsidian: Not much since Sega was paying the bills for it for the most part. Its the publishers dime you are spending not the developers generally.

 

Bioware: Nothing since Bioware is now a arm of EA, it cost EA not Bioware.

[Mamoulian War]

How much money did Obsidian waste developing AP and the Aliens crpg? Didn't Bioware completely reboot Dragon Age at some point during development?

 

I think a lot of financial loss in games development occurs due to poor or unfocused internal processes.

 

Obsidian: Not much since Sega was paying the bills for it for the most part. Its the publishers dime you are spending not the developers generally.

 

Bioware: Nothing since Bioware is now a arm of EA, it cost EA not Bioware.

 

 

Dragon Age was in development for more than 5 years... so it costed them something for sure

[Slowtrain]

How much money did Obsidian waste developing AP and the Aliens crpg? Didn't Bioware completely reboot Dragon Age at some point during development?

 

I think a lot of financial loss in games development occurs due to poor or unfocused internal processes.

 

Obsidian: Not much since Sega was paying the bills for it for the most part. Its the publishers dime you are spending not the developers generally.

 

Bioware: Nothing since Bioware is now a arm of EA, it cost EA not Bioware.

 

 

True. But I wasn't really making a point about where the money was coming from. rather I was making a point that a lot of money was spent on games that were cancelled after years in development or on games that were rebooted after a substantial period of development.

 

In other words, a lot of money, somebody's money, was spent on content that was tossed.

 

If a company of any sort makes a habit of this sort of thing they are going to have financial issues.

[Monte Carlo]

The Bioware Dragon Age social networking place forum is interesting.

 

Usually the place is packed with Bio shills who would thank the developers if every game came with an OS-shredding virus ("but it's a Bioware virus, is there DLC for it?"). This is why I only post there occasionally under a nomme de guerre and only ask questions if I'm stuck and need a mentat to help me who isn't here (rare).

 

Anyway, there is probably a 50/50 split on the DLC issue, unusual for over there and indicative of the depth of feeling.

 

Of the fifty percent who are miffed with DLC, 25% of those who I'd describe as not-very-credible whiners with entitlement issues. They would have whined anyway. The other 25% are more thoughtful and realise that the current DLC model is potentially bad news for PC gamers (i.e. everything has to be cross-platform, a big traditional XP looks unlikely) or have legitimate suspicions about EA and the length of DLC.

 

OTOH I've seen some pretty fair arguments by some of the developers there about the economic realities of DLC - at the end of the day they need to pay salaries and turn a profit. One thing that keeps cropping up is the cost of VO (see my argument about this on the other DA thread)... so why not half partially voiced DLC and make it longer and cheaper? There's also this quality versus length argument - they're saying "do you really want a big dungeon full of darkspawn and not too much plot?"

 

Er, yes, sparky, I do. Your writers are OK, but the Tolstoy estate ain't trembling in their boots just yet. There's room for all sorts of DLC - this is why come the March of the Modders (OK, in about 6-8 months) I'll be able to download a big Deep Roads, monty haul dungeon hack for free and some of the DLC argument will be moot.

 

Bio need to do well what the modders struggle with (or can't turn around quickly) - professionally balanced classes and skills (although with the mage they struggled on the vanilla game ) NPCs, a proper expansion / alternative plotline... or dammit just crack on with DA2. In fact, will DA2 be announced with indecent haste?

 

So, for me, I'm still split on DLC. I like the ease of just hitting a dialogue option in game and buying something. I'm realisitc about what that something might cost. But I'm not convinced that an hour of fully voiced micro-game is the way forward. I'd rather pay the same money for two hours of blissful dungeoneering with good dialogue and 15% of it voiced, y'know, the important bits not a peasant telling me what he had for breakfast.

 

Cheers

MC

[alanschu]

How much money did Obsidian waste developing AP and the Aliens crpg? Didn't Bioware completely reboot Dragon Age at some point during development?

 

I think a lot of financial loss in games development occurs due to poor or unfocused internal processes.

 

Obsidian: Not much since Sega was paying the bills for it for the most part. Its the publishers dime you are spending not the developers generally.

 

Bioware: Nothing since Bioware is now a arm of EA, it cost EA not Bioware.

 

 

I'd be surprised if there wasn't a lot of costs absorbed by BioWare during the development of DA.

 

Whether or not those costs were taken care of during the buyout, I can't really say.

[TheHarlequin]

The Bioware Dragon Age social networking place forum is interesting.

 

Usually the place is packed with Bio shills who would thank the developers if every game came with an OS-shredding virus ("but it's a Bioware virus, is there DLC for it?"). This is why I only post there occasionally under a nomme de guerre and only ask questions if I'm stuck and need a mentat to help me who isn't here (rare).

 

Anyway, there is probably a 50/50 split on the DLC issue, unusual for over there and indicative of the depth of feeling.

 

Of the fifty percent who are miffed with DLC, 25% of those who I'd describe as not-very-credible whiners with entitlement issues. They would have whined anyway. The other 25% are more thoughtful and realise that the current DLC model is potentially bad news for PC gamers (i.e. everything has to be cross-platform, a big traditional XP looks unlikely) or have legitimate suspicions about EA and the length of DLC.

 

OTOH I've seen some pretty fair arguments by some of the developers there about the economic realities of DLC - at the end of the day they need to pay salaries and turn a profit. One thing that keeps cropping up is the cost of VO (see my argument about this on the other DA thread)... so why not half partially voiced DLC and make it longer and cheaper? There's also this quality versus length argument - they're saying "do you really want a big dungeon full of darkspawn and not too much plot?"

 

Er, yes, sparky, I do. Your writers are OK, but the Tolstoy estate ain't trembling in their boots just yet. There's room for all sorts of DLC - this is why come the March of the Modders (OK, in about 6-8 months) I'll be able to download a big Deep Roads, monty haul dungeon hack for free and some of the DLC argument will be moot.

 

Bio need to do well what the modders struggle with (or can't turn around quickly) - professionally balanced classes and skills (although with the mage they struggled on the vanilla game ) NPCs, a proper expansion / alternative plotline... or dammit just crack on with DA2. In fact, will DA2 be announced with indecent haste?

 

So, for me, I'm still split on DLC. I like the ease of just hitting a dialogue option in game and buying something. I'm realisitc about what that something might cost. But I'm not convinced that an hour of fully voiced micro-game is the way forward. I'd rather pay the same money for two hours of blissful dungeoneering with good dialogue and 15% of it voiced, y'know, the important bits not a peasant telling me what he had for breakfast.

 

Cheers

MC

 

QFT

 

One of the best and most insightful posts I have seen in some time. Well said and I agree with pretty much all points made. Kudos to you!

[Hassat Hunter]

Well, I am not going to shell out more money to BIO or any other company just because they spend too much money on making a game. And why? Aside from the full VO point Monte Carlo mentioned, which with I fully agree (Drakensang had this and I rather liked it, allowed for deeper convo's than most fully voiced games... and now they promise Drakensang 2 HAS full VO, and I fear for the dialogue lenght) there are the ever obvious graphics.

What takes a very large amount of money, time and people these days that took less in the older days? The graphics. And really; do we need it to be so realistic? Especially if it means companies NEED 2 million sales just to afford them? I hardly doubt that. If developers can just ease back on the graphics cost, then they need less sales to make a profit, and we don't have to shelf out too much money for too little content (DLC).

Remember the Cold War? All those spendings on weapons (graphics)? Would you really taken it for granted if all of it was recouperated through taxes (DLC)? Nope, I think there were demonstrations, and people wanting the spendings lessened. And now still both the US and ex-USSR have major debts because of it. Races for the best are never turning out well...

 

@ TheHarlequin: Not quite true. Developers pay everything, they just get financing from the producer. And this might not always be enough to cover costs if products get delayed too long, or it ends up costing more than estimated. If the producer gives more financing to cover the expanses that's good, but that doesn't always happen, and then financial issues may lead to the demise of a studio. Surely, most of the times this also means the loss of finance for the publisher, but not always. And sometimes it gets even more complicated; Remember the producers of Duke Nukem Forever sued the developers because they want their money back.

 

@ Mamoulian War: Exactly. Wait for GOTY/Gold, and you get a lot more bang for your buck. Sadly enough this can only be done for popular games, less popular will probably be unfindable if you wait too long .

[Kjarista]

I understand DLC designed to expand games. I have a harder time understanding DLC released at the same time as the main game. The DA:O DLC came with the digital distribution I purchased so that it didn't much bother me.

 

As long as DLCs don't end up like micropayments, I can live with them....I either buy them or not. But if I ahve to pay extra for content that seems like part of the story, that's where I quit. Broken Steel came real close to that.

[HoonDing]

Divinity 2: Ego Draconis has pretty extensive dialogue and is fully voiced... the difference with DA is that just not every beggar in the game tells his entire life-story. And also they didn't hire half of Hollywood to speak lines... it's just a game that is well-balanced in graphics, length & VO.

 

Of the fifty percent who are miffed with DLC, 25% of those who I'd describe as not-very-credible whiners with entitlement issues. They would have whined anyway. The other 25% are more thoughtful and realise that the current DLC model is potentially bad news for PC gamers (i.e. everything has to be cross-platform, a big traditional XP looks unlikely) or have legitimate suspicions about EA and the length of DLC.

Don't you mean of the fifty percent who are miffed, 50% are whiners and 50% are thoughtful?

[Monte Carlo]

50% - either neutral or supportive, about 15% being kamikaze Bio-shills who'd buy anything Bio make anyway

25% - thoughtfully upset

25% - serious acceptance of reality issues

 

Anyhow, 78.9% of all statistics are completely made up.

[TheHarlequin]

How much money did Obsidian waste developing AP and the Aliens crpg? Didn't Bioware completely reboot Dragon Age at some point during development?

 

I think a lot of financial loss in games development occurs due to poor or unfocused internal processes.

 

Obsidian: Not much since Sega was paying the bills for it for the most part. Its the publishers dime you are spending not the developers generally.

 

Bioware: Nothing since Bioware is now a arm of EA, it cost EA not Bioware.

 

 

True. But I wasn't really making a point about where the money was coming from. rather I was making a point that a lot of money was spent on games that were cancelled after years in development or on games that were rebooted after a substantial period of development.

 

In other words, a lot of money, somebody's money, was spent on content that was tossed.

 

If a company of any sort makes a habit of this sort of thing they are going to have financial issues.

 

*cough*dukenukeforever*cough* (I think the forever is the development time actually)

 

But as a whole I don't disagree but my point is there are exceptions. I DO disagree with the comments expansions are dead and DLC is the replacing it. If you look at the sims3 they do BOTH. xp's AND DLC. And both do quite well. Do I think thats the system we are all heading too a bit of both? Yes. But traditoonal expansions are not going anywhere. They generate way to much cash for big titles and DLC is frankly way to new and too much resistance to it for them to toss all their egss in that basket.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Yeah, the devs on the Bio forums are manifestly refusing to rule out traditional XPs when asked straight out... there's probably a "Big Squadron" approach to this game - DLC and expansions, in fact any vehicle to build up a head of steam for the sequel (and why not - the reception the game has had so far suggests this is a major hit for Bio / EA).

 

Because I'm not a console gamer, can I ask how big an expansion can you D/L onto a PS3 / Xbox 360?

 

Cheers

MC

[Slowtrain]

I'll just point out here that if F03's cost to content ratio had been the same as the DLC's, FO3 for PC would have cost something like $500 US.

 

Not that they are directly comoarable but as a gamer, DLC appears a frightening money sink.

 

 

If I am a shareholder, then yeah, I'm screaming the praises of DLC from the rooftops. And watching my dividend checks roll in.

[Nepenthe]

^ Yeah, the devs on the Bio forums are manifestly refusing to rule out traditional XPs when asked straight out... there's probably a "Big Squadron" approach to this game - DLC and expansions, in fact any vehicle to build up a head of steam for the sequel (and why not - the reception the game has had so far suggests this is a major hit for Bio / EA).

 

Because I'm not a console gamer, can I ask how big an expansion can you D/L onto a PS3 / Xbox 360?

 

Cheers

MC

 

The devs on the Bio forums are completely enslaved to the EA PR department and can't talk about having or not having taken a leak without prior approval. Absolutely no point in reading anything into it.

 

As far as I know, there is no set limit on the size of the expansion you can release. The problem is that there are wildly differing HD sizes in the consoles (especially as PS3s use regular 2,5" HDs anybody - and I mean anybody, my mother could do it - can swap), so some people are going to have 20gb drives, most people 40-80gb drives and some 120-160gb ones just from having bought their consoles at different times and PS3 users can have drives up to 500gb at the moment.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Nepenthe

[alanschu]

The devs on the Bio forums are completely enslaved to the EA PR department and can't talk about having or not having taken a leak without prior approval. Absolutely no point in reading anything into it.

 

This is irrelevant of the EA PR department. Frankly the EA influence is overstated. There are some restrictions due to the fact that we're a part of a publicly traded company now, and all the rules and protocol that goes along with that, but even if BioWare was independent they'd still exercise prudence when it comes to discussing the possibility of future projects.

[Masterfade]

Bethesda is beginning to sell Fallout 3 themed Xbox Live avatar virtual clothing for up to $3 a piece. BioWare's similar offerings for Mass Effect had been available for a while now.

DLCs are real bargains comparing to those low-poly versions of in-game assets.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Masterfade

[Nepenthe]

The devs on the Bio forums are completely enslaved to the EA PR department and can't talk about having or not having taken a leak without prior approval. Absolutely no point in reading anything into it.

 

This is irrelevant of the EA PR department. Frankly the EA influence is overstated. There are some restrictions due to the fact that we're a part of a publicly traded company now, and all the rules and protocol that goes along with that, but even if BioWare was independent they'd still exercise prudence when it comes to discussing the possibility of future projects.

 

Allright, let's just say that irrespective of the EA acquisition (but it IS the EA PR department, right?), the info channels have been locked down tighter than a duck's ass?

 

I'm hardly the one to go point my finger at EA in every situation, but as somebody who preordered the game months ago and still has to receive it (due to an EA ****-up, albeit a local one), I think I have a pretty good reason to be displeased at the moment. And frankly, there's some seriously absurd stuff going on - like the Blood Dragon Armor apparently having different (=worse) stats on the PS3 version than on the other versions - and nobody is saying anything. I won't go into the amount of reported technical issues on the PS3 version (or should I say the ps3 port of the x360 version) since I have yet to experience them myself.

 

I consider myself a fairly level-headed bloke, I generally understand the reasons behind company actions (to the point where I tend to get stamped with the fanboy mark by the usual haters), but at the moment, it's very hard.'

 

Edit: I think you misunderstood my point - perhaps I could have phrased it better. English is my third language, it's hard to get nuances across sometimes.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Nepenthe

[alanschu]

Allright, let's just say that irrespective of the EA acquisition (but it IS the EA PR department, right?), the info channels have been locked down tighter than a duck's ass?

 

It's the "EA PR department" as much as it is the "BioWare employees that are now working for EA because EA bought BioWare." A lack of transparency among software developers is hardly isolated to Electronic Arts however.

 

 

I think I have a pretty good reason to be displeased at the moment

 

You have a good reason to be displeased about a lack of confirmation for or against an expansion pack? I'm confused now. Would you be happier if BioWare came out and said "Yes" or "No" to questions of an expansion pack?

[entrerix]

Would you be happier if BioWare came out and said "Yes" or "No" to questions of an expansion pack?

 

 

who wouldnt be happier with a yes or no answer?

 

yes or no answers are awesome.

 

not as good as detailed answers, like "yes there will be an expansion pack, it will be out next summer, it will be akin to tales of the sword coast in size and scope."

 

so. will there be an expansion pack? or just these little dlc nuggets?

[alanschu]

I SEE WUT U DID THAR!

[entrerix]

was that a yes or a no?

[TheHarlequin]

It's the "EA PR department" as much as it is the "BioWare employees that are now working for EA because EA bought BioWare." A lack of transparency among software developers is hardly isolated to Electronic Arts however.

 

Now its my turn to say 'very enlightening' comment.

 

So since floodgate screwed bioware over in the SoU expansion pack its ok for bioware to screw someone over too with that logic? Or even more basic anology if I jump off a bridge you going to follow too because I did?

 

Bottom line I don't think finger pointing with 'well they do it too!' is a very legit excuse which is in essence your retort.

[Volourn]

"either neutral or supportive, about 15% being kamikaze Bio-shills who'd buy anything Bio make anyway"

 

YAY! I'm NOT one of the 15% since I most certainly don't buy anything BIO makes. HIP HIP HOORAY!

 

 

"Bottom line I don't think finger pointing with 'well they do it too!' is a very legit excuse which is in essence your retort."

 

Hilarious since you've used that same retort...

Edited November 23, 2009 by Volourn