Dragon Age: Inquisition

[Nepenthe]

http://blog.bioware.com/2013/08/28/the-dragon-age-keep/ Their solution to the world state thing. But like I said, this isn't and shouldn't be an issue for PC gamers.

It should fix some of the broken things in da2 and awakening even for pc gamers if necessary. Really glad about this, as it saves me around 400 hours of my life to not do two completionist runs of dao and da2 due to lost saves and gives me platform flexibility as I've been playing the da games on my pc, which would need a major overhaul to get me anything cool out of the new engine...

 

So, yay.

[Sarex]

Am I the one being disingenuous?  Or are you saying that we're under obligation to provide that additional content at no additional cost?  I think you're splitting hairs.  I used the term free as "New content was created, and people were able to pick it up without having to pay extra for it."

 

If Throne of Bhaal was just created and available to everyone that owned BG2, I would consider it free content.

 

On this point, we'll have to agree to disagree as it's mostly semantics at this point.

 

Can you play the DLC without the main game? No, so it's not free even if it was given at no cost.

 

This reminds me of people that used to tell me that "You shouldn't be able to be in the NBA unless you can hit 75% of your free throws."  Your restriction is arbitrary.  What it also means is that, even if fans want more content for a game, if we've reached the cost limit for DLC, we either can only do it for free, or move on to something else.

 

So what you are saying to me is that it doesn't mater that all the DLCs for one game have less content and play through time, but cost equal or more then the main game. Yeah that seems peachy to me.

[Gfted1]

As long as they don't stick the DLC vendor in my camp shilling his exciting adventure for just $4.99 I'll be happy

 

Why? Its just a simple choice of buy or don't buy and doesn't affect the gameplay at all.

[lobotomy42]

DLC:

 

The reason for doing DLC, pre-orders and "Collector's Editions" is that it serves as a form of what economists call "price discrimination."  Basically, it's a way for people who are only just barely interested in the product to pay the low price necessary to grab them ($60 or less after sales) while still charging the hardcore fans $100 or more.  This is EMINENTLY REASONABLE and is not deceptive or malicious, regardless of when the content was produced.

 

For example, I'm really into Dragon Age, and my brother isn't.  I will gladly pay the additional $40 over the initial prices for various story/combat DLCs, and he won't.  So on net, he pays $60 for a game that I paid $100 for, and I get a slightly extended experience.  This makes sense, because I'm getting more enjoyment out of the game than he is.  The game is worth more to me, so it makes sense that I should pay more.

 

This is a natural byproduct of the increasing cost of game development.  If they just raised prices to $80 across the board, they'd be cannibalizing their sales.  So they need to find a way to still offer people *something* at the $60 price point while also encouraging those who can and will pay more to do so.  It's not nefarious - you are still free to just not buy the game or DLC at all.

 

The Keep:

 

Sounds cool! I really hope they get the importer component working, though, because I can barely remember some of my choices!

[Sarex]

DLC:

 

The reason for doing DLC, pre-orders and "Collector's Editions" is that it serves as a form of what economists call "price discrimination."  Basically, it's a way for people who are only just barely interested in the product to pay the low price necessary to grab them ($60 or less after sales) while still charging the hardcore fans $100 or more.  This is EMINENTLY REASONABLE and is not deceptive or malicious, regardless of when the content was produced.

 

For example, I'm really into Dragon Age, and my brother isn't.  I will gladly pay the additional $40 over the initial prices for various story/combat DLCs, and he won't.  So on net, he pays $60 for a game that I paid $100 for, and I get a slightly extended experience.  This makes sense, because I'm getting more enjoyment out of the game than he is.  The game is worth more to me, so it makes sense that I should pay more.

 

This is a natural byproduct of the increasing cost of game development.  If they just raised prices to $80 across the board, they'd be cannibalizing their sales.  So they need to find a way to still offer people *something* at the $60 price point while also encouraging those who can and will pay more to do so.  It's not nefarious - you are still free to just not buy the game or DLC at all.

 

The Keep:

 

Sounds cool! I really hope they get the importer component working, though, because I can barely remember some of my choices!

 

But as we are moving in to digital space, publishers no longer have to pay dvd royalties, shipments, etc. But does that make them lower the cost of the game? No. So you can't really justify it with the old "the prices are rising" shtick.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Sarex

[Maria Caliban]

 

 

Whether the forces changing the price tag are legitimate or not isn't a matter of great concern.

 

If these things occurred in a vacuum, it wouldn't be.  But the Day One DLC trend is a direct result of people being stupid in their purchasing decisions. To use your analogy, you seem to be perfectly happy paying 4 bucks a gallon for gas because hey,  ~~The Market~~ or whatever.  That's cool for you, but understand that it is damaging to the economy as a whole.

 

TBH your reasoning seems like unfettered approval of whatever corporate trickery comes down the pike, so long as you get to play the game.  I don't have to point out what is wrong with that.

 

 

 

Yes, you do have to point out what's wrong with that. Let's say EA has a perfectly fine single game and decides that since its part of a popular franchise they'll break it into three parts*. They then charge full price for each installment. And they laugh evilly while doing so!

 

Then they go on IGN and are like "Yeah, we were originally going to release one game but decided three would be even better. We're sure you guys will still buy it."

 

Now, explain how this is wrong. Don't tell me how you don't like it or how consumers get unhappy. Tell me how it's *wrong* for them to do so. 

 

 

But as we are moving in to digital space, publishers no longer have to pay dvd royalties, shipments, etc. But does that make them lower the cost of the game? No. So you can't really justify it with the old "the prices are rising" shtick.

 

 

DVD royalties and shipments are not the main cost of games. Employing people is. The prices are rising because the number of developers working on titles increases.

 

* Like they do in some other businesses.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Maria Caliban

[Amentep]

But as we are moving in to digital space, publishers no longer have to pay dvd royalties, shipments, etc. But does that make them lower the cost of the game? No. So you can't really justify it with the old "the prices are rising" shtick.

DVDs were cheaper to produce than cartridges when console gaming changed to optical discs for games but the price didn't change. The general attitude at the time was that the market supported a certain price point, and if you went too far below it or above it people perceived the product negatively (too low and it was a cheap product - shovelware; too high and it was greedy developers extorting the fans).

 

That said, the production values on games have increased incredibly, I can't imagine the production costs haven't increased as well - possibly well past the comfortable profit margins of the mid-90s.

[Sarex]

Yes, you do have to point out what's wrong with that. Let's say EA has a perfectly fine single game and decides that since its part of a popular franchise they'll break it into three parts. They then charge full price for each installment. And they laugh evilly while doing so!

 

Then they go on IGN and are like "Yeah, we were originally going to release one game but decided three would be even better. We're sure you guys will still buy it."

 

Now, explain how this is wrong. Don't tell me how you don't like it or how consumers get unhappy. Tell me how it's *wrong* for them to do so.

 

It's not wrong at all, neither is it wrong that adobe charges an extra 1k for it's products in Australia, it's not wrong that companies demand obscene amounts for life saving drug, nor is it wrong that medical bills bankrupt families, that is just the good old capitalism in full swing.

 

DVDs were cheaper to produce than cartridges when console gaming changed to optical discs for games but the price didn't change. The general attitude at the time was that the market supported a certain price point, and if you went too far below it or above it people perceived the product negatively (too low and it was a cheap product - shovelware; too high and it was greedy developers extorting the fans).

That said, the production values on games have increased incredibly, I can't imagine the production costs haven't increased as well - possibly well past the comfortable profit margins of the mid-90s.

 

But making those game is also much easier now days.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Sarex

[Maria Caliban]

Games != Life saving drugs

 

Buying game != Paying for necessary medical costs

Edited August 28, 2013 by Maria Caliban

[Sarex]

Games != Life saving drugs

 

Buying game != Paying for necessary medical costs

 

Well neither of them is wrong, we are going by your logic. What it boils down to is that it's ok for companies to set their own prices.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Sarex

[Maria Caliban]

Incorrect. I believe that society is obliged to help all its members have necessary medical services.  Why? Because the alternative is misery and/or death.

 

Why don't I apply that to games? Because they're a form of entertainment, a luxury item.

 

Truffle oil is hundreds of dollars. I don't consider that wrong. Going to the Superbowl is hundreds of dollars. I don't consider that wrong.

 

Charging for cut content? If you want to tell me how that's wrong, feel free.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Maria Caliban

[Amentep]

 

DVDs were cheaper to produce than cartridges when console gaming changed to optical discs for games but the price didn't change. The general attitude at the time was that the market supported a certain price point, and if you went too far below it or above it people perceived the product negatively (too low and it was a cheap product - shovelware; too high and it was greedy developers extorting the fans).

 

That said, the production values on games have increased incredibly, I can't imagine the production costs haven't increased as well - possibly well past the comfortable profit margins of the mid-90s.

 

But making those game is also much easier now days.

 

Really?

 

I'd heard it was harder - larger teams, more expense on middleware so you don't have to program all the 3D/Physics bits yourself.

[Sarex]

Incorrect. I believe that society is obliged to help all its members have necessary medical services.  Why? Because the alternative is misery and/or death.

 

Why don't I apply that to games? Because they're a form of entertainment, a luxury item.

 

Truffle oil is hundreds of dollars. I don't consider that wrong. Going to the Superbowl is hundreds of dollars. I don't consider that wrong.

 

Charging for cut content? If you want to tell me how that's wrong, feel free.

 

But that is all capitalism, no one is going to tell a company that it's wrong for them to set their own prices to their product, be they medical or entertainment companies. There is no going, "it's ok for you(entertainment), but it's not ok for you(medical)". You either regulate all of them, or none of them.

 

As for how it's wrong to charge for cut content, well let's be honest games are mostly targeted for young audiences. Do you expect kids to know better?

 

Really?

 

I'd heard it was harder - larger teams, more expense on middleware so you don't have to program all the 3D/Physics bits yourself.

 

Computing is much faster, software is much easier to use. Plus games sell on a much larger scale today.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Sarex

[Hurlshort]

Sarex, there are so many things wrong with your cost analysis that I don't know where to start.  

 

 

Please, just stop now.

[Sarex]

Sarex, there are so many things wrong with your cost analysis that I don't know where to start.  

 

 

Please, just stop now.

 

Please enlighten me.

[Hurlshort]

I'm not really interested in doing research for you.  It is pretty simple to look up game development costs and see how much they've risen over the last 30 years.  

[Sarex]

I'm not really interested in doing research for you.  It is pretty simple to look up game development costs and see how much they've risen over the last 30 years.  

 

Translation, you don't know. Also read the post don't just skim them, prices may have gone up but so have sales and if your answers are going to be like that, fell free to not replay to my posts, I would appreciate it.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Sarex

[Nepenthe]

Well, well, time figure out where that ignore tab was, again.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Well the reaction here ought to be interesting at least.

 

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/08/28/romance-in-dragon-age.aspx

 

 

Well, well, time figure out where that ignore tab was, again.

Ignore is for the weak!

[Nepenthe]

That's why I only use it for cases with a demonstrated absence of common sense...

[Guest Slinky]

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2013/08/28/romance-in-dragon-age.aspx

This sounds like an improvement:

 

"Previously, we had a lot of the follower content gated by your approval rating. Whereas what we're doing now, we're having a lot more of your content event-driven," Gaider says. "The approval you're at informs the nature of the conversation."

 

That means you shouldn't have to agree on everything to befriend or romance another character. "They're like, 'Yes, you've chosen a thing that I disagree with, but we're good friends,'" Laidlaw says. "So that's going to change the color and tone of [those interactions], so [they're] more nuanced. I think that's going to take them beyond what's been done in the past."

Also Gaider has figured out the best kind of romance, and doesn't even realize it!

"Because there's more than insert coin, get sex, right?"

[lobotomy42]

Computing is much faster, software is much easier to use. Plus games sell on a much larger scale today.

 

 

Caveat: I don't work in the games industry, but I do work in software.

 

In the broadest sense, yes, it is now possible for a one-man shop to get a tetris clone into the App Store on iOS devices for much, much less money than in the past.  And if you're talking about literally re-making the same or very similar games from the past then, yes, that is technically cheaper.  Making Project Eternity today is likely possible on a smaller budget than making Baldur's Gate was ten years ago.

 

But in the much more applicable space of AAA games - which is the space Bioware operates in, for better or worse -- every technological improvement raises the stakes.  The sticker price ($60) of games has not budged, games are selling at more-or-less the same rates, but the expectations among consumers for what is a "good" game are raised every time a new game is released.  If you aren't making good use of those CPU cycles, your review score will suffer for it.  Look at the Mass Effect games this generation: when the first came out, it was considered between average and excellent graphically.  ME3 was a large improvement in absolute terms over ME - but by the time it was released it was considered between average and below-average.  So the bar is always being pushed, if not by you, then by someone.  And each improvement makes more demands on the people creating content - more graphical fidelity requires more artists, basically.  The cost of computers, licenses, software, instruction manuals, etc are a blip compared to the costs of manpower. 

[alanschu]

 

 

But making those game is also much easier now days.

 

I'm not sure I can agree with this.  But then again, I didn't make games before 2009 so I suppose I'm not perfectly qualified to say.

[Hurlshort]

I have a feeling the entire crew from Sierra On-Line would disagree with that statement.

[aries101]

Yes, the BIoware games have from way back in 1998 or 1999 been about the chosen one, the ancient organisation, the saving the world, the big bad guy to defeat at the end. And what happenes when Bioware decided no to do this (trivial) thing/game anymore? There were much rejoi....eh...I mean, complaining. And about what: reuse of areas (play NWN, the first, or IWD2 and you'll se reuse of areas in a much grander scale than in DA2), enemies popping out of the ground, and the plot/story in DA2, Hawke's personal story.

 

To me, DA was good game, at least as good as DA: Origins, if not a little bit better. DA2 did have better written companions as well as other npcs, the side quests in DA 2 were excellent, I found, compared with those in DA: Origins (minus 1 or possibly 2 in DA: O ). To me, the story in DA2 is a tightknitted personal story dealing with how Hawke rises to power in Kirkwall, the city of chains, by her/his own accord. I can certainly see something to complain about - the wave combat, (try playing IWD2 again!) Orsino's turning into a Harvester, Hawke not being able to stay neutral when forced to choose between the mages and the templars, Anders's reason for doing what he does at the end of the game isn't that well explained, imo. However, overall, I enjoyed the game greatly and found it nice that it didn't use the trope/klichée of the chosen one, the secret organization etc. etc. Yes, the game certainly has flaws, but then DA: O also did have it flaws* - which game doesn't. To me the idea seemed OK, but the execution and design choices(?) were a bit, if not, much lacking. Meaning this: Bioware simply didn't have time enough to make a great game - 6-12 more months of game development for DA2 would have been great. Legacy and Mark of the Assasins prove this, I find.

 

* never again the Fade or the Deep Roads in DA: O.