EA/Biowares Exploitative Business Practices Made it to Forbes

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
 

This article mostly states common sense type stuff for the most part, and the point being raised is valid.... EA isn't going to stop because we aren't going to make them stop. Unless enough people refuse to buy the game because of this, and EA loses money, it's not only going to continue, but it's going to get worse until they reach the breaking point.

All discussion on the topic is irrelevent beyond that point, it's a very simple pass/fail thing. Any kind of "yeah but" or justification that has you buying the game basically validates everything they are doing as sad as that is.

EA is also smart about how they are doing things, this big profit grab is being done on the tail end of a successful triology. Whether the franchise continues or not, and whether the ending sucks of not, this is a game series people love and are going to want to see the end of. Thus it's probably the safest place they can make a crazy cash grab. They probably wouldn't have tried a push quite like this with a new franchise because the odds of people saying "no" would have been much greater without the investment.

I will also say that the article and The Cynical Brit (through the video link in the article) miss the obvious point about what this actually is, besides a cash grab.

You'll notice that unlike EA/Bioware's other games this game does not include any kind of incentive content for buying the game new (which the brit goes on about at length). What it seems happened was that they realized the game had enough of an installed fanbase that they were going to move enough new copies to not have to worry about used copies all that much in making their product. They would rather get an extra $10 from all the people buying the normal copies right then and there, than getting a trickle of $10 purchuses as used copies made their way onto the market. Basically both the new and used player have to pay for that content. I do not think that they actually trimmed anything that was intended to be in the main game, so much as they decided to sell the content that was being presented for first time purchusers. The whole bit with the character being a Prothean is simply because by their original intent they needed something awesome enough where the used player wasn't just going to say "meh it isn't worth it" which is apparently a problem with a lot of non-crucial content. I mean a few guns or whatever aren't going to tempt a used purchuser, especially if there are better guns eventually obtainable within the game. "Origins" had a stone golem that was actually pretty integral to the events involving the anvil of creation and understanding all the ramifications of one of the major plotlines, and "ME2" didn't just have a mercenary NPC, but the tank and it's whole series of missions... and together that was a decent chunk of content. Pulling out the Prothean is actually being kind of lazy, because for just that one thing and it's mission they could get away with doing a lot less content than they used for the same purpose with ME2... with the level of content being closer to Origins. Of course in the end they didn't bother with the intended purpose and just decided to sell it.

That's probably not the most coherant thing I've written (I'm tired) but its what I think is going on here. The point of it being that while a cash grab, it's not exactly the kind of cash grab people think. I don't think this content is any more nessicary than Shale was, as cool as it happens to be, I don't think it intrudes much on the core experience. I do however believe that it was probably intended to be free for the intial purchusers, and is being charged for. That's pretty bad, but it's not QUITE as bad as stripping something integral to the game, without which the game makes no sense, and then charging for it, which is what some people seem to think.

At any rate, this whole situation is pretty messed up as a whole. The DLC, what we learned about the ending, Bioware's general attitudes recently... it's a mess. Sadly I think they are going to not only get away with it, but probably break some of their own sales records in doing so.

DLC is a different business aspect to the core game, thus it comes under different funding and contracts. It is not taking from the original game anymore than Apple made accesories are taking from iPod development. If DLC didn't exist FRom Ashes wouldn't either. It was not 'stolen' from the core game.

Can anyone tell me why exactly Zeel was suspended when all he was doing was voicing his opinion?
Was it his use of less than polite language?
Or is this the kind of forum where the mods suspend you if you voice an opinion which differs from theirs?

xxcloud417xx:
You're simply assuming that a title released at $60 - $70 is a AAA title, not always the case. You're also assuming that the development budget is somehow higher on these titles, again may not be the case. I'm pretty sure we could see the Orange Box compared to any other "AAA" game from the time cost the same to the developer (if not more since the Orange box contained more than 1 title) in terms of development budget. They sold it at $40 and made the crap out of their money back. Hell they GAVE away Portal for new Steam users and Team Fortress 2 is now Free to Play, that's proof enough that you don't need to milk the crap out of your games.

No, I'm not - for sure, there are plenty of non-AAA titles that get sold at full price too. And absolutely, for some of them there will be a crossover point where they would have made more money if they had have priced lower and gone for a volume strategy.

But my point was that particularly when it comes to AAA titles such as Modern Warfare and Skyrim (I'm happy to concede that ME3 may of may not reach AAA status) we, the game buying public, have demonstrated time and again that we're willing to buy millions of copies upon launch and pay full price for them.

What it cost the developers to actually make the game is completely irrelevant when it comes to the discussion of what we're willing to pay, because for the most part we don't know and don't care what it cost to make the game we're about to buy.

We have to remember that premium pricing is an important part of the marketing and positioning for a game too. Let's say Activision somehow knew that they'd sell twice as many copies (and make the same profit) if they halved the price of the next Modern Warfare game compared to selling it at full price. Should they do it?

They'd have twice as many people playing the game, but they'd also be massively devaluing the brand and hurting future sales because the message that sends is "Modern Warfare is only worth $30, and by extension, it's really no better than any other $30 shooter". More to the point, it mustn't be as good as Battlefield, because Battlefield costs twice as much.

Leave the price at $60-$70 and it must be a great game, a premium product, still at the very top of the FPS heap, because why else would they be charging full price? Perception is a very powerful thing and in the minds of a lot of consumers, pricing plays a big role in forming perceptions.

Li Mu:
Can anyone tell me why exactly Zeel was suspended when all he was doing was voicing his opinion?
Was it his use of less than polite language?
Or is this the kind of forum where the mods suspend you if you voice an opinion which differs from theirs?

He was posting in several threads and being incredibly rude and flaming over people.

Is the reasons I assume he was suspended.

IF you just have to have this game. BUY IT USED FROM BEST BUY/GAMESTOP!
pay the money to companies that take their money.
Dooooo eeeeet.

WonderWillard:

Kungfu_Teddybear:

I won't be getting the DLC anyway, and I'm already going into Mass Effect 3 expecting a disappointment. At this point I don't even care, I'm getting Mass Effect 3 simply to see the conclusion of the trilogy. After this game BioWare are dead to me. I might consider getting any future Dragon Age games if they're more like Origins since I've already started playing those, but only if they're direct sequels. I will not be buying any new IP's BioWare bring out.

Care to explain why Bioware is "dead to you" now, or why Mass Effect 3 is already a dissapointment?

I feel bad that Bioware has to take so much shit for managing to come out with DLC early. What are they supposed to do, sit on it for a few months and then release it when DLC is "supposed to be" released? This issue has become ridiculously overblown.

for me the door to me3 ended when ea pulled out of steam. regardless of why they did it, my library , my friends are on steam. Plus you gotta think..it is ea.
It is kind of why ill never buy Ubisoft games because I know damn well that the people i am giving my money too have no respect for me.

it is not that I hate them. it is more that now that they are deliberately trying separate themselves from the established community.. IE EA moving away from the steam community or Ubisoft and their lubriciously restrictive drm. I just have no reason to invest in them anymore. Ill see the franchises im invested in to the end ... maybe . but i wont be getting into anything new from those publishers.

You are aware EA left because Valve implemented a crappy DLC requirement in their EULA right? and that it was VALVE who removed EA's games?

probably not because most people dont bother to look up things before they start tal;king about them.

SajuukKhar:
You are aware EA left because Valve implemented a crappy DLC requirement in their EULA right? and that it was VALVE who removed EA's games?

probably not because most people dont bother to look up things before they start tal;king about them.

There will always be the official story and there will always be the unofficial story too. It's pretty damn convenient that EA backs out of Steam the same week as Origin launches. It's not hard to draw an appropriate conclusion there.

Don't get me wrong, however, I'm not saying that Valve didn't do anything wrong, but we can't discount that it was awfully convenient for EA too. If anything I think there were disagreements and bullshit on each side.

Off-Topic :

Battle Angel Alita is the shit. Nice avatar.

If EA truly wanted to back out of Steam they would have removed ALL their games, and they would have stopped releasing any of their games on Steam. The thing is though they haven't when they easily could in order to promote Origin.

The only games that have been removed are games with DLC because Steam's new DLC policy is "If the game in on Steam the DLC HAS to be sold through Steam", while companies like EA and Mincraft creator Notch sell their DLC through their game launcher/stores/other method because it is easier for them".

Minecraft WOULD be on Steam but Notch can't because of its policy on DLC.

I don't think either Valve or EA are in the wrong really, both are doing it because its easier for them and makes them more money, but Valve did change their EULA AFTER previously allowing many games, who use the method EA uses, to be put up, and it was Valve who removed Ea's games becuase they didn't comply with the new system.

Beyond that thanks for the Alita nod, it can be hard to find new chapters, can't belive they FINALLY killed Trinadad.

Chapter 110-111

Can't wait for James Cameron's movie of BAA.

GonzoGamer:

I can't speak for the people on your buddy list

I'm gonna cut you short here. As I mentioned in my post, it's not just people on my buddy list. You can check up on people who post their gamertags, especially on sites like the Escapists where you can seamlessly link up your Gamertag, Steam Account, etc. When Jim Sterling talked about people being caught after cries of boycott, this is how they were found out.

If this were merely "my friends vs your friends," you'd have a point, but this is a widespread enough phenomenon that it has reached the news, and been a topic of discussion amongst gamers, game pundits, and so on.

All things considered, since you've both ignored what we're saying and why we're saying it, I must say you are doing both us and yourself a great disservice. I don't expect a formal debate over the internet, but I do expect some level of fairness.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

In the car industry:
Man #1: Our 2012 Ford Focus didn't sell well!
Man #2: Lower the price on the 2013, throw in some new features. Pull the customers back.

In the video game industry:
Man #1: Mass Effect 3 didn't sell well!
Man #2: Pirates and GameStop must have caused this. Put in more restrictive DRM that doesn't stop pirates for shit, and alienate our base more!

Let me fix that second example.

Man #1: Mass Effect 3 didn't sell well!
Man #2: Pirates and GameStop must have caused this. Put in more restrictive DRM that doesn't stop pirates for shit, add online passes to milk honest consumers, and put out ten times the DLC in bite size chunks for higher prices, and alienate our base more! Oh, and don't forget to gie special pre-order bonuses to Gamestop, even though they're killing the industry!

Zachary Amaranth:

GonzoGamer:

I can't speak for the people on your buddy list

I'm gonna cut you short here. As I mentioned in my post, it's not just people on my buddy list. You can check up on people who post their gamertags, especially on sites like the Escapists where you can seamlessly link up your Gamertag, Steam Account, etc. When Jim Sterling talked about people being caught after cries of boycott, this is how they were found out.

Found out what though?
I've borrowed and rented games without buying them and I lend plenty of games out to people who don't always buy their own copy either.

Zachary Amaranth:

GonzoGamer:

I can't speak for the people on your buddy list

I'm gonna cut you short here. As I mentioned in my post, it's not just people on my buddy list. You can check up on people who post their gamertags, especially on sites like the Escapists where you can seamlessly link up your Gamertag, Steam Account, etc. When Jim Sterling talked about people being caught after cries of boycott, this is how they were found out.

If this were merely "my friends vs your friends," you'd have a point, but this is a widespread enough phenomenon that it has reached the news, and been a topic of discussion amongst gamers, game pundits, and so on.

All things considered, since you've both ignored what we're saying and why we're saying it, I must say you are doing both us and yourself a great disservice. I don't expect a formal debate over the internet, but I do expect some level of fairness.

NameIsRobertPaulson:

In the car industry:
Man #1: Our 2012 Ford Focus didn't sell well!
Man #2: Lower the price on the 2013, throw in some new features. Pull the customers back.

In the video game industry:
Man #1: Mass Effect 3 didn't sell well!
Man #2: Pirates and GameStop must have caused this. Put in more restrictive DRM that doesn't stop pirates for shit, and alienate our base more!

Let me fix that second example.

Man #1: Mass Effect 3 didn't sell well!
Man #2: Pirates and GameStop must have caused this. Put in more restrictive DRM that doesn't stop pirates for shit, add online passes to milk honest consumers, and put out ten times the DLC in bite size chunks for higher prices, and alienate our base more! Oh, and don't forget to gie special pre-order bonuses to Gamestop, even though they're killing the industry!

I hope you don't honestly believe GameStop is killing the industry. They are a retailer that sells used games. For a game to be used, it had to have been purchased new at some point. Saying GameStop is "killing" the industry is like saying Barnes & Noble is "killing" the book industry.

NKRevan:
Others have said it before, I'll repeat it.

The author of that article is perfectly right. As long as companies make money, they will continue to push to make more money. This is a perfectly normal business method and done by every single company in the world. Some companies offer more free stuff...but only because they want your money for the other stuff!

At some point, the whole thing will self-regulate. Too many people will not feel like the 60 or 70 bucks they are "forced" to spend are justified. Then and only then will EA (and all other companies for that matter) stop pushing it and revert to the point where enough people are happy to shell out the money they ask for.

That point isn't reached yet. People are buying the stuff because they believe the stuff is worth it. You can argue that it isn't, but it's your own opinion. If someone gets enough enjoyment out of a product to justify spending 70 bucks on it, that's his own decision and nothing you say invalidates the decision, nor does it make the company asking 70 bucks for it evil.

At some point the breaking point will be reached for enough people to halt the increased prices and increased DLC/Splitting etc.

That point isn't now, I can pretty much guarantee that.

I agree to some extent - the market can sometimes be regulated by itself, but the sad truth is that it is not always the case, otherwise we wouldn't need antitrust laws, monopoly regulations and such.

EA practice is exploitative because it lacks consistency. When I bought ME1 it had a different business model. Now that they know I like it, they are trying to get more money out of me. It seems a natural step in the capitalist economic model, but let's not forget that's exactly the same business model of drug dealers - it is designed to take advantage of the consumer lack of will. EA is also taking advantage of the natural "monopoly" they have of the ME series.

Some people are buying this stuff not because they think it is worth it, but because they do not have an alternative if they want to have a complete ME experience. They are simply too invested in the series to let it go. This kind of practice is incredibly hard to selfregulate.

I agree it does have a limit and this limit will probably be the lack of money of the consumer base and not a shared perception of worth.

We are not at this point yet, of course, but what I do agree is that things will get worse because this DLC will sell tons.

The only hope we have that this DLC thing stops before being completely abusive is if EA (and other companies)realizes that if their image takes enough hits, it can harm future business.

That's why I think that it is very important that the vocal minority are expressing their concerns. When the author says that Total Biscuit rant is a somewhat futile effort, he seems to forget that the video (along with the whole debate) helped him decide to write about the issue on Forbes.

Well all they are doing is stating the obvious. If something sells then they think of ways to make more money from it. I agree that only cosmetic stuff should be day 1 dlc's and From Ashes is a "below the belt" type of hit. They did the same thing with Dragon Age 2 so it is not a new practice actually.

Still, i am waiting until i play the game before i judge it and i advise everyone to do the same. Mass Effect 2 felt complete even without the free dlc's that came with it and i have no doubt that Mass Effect 3 will be the same.

zinho73:

NKRevan:
Others have said it before, I'll repeat it.

The author of that article is perfectly right. As long as companies make money, they will continue to push to make more money. This is a perfectly normal business method and done by every single company in the world. Some companies offer more free stuff...but only because they want your money for the other stuff!

At some point, the whole thing will self-regulate. Too many people will not feel like the 60 or 70 bucks they are "forced" to spend are justified. Then and only then will EA (and all other companies for that matter) stop pushing it and revert to the point where enough people are happy to shell out the money they ask for.

That point isn't reached yet. People are buying the stuff because they believe the stuff is worth it. You can argue that it isn't, but it's your own opinion. If someone gets enough enjoyment out of a product to justify spending 70 bucks on it, that's his own decision and nothing you say invalidates the decision, nor does it make the company asking 70 bucks for it evil.

At some point the breaking point will be reached for enough people to halt the increased prices and increased DLC/Splitting etc.

That point isn't now, I can pretty much guarantee that.

I agree to some extent - the market can sometimes be regulated by itself, but the sad truth is that it is not always the case, otherwise we wouldn't need antitrust laws, monopoly regulations and such.

EA practice is exploitative because it lacks consistency. When I bought ME1 it had a different business model. Now that they know I like it, they are trying to get more money out of me. It seems a natural step in the capitalist economic model, but let's not forget that's exactly the same business model of drug dealers - it is designed to take advantage of the consumer lack of will. EA is also taking advantage of the natural "monopoly" they have of the ME series.

Some people are buying this stuff not because they think it is worth it, but because they do not have an alternative if they want to have a complete ME experience. They are simply too invested in the series to let it go. This kind of practice is incredibly hard to selfregulate.

I agree it does have a limit and this limit will probably be the lack of money of the consumer base and not a shared perception of worth.

We are not at this point yet, of course, but what I do agree is that things will get worse because this DLC will sell tons.

The only hope we have that this DLC thing stops before being completely abusive is if EA (and other companies)realizes that if their image takes enough hits, it can harm future business.

That's why I think that it is very important that the vocal minority are expressing their concerns. When the author says that Total Biscuit rant is a somewhat futile effort, he seems to forget that the video (along with the whole debate) helped him decide to write about the issue on Forbes.

i understand the implications of the slipery slope of charging more to maximize profit.

but making the consumer come out as a victim isnt good argument as to why they should stop.

You yourself say it on your post, that weak willed consumers are the ones that are getting hammered and suffering from this. If people cant take personal responsibility for purchasing a LUXURY item, then when should they take personal responsibility?

You cant just say, "People have no choice", thats nonesense, there is plenty of choice, the Prime one being "Not to Purchase" said game.

boag:

zinho73:

NKRevan:
Others have said it before, I'll repeat it.

The author of that article is perfectly right. As long as companies make money, they will continue to push to make more money. This is a perfectly normal business method and done by every single company in the world. Some companies offer more free stuff...but only because they want your money for the other stuff!

At some point, the whole thing will self-regulate. Too many people will not feel like the 60 or 70 bucks they are "forced" to spend are justified. Then and only then will EA (and all other companies for that matter) stop pushing it and revert to the point where enough people are happy to shell out the money they ask for.

That point isn't reached yet. People are buying the stuff because they believe the stuff is worth it. You can argue that it isn't, but it's your own opinion. If someone gets enough enjoyment out of a product to justify spending 70 bucks on it, that's his own decision and nothing you say invalidates the decision, nor does it make the company asking 70 bucks for it evil.

At some point the breaking point will be reached for enough people to halt the increased prices and increased DLC/Splitting etc.

That point isn't now, I can pretty much guarantee that.

I agree to some extent - the market can sometimes be regulated by itself, but the sad truth is that it is not always the case, otherwise we wouldn't need antitrust laws, monopoly regulations and such.

EA practice is exploitative because it lacks consistency. When I bought ME1 it had a different business model. Now that they know I like it, they are trying to get more money out of me. It seems a natural step in the capitalist economic model, but let's not forget that's exactly the same business model of drug dealers - it is designed to take advantage of the consumer lack of will. EA is also taking advantage of the natural "monopoly" they have of the ME series.

Some people are buying this stuff not because they think it is worth it, but because they do not have an alternative if they want to have a complete ME experience. They are simply too invested in the series to let it go. This kind of practice is incredibly hard to selfregulate.

I agree it does have a limit and this limit will probably be the lack of money of the consumer base and not a shared perception of worth.

We are not at this point yet, of course, but what I do agree is that things will get worse because this DLC will sell tons.

The only hope we have that this DLC thing stops before being completely abusive is if EA (and other companies)realizes that if their image takes enough hits, it can harm future business.

That's why I think that it is very important that the vocal minority are expressing their concerns. When the author says that Total Biscuit rant is a somewhat futile effort, he seems to forget that the video (along with the whole debate) helped him decide to write about the issue on Forbes.

i understand the implications of the slipery slope of charging more to maximize profit.

but making the consumer come out as a victim isnt good argument as to why they should stop.

You yourself say it on your post, that weak willed consumers are the ones that are getting hammered and suffering from this. If people cant take personal responsibility for purchasing a LUXURY item, then when should they take personal responsibility?

You cant just say, "People have no choice", thats nonesense, there is plenty of choice, the Prime one being "Not to Purchase" said game.

I agree it is a LUXURY item, but we are not talking about soap here. People are really passionate about this series and not always reasonable - some arguments on both sides of this issue are just insane. Gaming can be an addictive experience and this kind of business practice takes advantage of that.

I also agree that there is choice, but for some people it is a choice that they weren't prepared to make.

In any case, we are somewhat responsible for the state of things (not entirely as the article suggests)and that's why I think we should express our dissatisfaction and not just sit waiting for the market to selfregulate.

zinho73:

boag:

zinho73:

I agree to some extent - the market can sometimes be regulated by itself, but the sad truth is that it is not always the case, otherwise we wouldn't need antitrust laws, monopoly regulations and such.

EA practice is exploitative because it lacks consistency. When I bought ME1 it had a different business model. Now that they know I like it, they are trying to get more money out of me. It seems a natural step in the capitalist economic model, but let's not forget that's exactly the same business model of drug dealers - it is designed to take advantage of the consumer lack of will. EA is also taking advantage of the natural "monopoly" they have of the ME series.

Some people are buying this stuff not because they think it is worth it, but because they do not have an alternative if they want to have a complete ME experience. They are simply too invested in the series to let it go. This kind of practice is incredibly hard to selfregulate.

I agree it does have a limit and this limit will probably be the lack of money of the consumer base and not a shared perception of worth.

We are not at this point yet, of course, but what I do agree is that things will get worse because this DLC will sell tons.

The only hope we have that this DLC thing stops before being completely abusive is if EA (and other companies)realizes that if their image takes enough hits, it can harm future business.

That's why I think that it is very important that the vocal minority are expressing their concerns. When the author says that Total Biscuit rant is a somewhat futile effort, he seems to forget that the video (along with the whole debate) helped him decide to write about the issue on Forbes.

i understand the implications of the slipery slope of charging more to maximize profit.

but making the consumer come out as a victim isnt good argument as to why they should stop.

You yourself say it on your post, that weak willed consumers are the ones that are getting hammered and suffering from this. If people cant take personal responsibility for purchasing a LUXURY item, then when should they take personal responsibility?

You cant just say, "People have no choice", thats nonesense, there is plenty of choice, the Prime one being "Not to Purchase" said game.

I agree it is a LUXURY item, but we are not talking about soap here. People are really passionate about this series and not always reasonable

this seems to be a fault of the consumer not the company.

- some arguments on both sides of this issue are just insane. Gaming can be an addictive experience and this kind of business practice takes advantage of that.

I agree to an extent, I do acknowledge that the lure of wanting a game is desire that lingers, but I refuse to acknowledge it as an addiction because of the connotations that carries, and the eventual repercussions it will allow certain cough "Governments" to use the argument as

I also agree that there is choice, but for some people it is a choice that they weren't prepared to make.

understandable, yet i find that if people arent prepared to make a choice over buying a videogame or not, then they might have bigger issues in their lives that need immediate addressing.

In any case, we are somewhat responsible for the state of things (not entirely as the article suggests)and that's why I think we should express our dissatisfaction and not just sit waiting for the market to selfregulate.

Well thats the thing, consumer action is the market self regulating, the alternative options are severe, I would hate to have government involvement in this medium for a number of reasons.

Voicing ones opinion is certainly an acceptable way to address a concern, but often times the vocal groups doing the voicing come off as irrational people who do not know when to compromise or pick their battles.

Take for instance the ME3 right now, initially there was an over abundant outcry over the way a character dressed, then on another characters choice of make up, then the DLC, and now the endgame scenarios.

In my personal position only one of these was actually worth voicing a distaste for and often times found myself debating on the other side of a position I did not often times agree with, because the people I sort of agree with, were making it so easy to tear up holes in their argument, by basing it on wild assumption, unproven conspiracies and downright crazy suppositions.

I really don't get the hubub over DLC. Aren't they just basically premium modules? Remember the days of Neverwinter Nights, when BioWare would sometimes release small modules Kingmaker? That's all DLC really is. I don't get the controversy.

To Boag (I won't copy every thing for the sake of forum space):

Our opinions touch in several aspects, but I disagree that EA has no responsibility in the issue. To me, companies that take advantage of the consumer are in the wrong, even if the consumers put themselves vulnerable. I believe in shared responsibility an EA behavior is part of the problem, specially because they are not exactly straightforward about their intent (more in the case of Dragon Age 2 than here, but still...).

Consumer action is selfregulating, I agree. I just disagree with the notion implied in the article that selfregulation will happen when everyone will just stop buying things one day. This discution and even the more crazy ones are part of the process - and I point out that this is going to be a tough nut to crack, because DLC is here to stay and there are no standards for this economic model yet.

Esotera:
If you don't like DLC, then don't buy it, ever. Don't even get the free stuff. And don't ever buy a game that looks like it's going to be incomplete because of DLC.

I'm fine with DLC when it's done well, but what pisses me off to no end is gamers who bitch about how terrible DLC is, but have either purchased or used DLC of any kind. Just don't use it at all, and maybe we'll be lucky and it will go away.

Sir, you, your common sense and your logic have no place in a thread like this. I'm going to have to ask you to leave. Get out!

zinho73:
To Boag (I won't copy every thing for the sake of forum space):

Our opinions touch in several aspects, but I disagree that EA has no responsibility in the issue. To me, companies that take advantage of the consumer are in the wrong, even if the consumers put themselves vulnerable. I believe in shared responsibility an EA behavior is part of the problem, specially because they are not exactly straightforward about their intent (more in the case of Dragon Age 2 than here, but still...).

Consumer action is selfregulating, I agree. I just disagree with the notion implied in the article that selfregulation will happen when everyone will just stop buying things one day. This discution and even the more crazy ones are part of the process - and I point out that this is going to be a tough nut to crack, because DLC is here to stay and there are no standards for this economic model yet.

We will have to disagree on certain points then, because I do believe there is a breaking point that will be reached, if they ever made the DLC worth 20 dollars for what amounted to 10 minutes of gameplay or a re-skin, I am plenty sure the majority of consumers would say "fuck this" and not purchase it.

boag:

zinho73:
To Boag (I won't copy every thing for the sake of forum space):

Our opinions touch in several aspects, but I disagree that EA has no responsibility in the issue. To me, companies that take advantage of the consumer are in the wrong, even if the consumers put themselves vulnerable. I believe in shared responsibility an EA behavior is part of the problem, specially because they are not exactly straightforward about their intent (more in the case of Dragon Age 2 than here, but still...).

Consumer action is selfregulating, I agree. I just disagree with the notion implied in the article that selfregulation will happen when everyone will just stop buying things one day. This discution and even the more crazy ones are part of the process - and I point out that this is going to be a tough nut to crack, because DLC is here to stay and there are no standards for this economic model yet.

We will have to disagree on certain points then, because I do believe there is a breaking point that will be reached, if they ever made the DLC worth 20 dollars for what amounted to 10 minutes of gameplay or a re-skin, I am plenty sure the majority of consumers would say "fuck this" and not purchase it.

If it comes to the point that a company finds this proposition viable it means we have been already fucked over and over.

zinho73:

boag:

zinho73:
To Boag (I won't copy every thing for the sake of forum space):

Our opinions touch in several aspects, but I disagree that EA has no responsibility in the issue. To me, companies that take advantage of the consumer are in the wrong, even if the consumers put themselves vulnerable. I believe in shared responsibility an EA behavior is part of the problem, specially because they are not exactly straightforward about their intent (more in the case of Dragon Age 2 than here, but still...).

Consumer action is selfregulating, I agree. I just disagree with the notion implied in the article that selfregulation will happen when everyone will just stop buying things one day. This discution and even the more crazy ones are part of the process - and I point out that this is going to be a tough nut to crack, because DLC is here to stay and there are no standards for this economic model yet.

We will have to disagree on certain points then, because I do believe there is a breaking point that will be reached, if they ever made the DLC worth 20 dollars for what amounted to 10 minutes of gameplay or a re-skin, I am plenty sure the majority of consumers would say "fuck this" and not purchase it.

If it comes to the point that a company finds this proposition viable it means we have been already fucked over and over.

Possible, but I am certain that the market would have already told them to fuck off well before reaching my hyperbolic point. ;)

NameIsRobertPaulson:

I hope you don't honestly believe GameStop is killing the industry.

You could possibly check the thread I made on it to verify my beliefs. Still, the rest of the post was taking the piss. Not sure why you'd think that part specifically was played straight.

I could care less about americans having to pay an extra $10 for DLC on a $60 game, poor them. Here in Australia new games are usually a minimum of $90 avg. ME3 collector's edition is $120 from our leading retailer EB games... so shut up you whingng essentially and be thankfull.

Also I will be getting ME3 collectors, all the DLC and sucking off the developers in hopes of a 4th one. Cant say the same for any other franchises.

Lol, gamers still complaining that massive businesses shouldn't run themselves as the massive businesses they are.

Kungfu_Teddybear:

Thoric485:
Thanks, console gamers.

It's people like you that give PC gamers a bad name, grow up.

OT: I won't be getting the DLC anyway, and I'm already going into Mass Effect 3 expecting a disappointment. At this point I don't even care, I'm getting Mass Effect 3 simply to see the conclusion of the trilogy. After this game BioWare are dead to me. I might consider getting any future Dragon Age games if they're more like Origins since I've already started playing those, but only if they're direct sequels. I will not be buying any new IP's BioWare bring out.

Dont lose hope my friend im only a quarter of the way done and its already much better the the second.
OT: i chose not to read articles on games/game publishers from multimedia sorces. they tend to writen by people who have no idea what they are talking about. That said if zeel is pissed at them they must have done something right:)

I've been trying to post this as a seperate thread all morning, but the escapist keeps giving me "Captcha Errors" that have been driving me crazy. Anyways:

Hey everyone,

I wasn't really planning on contributing to the Bioware/EA hatefest that has been going on lately, but I stumbled across this article this morning and I think the Escapist community should take a look.

http://crystalprisonzone.blogspot.com/2012/03/bioware-day-one-dlc-developed.html

In it, the author points to files on the Demo and ME3 disk that imply "From Ashes" was not some separate side project tacked on later and was probably developed with the original game. It's certainly not definitive, but you should take it in to account if you're making up your mind about supporting/not supporting Bioware in the future.

@Ryan Savage: Interesting read and even funnier comment responses to that article. It's interesting which ones people responded to aggressively.

This whole ME3/Bioware/EA teacup based storm must really be helping internet popcorn sales.

Ok my take is this - some people want to pull Bioware up on absolutely anything they can find, when they do wiser calmer, more experienced people explain the why's and wherefores of the situation and depending on how well they do they either get flamed or ignored. The normal flame response is to call them paid shills (Biodrones I believe the popular phrase with the crazy kidz is...). The better responses seem to get ignored. It's why it's funny to read, especially as the critics really are coming across more as paid marketing shills than the so called defenders of Bioware.

Corporations enjoy making money.

More breaking news at Eleven.

What the Forbes article talks about is a concept I derived and have been using for years now: The gaming Cost:Content ratio.
How much cash per hour you're actually spending.

From what I've found using this, DLC is without question, on average sold overpriced relative to the price of the core game.

For example, $15 for 3 hours DLC ($5:1hr) vs $60 for 40 hours (3$:2hr, or $1.5 per hour), which was for Operation Anchorage(DLC) and Fallout 3, by the way.

Borderlands' DLC fared far better at 6 hours for $15 for "General Knoxx" (though I got the GOTY Edition for $50 total, so these ratios are much much better in practice; I'm just going by initial prices here)

It becomes worse when you incorporate Power Items and characters into the equation (Mass Effect 2 had Kasumi, who was VASTLY SUPERIOR to nearly every other NPC in terms of combat ability, and made even the higher difficulties a cakewalk) or useless fluff like bling.

And Forbes is 100% correct; WE (demand) are one of the defining limiters for the average price.
And the "Total Biscuits" like myself out there continuously shake our collective heads when we see such incredibly poor deals sell exceptionally well. Frankly, most gamers as consumers are stupid, ignorant sheep who don't know how badly they're getting taken and why we saw such an horrible drought in variety for mainstream gaming for the previous several years: We gave the Big Publishers a free ride for a long time with them asking for more and more each and every year.

CD Keys become online systems, which included limited installs, which will eventually become cloud-cluster digital services or "eternal rentals". Consoles are no less guilty here; using proprietary market control methods to funnel a huge amount of mainstream gaming into a system where you have few/no alternatives, and thus, less need for competitive practices.

For both dominant platforms (PC/Console) we have DLC that covertly jacks up the price of your average game ON LAUNCH by 50-75% (which we are on the threshold of having CRITICAL content for the game withheld entirely on launch. We may have to pay for the full core game story in chunks if this persists, and I don't just mean near-identical sequels.)

And we enabled this. All of it.
And I have no reason to believe that the legions of sheep out there will not stop now; they're having fun.

Fine. That's economics. I wasn't happy with that, but I have since found alternative sources for gaming that don't go to nearly the same depths to plunder more cash from my wallet for no real effort (yeah, independent developers). They do so because unlike the Big Publishers, they actually have to compete a lot harder to remain in the market.

And if ANYONE responds with the usual "You're entitled, so you're wrong" argument here, do me a favor and just shut your fucking mouth right there, because it's about as relevant and useful as its equal and opposite argument: "The Publishers are nothing but GREEDY".

Fact is: They're the same principle economic force; only from different angles (Supply's Greed vs Demand's Entitlement) and without them the market wouldn't actually exist. Hell, the mere act of buying a luxury is in itself, entitlement to some degree. You DO want to get something for your money, right?

But If you still wish to take the "moral high ground" and persist in using that stupid "entitlement" argument, I ask that you lead by example and sell all your luxuries (including all of your games and probably the computer or cell phone you're posting from).
Perhaps you could find actual enlightenment rather than just sitting so far up on your high horse.

Paul Tassi:
But there is an edge to the cliff somewhere, and as gamers feel more and more trampled on by their corporate overlords pulling the strings of the games they love, it's entirely possible they can drift away from the industry as a whole as it becomes ALL about the money, and the cash grabbing becomes too much to stomach.

Normally, demand going down as price goes up is simply a natural economic process; part of the price-curve. However, what's different here is that Publishers are trying to shift THE WHOLE CURVE so that Demand remains high, and prices go higher.

What they fail to realize is, that's not how it works. If they nudge the curve too far by asking for too much and refusing to budge on the issue (hi Ubisoft; nice DRM you have there, assholes) as monopolies and oligopolies oft do; then they risk a market crash; where the required level of trust between Supply and Demand can no longer be met.

And for the nay-sayers who claim that the market is profitable than ever; that doesn't necessarily mean STABLE either. The previous housing market can serve as an example of that.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked