This Is Your Game Company On Meth: BioWare thinks the majority of players want day 1 DLC
116 replies, posted
[QUOTE=LaughBann;37317074]Not really, Road to rome had 6 maps, 6 vehicles and 1 weapon. Even SWoWWII had 16 vehicles, 7 weapons and 8 maps.
When compared, B2K you mentioned has 4 maps, 3 vehicles, and 10 weapons. Armored kill is supposed to have 4 maps and six vehicles (out of which only 5 are can be piloted).
Both of the bf1942 expansions had more content than any bf3 dlc to date. bf3 'expansions' have worst bang for the buck out of any battlefield title 'expansions' to date. Bf2:euro force came with like 4 maps, 3 vehicles and 7 weapons. For [B]6.99[/B].[/QUOTE]
BF2: Euro Force was $10, unless your not referring to dollars.
Regardless, one thing which often seems to be overlooked in comparing content from past games to more recent ones is that as technology advances, creating content becomes a more difficult process. Think about it, a BF2 map doesn't have destruction (which complicates not only the creating of assists, but also the designing and balancing of the map) like a BF3 one does, a BF2 vehicle isn't as detailed as one in BF3, etc...
Sure, we may still be getting less value per a dollar, but I don't think it's by a massive amount.
Anyway, I don't blame the developers, or the publishers, I blame the shareholders.
[QUOTE=DaMastez;37317575]BF2: Euro Force was $10, unless your not referring to dollars.
Regardless, one thing which often seems to be overlooked in comparing content from past games to more recent ones is that as technology advances, creating content becomes a more difficult process. Think about it, a BF2 map doesn't have destruction (which complicates not only the creating of assists, but also the designing and balancing of the map) like a BF3 one does, a BF2 vehicle isn't as detailed as one in BF3, etc...
Sure, we may still be getting less value per a dollar, but I don't think it's by a massive amount.
Anyway, I don't blame the developers, or the publishers, I blame the shareholders.[/QUOTE]
Of course bf2 doesn't have as detailed models and what not, its seven year old game. It was also made with tools available 7 years ago.
Didn't know about dollar pricing of old expansions, dollar to euro tends to go 1:1 with current games/expansions/dlc's. Also, creating models/animations and what not is much faster and easier nowadays. It might still take bit longer to create content, but not much. Skilled modeler can make weapon with much detail than bf3 weapons in couple working hours.
From what I've seen, destruction in bf3 is pretty scripted. As in, there is no need to make too complex and dynamic damage models for every building, they tend to break down in a similar fashion every time they are destroyed. Also, bf2 had some destructible elements, such as bridges.
I don't know who to blame. Tbh, I don't feel like blaming anyone.
[QUOTE=SatansSin;37316396]Yeah, and guess what BioWare, Day 1 DLC usually means Day 1 Pirating!
So congrats on lowering your customer base, and revamping the lovely fires that churn by lukewarm candles where pirates rest with their endless enjoyment.[/QUOTE]
If you don't want this shit to happen anymore, [B]boycott[/B] the game. Don't pirate it.
Pirating the game is having your cake and eating it too. It doesn't do anything but make them more reluctant to give a shit about the fanbase.
That's why I love companies like Rockstar. Not that they aren't guilty of stupid DLCs, but look at EFLC.
Actually there is a lot of misinformation about all this.
There is a 2 month period of approval, usually before the expected release date, where the game goes through a massive approval process by the ESRB for the finished product, the company inside and other things like tech companies. Legal bullshit really slows down this process.
And any company that sits on its ass for 2 months doing nothing is never ever ever allowed, ever. So they end up working on minor additions and such. That's what Day 1 DLC is, the extra tidbits and such that are made during that 2 month period.
(This isn't applied to Bioware who had major parts of the story attatched to it.)
Now about what Bioware did, no, they dun fucked up and that's not the kind of Day 1 DLC you add. Day 1 DLC is like an extra weapon or cosmetic items.
[QUOTE=Swilly;37318121]Actually there is a lot of misinformation about all this.
There is a 2 month period of approval, usually before the expected release date, where the game goes through a massive approval process by the ESRB for the finished product, the company inside and other things like tech companies. Legal bullshit really slows down this process.
And any company that sits on its ass for 2 months doing nothing is never ever ever allowed, ever. So they end up working on minor additions and such. That's what Day 1 DLC is, the extra tidbits and such that are made during that 2 month period.
(This isn't applied to Bioware who had major parts of the story attatched to it.)
Now about what Bioware did, no, they dun fucked up and that's not the kind of Day 1 DLC you add. Day 1 DLC is like an extra weapon or cosmetic items.[/QUOTE]
And what's stopping this content from being added in a day one patch, for free? Oh, that's right, greed.
Besides, this isn't always the case, there are instances where DLC has been, at least in some part, been on the disk.
I sort of like Bethesda's method with Skyrim. Free patches for little things like mounted combat and new kill cams, and a legitimate expansion for actual paid DLC.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;37317946]If you don't want this shit to happen anymore, [B]boycott[/B] the game. Don't pirate it.
Pirating the game is having your cake and eating it too. It doesn't do anything but make them more reluctant to give a shit about the fanbase.[/QUOTE]
Oh don't worry, I don't buy the games or pirate them. I haven't for at least a year now.
[QUOTE=milkandcooki;37317946]If you don't want this shit to happen anymore, [B]boycott[/B] the game. Don't pirate it.
Pirating the game is having your cake and eating it too. It doesn't do anything but make them more reluctant to give a shit about the fanbase.[/QUOTE]
And boycotting does what exactly?
When the fuck has a boycott EVER worked in the video games industry, besides a bunch of soccer mums effectively killing the development of 6 days in Fallujah?
EA does not give one shit about boycotts, because they know only 50% of that boycott is going to actually resist buying the game, and 100% of the boycott only will make up like 2% (being generous) of their entire sales. There's still millions of idiots buying their shitty products and lining EA's pockets with cash.
Pirating thus far is the only thing that seems to rustle the jimmies of big name publishers.
You know people have said Day 1 DLC is to pirate used games, but why not have every new copy of the game come with all the DLC and the used games require you to buy it. Scummy sure, but better than some shitty online pass. I'm sick of all this DLC, Keys, Always online DRM, etc. I'm on PC so I'm somewhat used to it, but I always feel bad for console players.
do you guys remember when Bioware made great games
[QUOTE=DaMastez;37318215]And what's stopping this content from being added in a day one patch, for free? Oh, that's right, greed.
Besides, this isn't always the case, there are instances where DLC has been, at least in some part, been on the disk.[/QUOTE]
And this line of thinking is just as destructive as the 'Well its the norm now' line of thinking. We need to come at this from a balanced approach. On Disk DLC is a horrible practice that needs to be stopped, but minor things like pre-order DLC is not.
[editline]22nd August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37322139]And boycotting does what exactly?
When the fuck has a boycott EVER worked in the video games industry, besides a bunch of soccer mums effectively killing the development of 6 days in Fallujah?
EA does not give one shit about boycotts, because they know only 50% of that boycott is going to actually resist buying the game, and 100% of the boycott only will make up like 2% (being generous) of their entire sales. There's still millions of idiots buying their shitty products and lining EA's pockets with cash.
Pirating thus far is the only thing that seems to rustle the jimmies of big name publishers.[/QUOTE]
Actually, EA is in the shitter so to speak when it comes to money so you might wanna re-think that.
[QUOTE=lavacano;37305854]Source: [URL]http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/175902/BioWare_Some_players_want_dayone_DLC.php[/URL][/QUOTE]
uhhh... let's see.
1. The story of ME has always included Protheans. BW knew that fans would buy it because they literally [B]monetized[/B] one the most important aspects of ME's universe. Of fucking course people bought it.
2. You sure as hell can't play Javik's backstory after the game is over and have it make any kind of fucking sense. Are they handing out crack in the commons now as part of EA's employee happiness policy?
3. Javik was cut from the game because they didn't have time to finish it. They cut a third of the game out and now they expect us to pay to complete it? hahahahaa.... wow. Just wow.
4. All the "new" content was known about before the game launched. He's literally lying out of his ass. Astounding. This is what happens when you become too insulated.
5. He doesn't seem to understand all the MP DLC is.... [I]free[/I]. Remember kids, when your project manager asks if you want some crack, you tell them fuck off.
[QUOTE=Swilly;37352027]
Actually, EA is in the shitter so to speak when it comes to money so you might wanna re-think that.[/QUOTE]
Gonna need a source on that chief.
Last time I checked, EA is still the richest entity in video game market.
[QUOTE=Aska49;37305935]People act as if DLC like this is being ripped out of the game and sold afterwards on purpose. Do you realize the time between the game going gold and it actually coming out in most cases? This DLC is what the developers do in that between time. It's impossible to be shipped with the game and wasn't built to be.
There are exceptions I suppose but I guarantee you those exceptions are few and far between.[/QUOTE]
Ever seen javik, how a lot of the game's situations are set up in a way that clearly shows he's meant to be there....But isn't.
There is only one kind of acceptable day 1 DLC: content that was completed after the game was in it's release form, or couldn't fit on the disc. Either way it should come free, and not just with some "code" that everyone who buys used has to pay for. Anything else is just a money grab.
[QUOTE=Aska49;37305935]People act as if DLC like this is being ripped out of the game and sold afterwards on purpose. Do you realize the time between the game going gold and it actually coming out in most cases? This DLC is what the developers do in that between time. It's impossible to be shipped with the game and wasn't built to be.
There are exceptions I suppose but I guarantee you those exceptions are few and far between.[/QUOTE]
most day one DLC is ripped from the game, look at saints row 3, almost ALL of its DLC is on disk, even the one's that were recently released
[QUOTE=JaegerMonster;37352309]Gonna need a source on that chief.
Last time I checked, EA is still the richest entity in video game market.[/QUOTE]
Several articles have been posted, EA is on sale. You don't sell the richest entity in the videogame market.
Its stocks are in the shitter, its been shutting down servers for games that are barely 5 years old and its rushing games. They've lost a lot of money and I can see [B]WHY[/B] they're doing these shitty business practices.
You all forgot that financially speaking, Activision and EA are on VERY VERY thin ice. All of these practices are trying to maximize profits for a market that hates them and they know this. Every bad game design decision for EA games as of late have been good business decisions. They employ a lot of people.
Also, before you morons go, 'Well maybe if they made good games', THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPITAL FOR IT ANYMORE. It was plainly obvious how desperate EA is when they were pushing Battlefield 3 so hard and trying to avoid making dedicated servers for it.
The gap between Valve and everything else is just getting bigger
bigger
and bigger
and dumber
[QUOTE=Swilly;37358540]Several articles have been posted, EA is on sale. You don't sell the richest entity in the videogame market.
Its stocks are in the shitter, its been shutting down servers for games that are barely 5 years old and its rushing games. They've lost a lot of money and I can see [B]WHY[/B] they're doing these shitty business practices.
You all forgot that financially speaking, Activision and EA are on VERY VERY thin ice. All of these practices are trying to maximize profits for a market that hates them and they know this. Every bad game design decision for EA games as of late have been good business decisions. They employ a lot of people.
Also, before you morons go, 'Well maybe if they made good games', THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPITAL FOR IT ANYMORE. It was plainly obvious how desperate EA is when they were pushing Battlefield 3 so hard and trying to avoid making dedicated servers for it.[/QUOTE]
But due to the fact that its a bad game design choice, it makes it a bad business choice as it will reduce sales even more.
[QUOTE=Swilly;37358540]Several articles have been posted, EA is on sale. You don't sell the richest entity in the videogame market.
Its stocks are in the shitter, its been shutting down servers for games that are barely 5 years old and its rushing games. They've lost a lot of money and I can see [B]WHY[/B] they're doing these shitty business practices.
You all forgot that financially speaking, Activision and EA are on VERY VERY thin ice. All of these practices are trying to maximize profits for a market that hates them and they know this. Every bad game design decision for EA games as of late have been good business decisions. They employ a lot of people.
Also, before you morons go, 'Well maybe if they made good games', THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPITAL FOR IT ANYMORE. It was plainly obvious how desperate EA is when they were pushing Battlefield 3 so hard and trying to avoid making dedicated servers for it.[/QUOTE]
The only reason Activision is on thin ice is because they rely on cash cows for too much time per series - serious oversaturation. They're still milking World of Warcraft (which has a solid core that will probably never leave until the servers shut down due to the nature of committing to the community in an MMO) and still making Call of Duty games. They've already destroyed the Tony Hawk games. They nearly killed the genre of rhythm games in the mainstream after Guitar Hero's pitiful, drawn out death.
And EA is trying too hard - trying too hard to push Origin and trying too hard to push Battlefield, and also trying too hard to push Bioware - Dragon Age 2 was probably the most rushed big-name game ever, and too much was riding on TOR, when it has been proven to not put one's faith in new MMOs. Not to mention their marketing is...misguided. They almost completely neglect the customer in favor of a quick buck.
I personally think, however, that it would be best if EA and Activision fail. It would cause a slump in the market, but it would temporarily get rid of the generic, rushed, rehashed crap that has been plaguing the market.
[QUOTE=rinoaff33;37359846]The only reason Activision is on thin ice is because they rely on cash cows for too much time per series - serious oversaturation. They're still milking World of Warcraft (which has a solid core that will probably never leave until the servers shut down due to the nature of committing to the community in an MMO) and still making Call of Duty games. They've already destroyed the Tony Hawk games. They nearly killed the genre of rhythm games in the mainstream after Guitar Hero's pitiful, drawn out death.
And EA is trying too hard - trying too hard to push Origin and trying too hard to push Battlefield, and also trying too hard to push Bioware - Dragon Age 2 was probably the most rushed big-name game ever, and too much was riding on TOR, when it has been proven to not put one's faith in new MMOs. Not to mention their marketing is...misguided. They almost completely neglect the customer in favor of a quick buck.
I personally think, however, that it would be best if EA and Activision fail. It would cause a slump in the market, but it would temporarily get rid of the generic, rushed, rehashed crap that has been plaguing the market.[/QUOTE]
It would only end in catastrophe, all the small time developers would be fired at first. And they'd work their way up to the big franchises before going for Bankruptcy. A LOT OF people are going to lose their jobs over this. You're calling for a massive slump in gaming that would need to be revived by an unknown companies. They're not the only ones suffering, Take-Two is in the shitter, Ubisoft is in the shitter, not as much but with the loss of EA and Activision they'll be strained more heavily, forcing them to rush. Every major developer except for Valve, whose found its own cash cow in Steam, is falling apart. And every industry goes through its own artistic slump, Movies did it, books have done it several times.
[editline]22nd August 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=viperfan7;37359695]But due to the fact that its a bad game design choice, it makes it a bad business choice as it will reduce sales even more.[/QUOTE]
In the long term, not the short term. IF all they care about is short term sales, that means shit is bad. No gaming company goes into the business to be evil but when you're making rushed games that means internally something is wrong.
For christ's sake, GSC closed down and they made a highly succesful game series (STALKER) and they followed what we would call Good Gaming business practices, they still went belly up. The simple fact of the matter is that the game industry is having a slow down just like every other industry, but unlike most other industries the creation of these games is more burdensome and so you have to outweigh that with sales which becomes very difficult.
[QUOTE=Swilly;37360139]It would only end in catastrophe, all the small time developers would be fired at first. And they'd work their way up to the big franchises before going for Bankruptcy. A LOT OF people are going to lose their jobs over this. You're calling for a massive slump in gaming that would need to be revived by an unknown companies. They're not the only ones suffering, Take-Two is in the shitter, Ubisoft is in the shitter, not as much but with the loss of EA and Activision they'll be strained more heavily, forcing them to rush. Every major developer except for Valve, whose found its own cash cow in Steam, is falling apart. And every industry goes through its own artistic slump, Movies did it, books have done it several times.
[editline]22nd August 2012[/editline]
In the long term, not the short term. IF all they care about is short term sales, that means shit is bad. No gaming company goes into the business to be evil but when you're making rushed games that means internally something is wrong.
For christ's sake, GSC closed down and they made a highly succesful game series (STALKER) and they followed what we would call Good Gaming business practices, they still went belly up. The simple fact of the matter is that the game industry is having a slow down just like every other industry, but unlike most other industries the creation of these games is more burdensome and so you have to outweigh that with sales which becomes very difficult.[/QUOTE]
I don't see why companies would need to rush more if their competition went bankrupt...? Surely it would make it easier to sell their games. They could even hire the developers that were laid off by other publishers. And it's not known why GSC was closed, so you can't say they went "belly up" when the circumstances aren't confirmed (plus they largely reformed as another team anyway).
And movies are far more burdensome to create than video games - paying for actors and directors is far more expensive than developing a video game. Most of the cost associated with AAA titles is marketing, and it's possible to make a successful indie game (like Amnesia: The Dark Descent) with ten or less people.
[QUOTE=rinoaff33;37360344]I don't see why companies would need to rush more if their competition went bankrupt...? Surely it would make it easier to sell their games. And it's not known why GSC was closed, so you can't say they went "belly up" when the circumstances aren't confirmed.
And movies are far more burdensome to create than video games - paying for actors and directors is far more expensive than developing a video game. Most of the cost associated with AAA titles is marketing.[/QUOTE]
Unless you make a new engine.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.