EA: Retail is Great and Day-One DLC is Awesome
- Thread starter The Wooster
- Start date
if they do pay them for the work before the game is released (they don't hire additional people, they just use the ones they have because they already know the system and it sucks/costs more to train people midcycle), it'll be because that dlc development was made part of the actual game development cycle built around the approval procedures, and not afterwards (the process for staff post release is usually saying goodbye), meaning that the dlc is in fact, a proper part of the game and not just something they decided to add to it later. it means that they're planning these packs out in order to put an additional price tag on the game, and that they didn't intend to end the game proper at where they placed the ending. A true add on that would be worth the money would be an expansion pack, in which by itself is a smaller, separate experience that relates to, but isn't technically a piece of the original game, as opposed to putting characters or side quests or entire zones that you play before the game ends, which becomes a "pay money to fill in content here" deal. If the dlc doesn't work like that and it isn't a graphical mod pack or multiplayer map options thing, then it basically belongs as a part of the game and should be included (like characters in mass effect or dragon age) or doesn't belong near the game to begin with (see adam jensen's "put him on a bus while the story progresses" dlc of deus ex: hr).
at this point it becomes a double edged sword, where you look at it and it's supposed to be valuable enough to charge money for it or else people argue that it should have been included in the first place, but not valuable enough to contribute significantly to the actual gameplay or else people start arguing that it's a pay door. and that's just not good business when people see the 60 dollar pricetag and assume they're getting the full package, instead of having to pay more for a part of the game that was hacked off due to the way the cycle works, and then be told that they have to pay more for it. that's the reason people buy these things for 60 bucks in the first, because they want a whole game (especially for console games where the system is also usually the full package), or else they would go to "free to play" games because at least there you expect to shell out for the stuff they want in it.
you know, it's easy for you to just say "strawman argument" and then expect me to go over your points in order to justify your words, but at this point, i don't think you are going to take anybody seriously when they disagree with you, and when the publishers finally do go too far, it'll be too late to do anything about that particular game, and you better damn hope it's not the game you were looking forward to for that year. when they start telling you that it's "necessary" in order to do something that they either really don't have to do, or do because they think their way is the only correct way of thinking and you buy into it at face value, then you stop expecting anything to get better, and they will feed off of that.
on a different note, at some point we could be seeing other games starting to advertise that they give you the whole package instead of throwing individually wrapped items at you, and then listing parts of the game that could have been packaged as dlc but aren't in order to make it look like they're giving you more for free when it's the same as it was to begin with, and people would be motivated to buy into that kind of thing.
at this point it becomes a double edged sword, where you look at it and it's supposed to be valuable enough to charge money for it or else people argue that it should have been included in the first place, but not valuable enough to contribute significantly to the actual gameplay or else people start arguing that it's a pay door. and that's just not good business when people see the 60 dollar pricetag and assume they're getting the full package, instead of having to pay more for a part of the game that was hacked off due to the way the cycle works, and then be told that they have to pay more for it. that's the reason people buy these things for 60 bucks in the first, because they want a whole game (especially for console games where the system is also usually the full package), or else they would go to "free to play" games because at least there you expect to shell out for the stuff they want in it.
you know, it's easy for you to just say "strawman argument" and then expect me to go over your points in order to justify your words, but at this point, i don't think you are going to take anybody seriously when they disagree with you, and when the publishers finally do go too far, it'll be too late to do anything about that particular game, and you better damn hope it's not the game you were looking forward to for that year. when they start telling you that it's "necessary" in order to do something that they either really don't have to do, or do because they think their way is the only correct way of thinking and you buy into it at face value, then you stop expecting anything to get better, and they will feed off of that.
on a different note, at some point we could be seeing other games starting to advertise that they give you the whole package instead of throwing individually wrapped items at you, and then listing parts of the game that could have been packaged as dlc but aren't in order to make it look like they're giving you more for free when it's the same as it was to begin with, and people would be motivated to buy into that kind of thing.
Funny story - it's looking like day one DLC is going to be costing them money.F said:
In the short term, it causes at most a slight bump in profits. However, less people will buy the game because of it. The more this is done, the less people will buy their games due to the individuals not having money and bad press. And the less people buy their games, the less money they make. The less money they make, the more multi-millionare game publisher suits cry.
i'm terrible at explaining things concisely, so for the sake of moving on, my first scenario is that publishers are forcing the folks that work on their games to put day 1 dlc in their games in order to get approved for all project funding, in which case day 1 dlc isn't actually "necessary" to the process to the consumer and does not appropriately compensate the consumer for getting a product that might now have additional shoehorned issues in the game's design, but rather, is for the sake of convenience on the part of the publisher, who gets to shovel whatever they want on you right out of the gate in the interest of forcing an impulse buy on the spot instead of letting you evaluate the actual worth of the content
the second scenario is that since the process of clearing a game for release seems to be taking a significant enough amount of time for the publishers to want to reclaim it, the developers are forced to take a part of the game that would have been completed during the normal schedule and reallocate it to sit behind the start of that process, at which point it is classified as "additional content" and the publishers get to charge additional money for it even though given the percentage of the game removed is priced much higher proportionately to the game, in which case the issue of that game being sold for the full price but having that portion removed and then the subsequent issue of having that part ransomed for more money than it was worth when it wasn't detached both become apparent
in the first scenario, it just comes off as a cheap money grab that more often than not is purely for the publisher's convenience without really benefiting any other party, and while reprehensible, has less of an effect than the second scenario
which is of course tantamount to highway robbery where you pay the criminal to steal your pet so that you are then forced to choose between the pet or your money
it's not clear whether or not the people at the top actually listen to the complaints because the numbers speak louder to them and are generally more important than things they can't reduce to those figures, like integrity, which has no hard increase in profit to measure and doesn't really matter to anybody these days
at the end of the day, it's just business to them, and they got what they wanted from us
the second scenario is that since the process of clearing a game for release seems to be taking a significant enough amount of time for the publishers to want to reclaim it, the developers are forced to take a part of the game that would have been completed during the normal schedule and reallocate it to sit behind the start of that process, at which point it is classified as "additional content" and the publishers get to charge additional money for it even though given the percentage of the game removed is priced much higher proportionately to the game, in which case the issue of that game being sold for the full price but having that portion removed and then the subsequent issue of having that part ransomed for more money than it was worth when it wasn't detached both become apparent
in the first scenario, it just comes off as a cheap money grab that more often than not is purely for the publisher's convenience without really benefiting any other party, and while reprehensible, has less of an effect than the second scenario
which is of course tantamount to highway robbery where you pay the criminal to steal your pet so that you are then forced to choose between the pet or your money
it's not clear whether or not the people at the top actually listen to the complaints because the numbers speak louder to them and are generally more important than things they can't reduce to those figures, like integrity, which has no hard increase in profit to measure and doesn't really matter to anybody these days
at the end of the day, it's just business to them, and they got what they wanted from us
Good point.Zachary Amaranth said:
I only find it funny because it's been so long since I shopped there.
*dons hipster shades* I've rarely ever even bought DLC, let alone that Day-1 bullshit. Admittedly, most of that DLC was from CoD... *ingloriously removes hipster shades* I will say though that CoD4's was worth its ten-dollar pricetag.razer17 said:
See, now you're doing exactly what you claimed the "other" guys were doing. Making baseless and unprovable statements.Buretsu said:
Thanks for lying. Yes, saying that on-disc DLC demonstrates that the creative process claims are false is entitlement. Oh wait, it's just that "logic" thing you claim to favour but shoot down at every turn.Foolproof said:
You're putting way too much stock in your own thought process. Ëveryone who disagrees with me is illogical."
Another lie. Considering I've bought day one DLC, that has nothing to do with that. Here's a problem with your reasoning: disputing logical fallacies does not mean I completely oppose you in every way.
Glad you have no actual logical dispute here.
Oooh, bad analogies. I like these.
See, Coca-Cola doesn't include those extra litres in the original product and then ask you to pay extra to unlock it, nor do they budget it into the initial "per unit" measure. You're not purchasing four liters and asked to pay extra to unlock any of it. The product in the bottle is exactly what you expect, with no gated cola. Hell, we just had EA say they were attempting to make games an 80 dollar purchase through DLC. Can you demonstrate Coca-Cola is trying to do the same? No? So you have no good=faith grounds for the analogy?
Okay then.
I am sure that this has been mentioned already, but the reason EA likes retail is simple.
They can charge more for digital copes of the games.
A digital game costs less than a physical game. There is no media to print. No discs to burn. No store needed to add a markup.
If EA reduced the price of digital games to what they should be, physical retailers would be at a sever disadvantage. Why would you pay $60 for a new game when you can get the same thing for $34.
EA likes retail because they get $26 more on every digital game they sell.
They can charge more for digital copes of the games.
A digital game costs less than a physical game. There is no media to print. No discs to burn. No store needed to add a markup.
If EA reduced the price of digital games to what they should be, physical retailers would be at a sever disadvantage. Why would you pay $60 for a new game when you can get the same thing for $34.
EA likes retail because they get $26 more on every digital game they sell.
I don't understand why he seems to think we need specialist stores to sell Xbox Live or PSN cards, when they could just as easily become something that's sold over the cigarette counter in supermarkets like phonecards and other varieties of top-up.
Also is it just me, or does anyone else's skin crawl whenever a video game exec, or a musician or film-maker or anyone connected with the arts and entertainment industry refers to their products as being 'great marketing opportunities'?
I'm under no illusion that a company's end game is to turn a profit, but statements like this just make it painfully apparent that a lot of them see their consumer-base as nothing more than walking wallets.
Also is it just me, or does anyone else's skin crawl whenever a video game exec, or a musician or film-maker or anyone connected with the arts and entertainment industry refers to their products as being 'great marketing opportunities'?
I'm under no illusion that a company's end game is to turn a profit, but statements like this just make it painfully apparent that a lot of them see their consumer-base as nothing more than walking wallets.
Dunno about anyone else but as far as im concerned if a disc has DLC on it and i bought the game on that disc then i bought the DLC too so i will just go about unlocking it even if i'm not meant to, your kind of a fool not to really in my eyes, why pay extra for something you already have a copy of? Especially when you consider some DLC costs around £15 for what? 2 hours of extra gameplay, considering you can buy a new game for around £30 id expect more than 2 hours and your lucky to even get that most of the time.
Hey, don't whine about what EA choose to do with their games. They have artistic integrity to worry about; it's their product and they can do what they want. YOU'RE JUST BEING ENTITLED, WAH!Acrisius said:
[sub] ahem [/sub] and so on and so forth.
I can't help but feel vindicated against all those people (see above) who told us to shut up and take it, now that EA have openly admitted to wanting to screw us over.
"Money, money, money... money! Did we mention we want your money? M-O-N-E-Y! Ways of getting more of your money, ways we can get your attention... and then get your money. Ways we can get more money for content we have already made and then just left some out of the game... FOR MONEY!"
Thats all I heard anyway.
Thats all I heard anyway.
It's awesome that get to spend extra money on content that was made during the development cycle and the cut from the main game so that the publishers can milk us to death...
Next thing you know we'll be paying extra for a game's ending.
Oh wait...
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Want-Real-Ending-Asura-Wrath-Cough-Up-6-99-40917.html
Next thing you know we'll be paying extra for a game's ending.
Oh wait...
http://www.cinemablend.com/games/Want-Real-Ending-Asura-Wrath-Cough-Up-6-99-40917.html