I had an enormous post written out in regards Mochas and berbs posts to do with the ethics and significance of the DLC and online passes, and this topic. But I hit my Facebook bookmark by accident and it all disappeared before I could post. Long story short: Online Passes are needed, they fund server maintenance and gives the Devs and publishers SOME compensation for used games sales. As for this topic: I think everyone is going slightly apeshit. I've played better games with worse endings. Is what's happening now a bad thing? Hopefully not, maybe it will inspire companies to do better in terms of narrative endings. Or this could be the worse thing ever, and the idiotic cesspool that is the internet just gave EA ANOTHER way to make money off console users, who will **** out money for things that nearly aren't worth it. The new ending/clarification is going to come in a 3 minute long cutscene costing 1200 msp. And a new map.
I'm well aware that after a certain point they can no longer put things on the disc. What I'm saying is that if the developer feels that they were rushed and didn't put everything on the disc that they wanted to, the content should be free, as it was intended to be on the disc. A disc you're paying 60 dollars for. If they weren't rushed, and it was planned the content would be day 1 dlc, it is a blatant money grab.
Lol, if you were "well aware" you certainly didn't show it in your response to Mocha. If we're going to argue on "intent" this will be a pointless argument. You, I, nor anyone knows what the "intent" of the developers were while they were developing. As I said, if they have time between final release build and the release date of the game, and they decide to fill that time by working on whatever content for whatever intent, then they are working and thus deserve to be paid for the hours spent working. I explained what goes into the 60 dollar price tag, I suggest you read it. But if you don't want to take my word for it, here is a pie chart explaining it, Anatomy of a $60 video game - latimes.com I'm kind of suspicious of the accuracy of that however as it was produced by OnLive, which is a completely disc free service. Could the 60 dollar business model be made better, probably, but I'm not a business expert nor do I have the insider knowledge of publisher costs to debate it so I'm not going to try. Being "rushed" isn't the only way content gets scrapped benji. All developers under a publisher have set deadlines and that often causes wanted material to be removed to allow the game to be made. While that is true and "intent" of the developers to include the content on the disc is a valid point, often the developers will come up with ideas during development that they know they want have time to do during the main development of the game so they save those ideas for DLC. When that happens it has nothing to do with being "rushed". It is just time management and knowing what can be worked on and what can't. If there is enough time after the final release build is completed new ideas can even be thought of from that point and worked on. There are numerous explanations benji, you're just assuming the one that fits in your point of view. Its a simple request, if you don't understand how the process works (and fyi, I'm not buying the "I was well aware" bull) don't make accusations based on how you think it works. Here's some other links explaining the $60 and what it goes to. http://www.forbes.com/2006/12/19/ps3-xbox360-costs-tech-cx_rr_game06_1219expensivegames.html I like this chart because it actually tells you out of that $27 chunk in the OnLive piechart for "publisher" where that money actually goes to. Here's a chart explaining how development costs have increased with the more sophisticated platforms to develop on. In fact to make my point even more poignant, do you know who makes the most money? PC MMO and MMORPG publishers like Activision Blizzard. Activison-Blizzard makes SO much money off of their subscription costs from games like WoW, Starcraft, and Diablo that they can literally charge nothing for the console games they produce and STILL turn a profit. Bobby Kotick (CEO of Activision) has even said on occasion how disc sales often cost the company more then the money they spent on getting the game developed, advertised, shipped, etc.
Yeah, so when you buy a used EA game w/ the online pass integrated, the 10 dollars you have to pay is to give them the 50 or so cents profit they are supposed to earn from the lowered price. 10 bucks for a 50 cent royalty... sounds legit.
Lol, out of my huge response to your misinformation, you decide to reply to the chart? The chart that depicts that just under 50% of costs GO TO THE DEVELOPER'S SALARIES? As I said, I'm not a fan of charging people an extra subscription cost over xbox live (or playstation network which is free) to be able to play multiplayer but if that is now your only proof of why EA is a corrupt company only out for your money and don't give a **** about the quality of their games then you are really pulling at strings that aren't there. Now I've provided a fair amount of evidence regarding my point of view, so far all you have is crap veiled around something that I too said I disagree with but doesn't completely explain your point of view. As I said before, could the 60 dollar model be changed and made more efficient? Probably, but neither you nor I have that knowledge to argue with. If the publishers are really only pulling in $1.00 of profit according to that chart, and that dollar is further chipped away at by used game sales, pirating, loss of merchandise, etc then I can completely understand the temptation to have a subscription service which bolsters the money lost. I disagree with it, but I understand it unlike you. You know there is a reason why publishers love the rise of these more casual platforms like the Apple app store, Android store, browser app stores, facebook, etc. They are very cheap to develop for, require little to no advertisement, and if the game is addicting enough, millions of people will pay a dollar (or more) to play it (in the case of facebook its about ad revenue). This money is almost pure profit to the publisher and it is these "casual" games that basically fund the triple A titles that people like you ***** about. Regarding the initial point of this thread, because of the business and game development process I've explained in my last few posts I think developers have every right to fix, change, make crappier, make better, etc to their game. We're all talking about an optional product that consumers are not forced to get so if you're bitching about its price, well its price can be FREE if you don't get it. This quote by neo made me lol. See I can't dispute that because...well that's probably going to happen. I doubt 1200 msp though only because I don't think any of the ME2 DLC were 1200. I think the big ones were all 800.
You really talk out of your ass a lot. They aren't getting "50 cent royalty". The 10 dollars goes back between the Devs and the publishers, and is also used to keep up multiplayer servers. You have to bear in mind that if someone buys a used game, the devs and the publishers get nothing from it. Nothing. NOTHING. That's why both Online Passes and things like that were introduced.
You guys are right about the Day One DLC being a stupid money grab. They should have done like every other company and simply waited a month or two to release the DLC they've been working on since halfway through the game.
sigh...no one reads anymore. I know talking out of one's ass is every internet user's god given right but could we please at least be well informed about f'ing video games. I mean it is a damn forum based around a video game. Is that asking too much?
Oh boy, arguing on the internet! it was a two sentance point. I'm sorry I didn't elaborate enough. sure you can. The point of a business is to make money. The individual programmers will probably be paid their salary regardless of if the DLC is free or not. and if the DLC is ready day one, they will have had to work on it before the game is handed over to the publisher. alrighty then. When I said rushed, I meant that they couldn't meet a deadline. no you interesting although that's very interesting, I can't see how that makes your point. A subscription isn't DLC. If you buy a used book, do the author and publisher get money? If you buy a used movie, do the director and actors get money? If you buy a used CD, does the band and label get money? If you buy used clothes, does the designer get money? If you buy a used anything, does the original creator make any money? Only if you buy a used video game needing an online pass
Is the responsibility on me then to glean what you knew from what you didn't say? You gave a response to mocha saying you disagreed, then gave erroneous information (regardless of how short) backing it up. My response to that didn't need to be as short for me to clearly define why it was erroneous. ...which has nothing to do with the internal "intent" of the developers while they are working on material or not working on material. They are making money throughout the process by their salaries regardless. What can happen however is that if what they are making isn't of sufficient quality or the publisher feels like the product can't be sold then the publisher can kill the game in which case the developers WILL NOT GET PAID. Again, if your one point is regarding the case of the developers feeling rushed therefore the content was "meant" to be put on the disc then you are glossing over a bunch of other explanations that don't fit that. The time between when the game is handed over to the publisher and the release date can be a very long time. DLC is often not huge expanses of code, we aren't talking about expansion packs we're talking about usually a level (or a few), some character skins, or extra weapons, etc. I don't know how long it takes to develop the DLC, test for bugs, and test for compatibility with the complete game but again you're completely guessing on the "they will have had to work on it before the game is handed over to the publisher". Could that have happened in the industry where a dev team was split up late in development to specifically work on DLC while the normal dev team worked on the full game, sure. I don't deny that it occurs but to assume that is always the case is ignorant. I'm not defending every single practice a publisher does or a development house does, some of them aren't good but that is a far cry away from making the claim that the publisher is this corrupt, money-grubbing, entity that doesn't care for **** about people. At some level maybe some of that is true but not you, nor Berb, have displayed any real evidence to support your claim and any valid points you made I gave you but it was very few of them. And again, you think that is the only reason behind DLC content? It was the content developers felt to rushed to produce? The point was in attacking the viewpoint that publishers are raking in like these mega profits off of DLC or disc based games when in fact it is the casual games, and PC subscription games that really earn them profit. Not the disc games the majority of the time. EA, unlike Valve or Activision, did not have a subscription service to pull in direct money, so now when EA produces one they are all of a sudden corrupt ass holes? Again with comparing video games to other media. YOU CAN'T COMPARE this kind of thing to other media. First of all a used book is essentially a library. You don't return books to Barns and Nobles after you finish reading it. You can only get a "used movie" through places like Blockbuster, redbox, netflix etc. If that is the case then actually the original creators do get money. They movie studios charge those services a license fee to provide their movies. The director and actors don't often even get the money from DvD sales, that money goes completely to the movie studio unless some deal is worked out with the lead actors. I'm not sure exactly where one buys "used music" as you don't really return CDs but I'm sure wherever that happens it doesn't happen in enough numbers for it to matter to anyone. Clothes...wtf? Then there is the fact that games are $60, which is much more significant a purchase then a dvd, CD, most clothes, books.
I apoligized. The apology was sincere in this specific case there was almost no chance on ME3 getting canceled. Again, if your one point is regarding the case of the developers feeling rushed therefore the content was "meant" to be put on the disc then you are glossing over a bunch of other explanations that don't fit that. The time between when the game is handed over to the publisher and the release date can be a very long time. DLC is often not huge expanses of code, we aren't talking about expansion packs we're talking about usually a level (or a few), some character skins, or extra weapons, etc. I don't know how long it takes to develop the DLC, test for bugs, and test for compatibility with the complete game but again you're completely guessing on the "they will have had to work on it before the game is handed over to the publisher". Could that have happened in the industry where a dev team was split up late in development to specifically work on DLC while the normal dev team worked on the full game, sure. I don't deny that it occurs but to assume that is always the case is ignorant. I'm not defending every single practice a publisher does or a development house does, some of them aren't good but that is a far cry away from making the claim that the publisher is this corrupt, money-grubbing, entity that doesn't care for **** about people. At some level maybe some of that is true but not you, nor Berb, have displayed any real evidence to support your claim and any valid points you made I gave you but it was very few of them. [/quote] and you have no proof that they don't. All we're working on is speculation
How can Day 1 DLC be a money grab when it's free if you pre-order the game? All it does it compensate for those the deliberately wait for the game to go down in price. I've never understood this complaint. Same goes for online passes. Buy it new, or be prepared to pay a little on top of your discounted used game.
Nah Shaddo, the day 1 DLC with Mass Effect 3 wasn't free. You only got it free if you bought the special edition of the game apparently. As far as I know. I think that's why so many people have a problem with it.
I can understand the idea behind online passes or day one DLC, and I've never really understood how they are inconvenient to anyone. In 2010, Gamestop made approximately 2.5 billion dollars off of used game sales. EA currently has about a 16% market share, so conservatively we can say EA lost almost half a billion dollars to used games in 2010 alone. I think it's reasonable to say that it's not necessarily money grubbing, and more of a form of insurance that the publisher will get some form of compensation for a game, especially considering how nearly all day one DLC is free for preorders. I, like Shaddo, have personally never seen day one DLC that wasn't free for preorders. Even then, it's still easy to choose the cheapest method. If a game is $35 used and requires a $10 online pass, you are still shaving $15 off the actual price of the game. If a used game is $55 and requires the same online pass, it obviously doesn't make sense to buy the used version. Either way, only the extremely misinformed or downright stupid consumers would be cheated out of any money. [br][/br]Edited by merge: This turns out to be true. My argument still stands about the vast majority of day one DLC and especially online passes being understandable in order for publishers to turn a profit.
...if you say so, fair enough. Yes but my point of view is based around that not knowing. Yours assumes the worst of the situation based on little to no good evidence. My context was about day one DLC. So my question still stands. Do you think that the only day one DLC content is content that was rushed during main development? If that is the case then again you're assuming things that you don't know and basing a perspective on it. Again, I don't know the internal decisions of developers either but I'm not assuming the worst of the situation because of my lack of knowledge. ..."because the games EA produces don't lend themselves", I don't even know what that means. Do you mean games produced specifically for a console don't lend themselves to subscriptions? Fair enough, I would agree with that (which I have like 4 or 5 times so far). Phrasing it like, "games EA produces" isn't right though because what if EA produces a PC MMO? Also they do make PC games, remember EA is a multi-platform publisher, how about Star Wars: The Old Republic? As neo pointed out, as well as my speculation based on that piechart I showed saying that the publisher only gets $1.00 of profit per disc sale, the subscription money recoups a lot of lost money. Again, and I can't stress this enough, I disagree with the practice, but I can understand why the publisher would do it without instantly resorting to calling them evil money grubbing bastards. Because in this context there is not enough similarities to make an accurate comparison. One could compare maybe the story of a video game, or the entertainment value, etc. But comparing the value behind being used? As I said, the game is $60. The publisher gets about a third of that and out of that third, most of it goes to developer salaries, advertising, distribution, etc. When a used game is bought the publisher (and by extension developers for future projects ) do not get anything. Comparing any other form of much cheaper media is so negligible an effect as to not worth the comparison. Text books are a completely different thing. Are textbooks really what you want to hang your hat on as far as "used books" goes? If that is the case this discussion is going to get progressively more ignorant. Also I don't know what "half price books" is but it doesn't change my point. ..I've seen bargain bins, not used music bins. And again now you're just arguing each point regardless of the message behind it. THERE IS SO LITTLE MONEY IN THESE THINGS THAT IT ISN'T THE SAME COMPARISON. My point is clothes is not even in the same category as entertainment so why did you use it as comparison. Why not any used item? Should condom companies get money from someone using a used condom? (Yes that's a bad example but you get the point).
Yesh. I'm under a strong impression that this is one of the first games that have actually done this as openly as Bioware has. The DLC was on the god damn disc, yet they still charged EVERYONE except for Special Edition users extra to use it. Hopefully it doesn't start a trend. And I agree completely with your post.