ChienAboyeur
SasqWatch
- Joined
- March 29, 2011
- Messages
- 6,265
Usually, when people install price control structures, that is because they aim at controlling prices.
And EA works at controlling distribution...
- Joined
- Mar 29, 2011
- Messages
- 6,265
BioWare - Explaining Day One DLC
- Thread starter Dhruin
- Start date
Usually, when people install price control structures, that is because they aim at controlling prices.
And EA works at controlling distribution...
R
RPGFool
Guest
I've got strong doubts about both the validity and value of BioWare's completion rate data. BioWare has been harping about this type of data for some time now. First time I learned of it was from a Mike Laidlaw post (or interview) in which he used this type of data to justify changes made in DA2 as compared to DA:O (DA:O was just too hard for most players??? So Laidlaw and his team "fixed" all the problems with DA2???).
The thing about data is that one must always ask; what was measured? and how was it measured? (among other things). For example, what about rentals? Would anyone expect the game to be finished at high rates by players renting the game? Is it possible that multiple data points could be taken from a single system or user and represented in the results as reflecting multiple users (unfinished at several data sampling points and finished later in another sampling point). What about deleted saves? Game re-installations? Players who didn't allow the game to communicate on line?
One also needs to carefully consider the meaning and value of the data and how to use it even if it is valid. For example, at last report, DA:O was still the largest selling game in the history of BioWare. Nevertheless marketing investment wasn't particularly high for DA:O -- the game essentially produced its own growth in sales; a snowball effect resulting from word of mouth. Is it possible that low completion rates are simply artifacts of high sales?
Another way to look at the completion data is to query what completion data one would expect from a game with a play length of, say 5 minutes, or even thirty minutes. Chances are the completion rates would be high. But so what?
Ultimately it's a huge jump to equate player satisfaction with this type of data (as BioWare seems implicitly to be doing).
__
The thing about data is that one must always ask; what was measured? and how was it measured? (among other things). For example, what about rentals? Would anyone expect the game to be finished at high rates by players renting the game? Is it possible that multiple data points could be taken from a single system or user and represented in the results as reflecting multiple users (unfinished at several data sampling points and finished later in another sampling point). What about deleted saves? Game re-installations? Players who didn't allow the game to communicate on line?
One also needs to carefully consider the meaning and value of the data and how to use it even if it is valid. For example, at last report, DA:O was still the largest selling game in the history of BioWare. Nevertheless marketing investment wasn't particularly high for DA:O -- the game essentially produced its own growth in sales; a snowball effect resulting from word of mouth. Is it possible that low completion rates are simply artifacts of high sales?
Another way to look at the completion data is to query what completion data one would expect from a game with a play length of, say 5 minutes, or even thirty minutes. Chances are the completion rates would be high. But so what?
Ultimately it's a huge jump to equate player satisfaction with this type of data (as BioWare seems implicitly to be doing).
__
The 36% completion rate they claim for Dragon Age: Origins doesn't surprise me. I'd have guessed a little higher, but I think 36% is believable.
I personally think it's a good game, but it definitely suffers from being drawn-out and repetitive in parts, as well as being a bit too long for its own good imo. As much as I enjoyed it overall, there were times that I had to force myself to keep playing.
I personally think it's a good game, but it definitely suffers from being drawn-out and repetitive in parts, as well as being a bit too long for its own good imo. As much as I enjoyed it overall, there were times that I had to force myself to keep playing.
S
sakichop
Guest
I don't know about console but on pc you have to sign up for a bioware account and they track everything through that. Some achievements even track through multiple play throughs.
I've completed DA:O 3 times and working on my fourth. I'm trying to get the achievement for completing the game without the main character dying. Anyone here do that yet?, also I wonder if sacrificing yourself would count against that?
RPGFool said:
This is a very good point. If DA:O brought in a bunch of casual players who didn't have the time/inclination to finish the game, the response is…what? Make the game shorter? Remove content? Both of which might drive off your core audience.
I've just finished Assassin's Creed 2. Now Ubisoft are a pain in the arse with their always on DRM (fortunately patched out to a one-time activation in AC2), goddamn cloud saves in Uplay (disable them unless you enjoy losing your saves) and 10 different versions of the same game with slightly different content. But goddamn was it great value for money regardless of which version of the game you bought. A decent long main story with a huge amount of additional activities. Now that game rewards both types of player - you can just focus on the main game/story if you're time limited, or completionists like me can do everything. The best answer isn't to take content out - it is to make it optional. And fortunately to date Ubisoft do still go down the "ultimate edition" route once the game is old enough, so you're not paying out for lots of DLC - in this case, the AC2 Digital Deluxe edition covers you for everything.
Avantenor
Keeper of the Watch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 839
Sounds brutal, but that's like not going to elections. If you don't share your opionion you don't exist and therefor no one cares what you think. And if their next installment still sells they are not looking for the mistake.
At that time. I'm pretty sure it was topped at least by Mass Effect 3, maybe already by Mass Effect 2.
That's pretty much the same I think. DA:O is good, but also repetetive and sometimes even tedious. Small levels, many loading / saving pauses. Every single Autosave on Xbox makes your game stop. And there are a lots of them. And every region you enter gives you a sh**load of fedex sidequest right after arriving, spamming your journal with lots of text to scroll and in most cases they are not interesting. That's the reason, I think, why they implemented that "oh, I found a special item and now have a new sidequest of a totally unknown person in my journal" in Dragon Age 2. And I think it takes too much time to complete this game, so I would also agree to that completeion rate. Some people love that kind of stuff, but games have become shorter over the years and, reduced to numbers, they are selling better. So that's no reason for most people.
I just learned, that C&C Generals 2 will be a Free2Play title. I think it shows the direction EA plans to go for the future.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 839
Lucky Day
Daywatch
money can't buy you happiness; but it makes a considerable down payment.
maybe you stop buying, but maybe you'd stop buying anyway. if someone pays for the DLC that's real hard cash in your pocket. Its real. Its green. You can't exchange goodwill for trading stamps. no one knows if you will not buy in the future - get the sale now.
ok, but if just half of those buy it the first time...I'm reminded of that old jack in the box commercial for $10000 chicken nugget testing where the kid says about takers, "all I need is one."
its simply a marketing technique called "added value"
--
In chess you can weigh material over position. Position might grant you an attack, but you will need to make it work or you will be dead in the endgame. Cash is king!
if you are not in a company whose prime motivation is making money, you'll probably be looking for a job soon. Don't you have a mortgage to pay and kids to feed? Its the salesman's argument.
D
DArtagnan
Guest
So, your answer is that - yes - money is the only interesting factor. Got it.
Exactly. 36% is a shocking completion rate for a game of that length. DA:O, by modern standards, is a fairly hardcore rpg, with almost all the trappings of one, except for the sparklies to guide players. But it even has the numbers exposed for the geeks. So the fact that it's being completed by a third of its players is pretty solid. And the ending is the best part of the game, by far, so I would have to assume that a good number of those players are Very Satisfied Customers (unlike half the people who completed ME3 lol). I know for a fact that DA:O also broke down a lot of barriers wrt popularity with gay and female players, people like my wife and all her friends, many of whom played it like four times all the way through, just to see every possible Alister ending. So here's a bunch of people who never played even a jrpg all the way to the end, playing your full-detail rpg all the way to the end several times over!? That's not wasting money on 64% of your players, that's building a business for the future.
Now again, point taken -- the most popular mod (nudes aside lol) for DA:O on PC was called "Skip the Fade" so... yeah. It was definitely longer than it needed to be. And these numbers can help with that But right now, the metrics obsession is just being used to justify milking their audience. And guess what? They won't stay forever. Thanks to Bioware, my wife now loves Skyrim. Why would she go back to DA3 now? Ultimately, your sit-back-and-watch gameplay model is going to be defeated by everyone preferring to WATCH... the game on youtube.
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2011
- Messages
- 97
JemyM
Okay, now roll sanity.
- Joined
- October 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
My experience with companies who see money as the only factor is that they do not survive very long. You always need to know trends, culture and psychology to see how to expand, how to survive hard times, how to optimize your routines etc.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2006
- Messages
- 6,027
For businesses thinking only as far as the next quarter. Sustainable businesses OTOH understand that the value of a consumer that swears by their product is worth taking a short term hit. To put simply - 10$ today and 0$ tomorrow is worse than $5 today plus $10 tomorrow plus $10 the day after.
Taking your logic to the extreme, Unilever should just fill its shampoo bottles with colored water. $100m from people who buy today, swear never to buy again. Huge profit on the $100m since they saved on real shampoo costs, but they will be calling in the receivers within a year. Goodwill has a value. I thought this would be common sense…
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 360
Fair enough.
That's not what I said, nor what they think. They think about profits and how to best achieve them. DLC, just like the guy explained keep customers coming back for more and keep games alive for longer.
What you're (not Jemy) saying is just the worst way to make profits and is called a scam. It's also illegal in most western countries and as such will not make profits for a company.
However, most companies do whatever they can to maximize profits. For example : Apple manufactures in China. They also used to add a multi-plug with their iPods (and iPhones too ?) and now only give a USB connector. Some people complained, most people didn't care.
If you want the multi-plug you now have to buy it as a separate accessory. Thus maximizing profits.
Bioware's DLC is hated by a vocal minority, but as you can see, it works. People like coming back for more and getting extras. People go on Farmville everyday and buy cow manure or whatever for lots and lots of money.
YOU might not like it, but they've tested it over the past 5 years or so by now and it works. People DO NOT move away from this business model. People keep buying.
Just to reiterate, your example of fake shampoo is laughable at best.
Jemy, why do you think they look at current cultural and psychological factors ? It's to make more money.
So-called community-driven companies like Accenture only did so to improve their reputation, earn awards and increase awareness of their firms. Not because they want to be nice with you.
Avantenor
Keeper of the Watch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 839
I don't think a company like BioWare can withstand the public resistance they got during the last years forever. Money is one thing, but there is also a psychological aspect in the stock market. And shareholders don't like companys that are permantly part of negative news coverage. If you throw enough sh** at someone something will persist. So it's important to have a balance.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 839
Yeah, but it wasn't the DLC that got people angry. It was Mass Effect's ending ...
Oh jeez. I thought you'd be able to read a bit more into the 'laughable' fake shampoo analogy - I just didn't want to belabor an obvious point too much so I used an extreme example as a shortcut. But let me now spell it out - it does not have to be *illegal* or a scam for my point to make sense - the substitute 'shampoo' just has to be the minimum the lawyers say the vendor can get away with. It can be (say) 70% water and 30% shampoo. You still cut costs by 70%, you still lose 50% of your customers. Is that a good long term business strategy? Is the analogy less 'laughable' now?
BioWare DLC is evolving. It used to be all about getting a few more hours of the games you liked, in a self contained story. Now it's more brutal. Now it holds you hostage, locking you out of important NPCs, powerful items or important story points. Eg you're lost at the start of ME3 unless you played arrival. So it comes as a thinly disguised stealth price increase of the original game. These are 'hit and run' business tactics designed to make a quick buck and lose goodwill. It may work today, but will the proverbial 'biodrone' still be pre-ordering games that do stuff like that in 2 years time?
BioWare DLC is evolving. It used to be all about getting a few more hours of the games you liked, in a self contained story. Now it's more brutal. Now it holds you hostage, locking you out of important NPCs, powerful items or important story points. Eg you're lost at the start of ME3 unless you played arrival. So it comes as a thinly disguised stealth price increase of the original game. These are 'hit and run' business tactics designed to make a quick buck and lose goodwill. It may work today, but will the proverbial 'biodrone' still be pre-ordering games that do stuff like that in 2 years time?
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 360
Nope, business actually do that and they don't lose customers. 1$ or 1£ shops have tons of those low-quality items, so do Aldi and LIDL. People who have less money to spend buy those. People with more money spend more and get higher quality products.
So, basically, they might just get a different type of audience. No longer the hardcore following they used, but lots of different groups of people with different budgets and different amount of times to play games.
Microtransactions is a massive business. Whether it will last for 3 years or decades, I don't know. The point is businesses need to evolve to keep generating profits. At this point in time they see their profits increasing this way without losing too many people. If they see things changing they are SUPPOSED to change as well.
As a separate example: I remember playing Fallout 1 and 2. After Fallout 2, they were working on 3 and NMA-fallout was reporting on it. When they cancelled it NMA-fallout and their followers went rabid and attacked Interplay every day.
They swore they would never want a Fallout without an isometric view and turn based combat. There comes Bethesda and makes a First Person Shooter RPG and they change their minds and love it.
People will get used to DLC and how it works. They will know that games without DLC are not complete and will just buy everything. OR they will be happy with the game without the DLC. Or they might just buy the major DLCs. Or ...
We don't know. Neither do Bioware. They see profits remaining strong or even get stronger thanks to DLC, at the very least until the Medium-term. So that's what they do.
You might disagree, but I'm assuming that since so many companies are adopting this model that it actually means it works.
At the same time however, you do see a lot of smaller companies who are promising DRM-free software which seems to work quite well for smaller companies, so I guess there must be some support for that at least. If the same thing happens for DLC (=> DLC-free games) then you could say that Bioware might be wrong.
No let's not mix up apples and pears. If I run (say) the Unilever brand, I sell Branded Shampoo for £5 and it costs me £2 to make, then - all other things being equal - I can double my quarterly profit NOW if I add 60% goo to it.
But in quarter 2, 3, and on, my sales decline 50%. This is not good business and it is the reason why Unilever does not add goo and forgoes the extra profit temptation NOW. BioWare OTOH seems to be giving in to just such a temptation.
The point was that not everything is about maximum $ today and NOW which you disagreed with, saying that the future is too intangible to give a toss about.
You may be right about BioWare consumers simply adapting to this - I hope for all our sakes that even the biodrones will not let themselves be milked by these tactics.
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 360
Well, first of all, I never said that the future is too intangible to give a toss about. I said companies need to adapt and that profits are their main goal. I said the futre is hard to predict, but if they had kept to what they were doing, maybe their sales would have been lower because all of the other companies took on this DLC business model.
On your shampoo :
Except that Unilever produces both the cheap brands and the expensive brands, which is basically the DLC. You can buy higher quality goo or lower quality goo...
Hair goo:
They have expensive, cheap, for men, for women, hair colour, hair smell,... See all the DLC...
So, Dove normal costs £4, Dove for special wrinkles costs £5, Dove for Special wrinkles + smells bad costs £6.