Fallout 3 DLC Exclusivity speculation

[K.C. Cool]

So I suppose the creation of Fallout: BOS was okay because Interplay thought it would make more money making a spinoff then making, say, a good reputable sequel?

It all depends on what you desire most, personally I would rather help the world than rob it. We, the gaming industry consumers, are the ones getting fucked over by decisions like that.

 

[raskijan]

Why pay for a house, or horse armor, when companies like Valve give away huge updates to their games for free?

Or, for that matter, when modders add significantly more and superior content than what Bethesda offers via DLC.

Too true.

Here's hoping that the option [modding tools] is available with F3. If the mod kit is seen as direct competition for DLC you can bet which one would be chosen.

 

[ArmorB]

Problem is that the micro-payments has become a proven viable system. And the micro payments do suck, but it offers a way for the buyer to custom choose thier content. I may want a house but not a horse, so this gives me the option at a certain cost. Where as the typical expansion will give you all sorts of stuff in one shot but for a much greater price and you may not ever use some of hte content you payed for.

To me the micro-payments area double edged sword. Either a cheesy system to nickel and dime the customer -OR- an easy way for the customer to pick and choose their updates they choose to pay for.

So I suppose the creation of Fallout: BOS was okay because Interplay thought it would make more money making a spinoff then making, say, a good reputable sequel?

I say it was their right to make that investment. But it's important to note whether that one paid off for them. And that's the whole thing. The whole MS+Beth thing might bite them in the ass, but it's a chance they were willing to make. Interplay thought BOS was a good idea at the time, but the fan base didn't agree and they didn't buy it, or at least most didn't.

Just because you don't think it's a good idea or don't like that it was done isn't really important unless everyone else agrees with you...

 

[K.C. Cool]

I say it was their right to make that investment. But it's important to note whether that one paid off for them. And that's the whole thing. The whole MS+Beth thing might bite them in the ass, but it's a chance they were willing to make. Interplay thought BOS was a good idea at the time, but the fan base didn't agree and they didn't buy it, or at least most didn't.

Just because you don't think it's a good idea or don't like that it was done isn't really important unless everyone else agrees with you...

I could sleep with my best friend's wife and feel I've gained something, however it doesn't make it right that I screwed over my friend.

Morality is defined by the individual, society bases their laws on popular moral beliefs. Sure, if the town racist wants all the minorities dead, that doesn't mean the town will fulfill the racists wants.

The difference is the bourgeoisie can dictate their own terms, despite what everyone else agrees with. For example, if the town racist was wealthy, they would do a variety of things with their wealth, power, and status to rid the town of the minorities.

The argument of "Just because they can" doesn't always mean it's in the right, especially if a majority of people oppose it.

Now if I told my friend "Dude, I wanna bang your wife!" and he says "Dude, my wife and I want you to bang you too!" then by all means, high fives and eiffel towers all around.

 

[ArmorB]

^^ Yes but software companies are not infringing on your rights or personal freedoms. You don't have to buy their games or do any of their micro-payments. One of the best way to speak to money makers is to not give them your money. You are not forced to buy the game. And if enough people don't buy the game then things happen, bad things happen...People speak with their wallets all the time.

And like I said before moral choices very rarely go hand in hand with financially smart choices. If money was a driving factor to me and sleeping with your wife would make me money...

If you are a company breaking even is not typically your goal. So they want to make a product that will appeal the the largest number of potential fans. If they made FO3 the the way that many 'old heads' would like to see it, no matter how much those 5000 people (made up number) liked the game it would still only amount to essentially 5000 sales. Now as they are making the game like they are they are apt to sell 1,000,000 copies, they don't really care about the 5000 that will be pissed off and not buy it.

Now here is where things get interesting, If Beth goes and makes FO4 and of those 1,000,000 people, that helped them predict sales for future games, only 50,000 of them buy the game, investor like MS are going to be pissed and drop them like a bad habit. So in that case the majority may not have effected the overall sales of FO3, because they had already bought it, but they certainly effected FO4...So Beth can dictate it's own terms all they want, but eventually they will reap what they sow, good or bad...

 

[terebikun]

Um.. Encourages monopolies and fucks over the small businesses.

Sony=small business?

 

[K.C. Cool]

I agree that game companies aren't politics or evil empires, basically all Bethesda is doing with payable online content is fishing. They're putting a line out, if something bites, it bites. If not, no big loss. They already sold the game, right?

I respectfully disagree that moral choices don't play a role in business. People bicker and argue all the time about business decisions that ruin lives, damage the environment, ect.

It depends on your goal in business. Is your goal to make the most money possible? Is your goal to make the best video games possible? It depends on what is important to you and what sacrifices you wish to make.

Sure, a game company like Trokia went under due to poor business, but did they make some great games? Sure they did, and I certainly respect them more than another company that would be after the money than making good games. You can’t buy respect, you have to earn it.

Businesses could have a plan that caters to this, make money on one end and have the funds on another to produce a good product. Reaching into the fictional plane, Bruce Wayne had a billion dollar company that helped him fund fighting crime. I'm not saying that it's the best option, but a well funded hobby executed well can produce flexible and great things.

However, you need air in your raft to stay afloat, it seems that after a certain point you better stop paddling and you better start blowing...

 

[Jesuit]

It depends on your goal in business. Is your goal to make the most money possible?

Sadly, if you are a publicly traded company in the U.S., making as much money as possible has to be your goal by law. If it ever becomes apparent that you didn't act in the best interest of your share holders (e.g. make as much money as possible) then you are opening yourself up to some pretty deadly liability issues.

That being said, Bethesda is an LLC, and depending on their registered operating agreement, members(private shareholders) who act against the best interest of the company are also open to some pretty terrible liability.

Yes, we have finally created Steinbeck's monster. People just don't get to make those type of decisions anymore.

 

[zioburosky13]