Dawnguard should cost 4 bucks : V - Skyrim

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:03 am

I'm trying to make it the same amount of content per dollar.

Come on man your sounding cheap...it only 20 bucks and I'm telling you it's worth it

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:55 pm

easily misunderstood remark removed before it costs someone's account

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:08 am

If Todd said 300 hours, I'm sure he wasn't talking about how long to finish the game, that's more like 50 or 60 hours. So the DLC is right in line price-wise.

No, he was talking about estimated content, for a TES game, most of that is exploring. Questing takes maybe 50-100, depending on how long you can put up with those generic radient quests.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:15 pm

This is an example of over-anolyzing, unless specific examples of the prices of games being based off of how many hours of content they have can be given.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:13 am

There is a reasonable chance that Dawnguard will go on sale when the second DLC is about to be released if you can wait. That seems to be a Steam pattern, something new coming out for a product prompts a sale on that product and it's accessories.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:04 pm

Well, keep in mind, RPGS are about developing your character over a long period of time, and TES is also about exploring a vast area. Action games (good action games in particular, like Half life or metal gear solid, not call of duty) are about quick and brutal combat. While you get less content per se, the developers spent far more time perfecting each inch of the game in an action game as opposed to an RPG, so its not fair to compare the two

That's nothing more than sugar coating it to justify you silly logic.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 12:39 pm

Just as a simple DLC, Dawnguard is giving more hours of content than a lot of stand-alone games that cost sixty bucks, and it's fourty bucks cheaper.

Something can be pure logic and still be wrong. That's where the termed "failed logic" comes from. :tongue:

I'm personally very happy to only be paying $20 for the DLC. 'Tis to support the developers, after all. :bunny:

Failed logic is psuedo-science which sounds logical at first, but does not follow the scientific method. However, this is just basic arithmitic, not rocket science

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:06 am

honestly were lucky it only costs 20 dollars. Be thankful

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:02 pm

Think about it. Skyrim was estimated by Todd Howard to be 300 hours, and cost 60 bucks. That is five hours per buck. He then estimated Dawnguard to be 20 hours, but it cost 20 bucks. So, to be fair to the regular game, Dawnguard should reduce its cost down to 4 bucks.

Hi there MetalGod! How are you?

Good point. I myself have brought up this issue before. Some have said the whole gameplay hours / price ratio is meaningless, but I disagree. Since most major development costs - Creation engine, Radiant Story, etc. - have already been covered, I'd say this ratio is even more meaningful now. But realize it’s just one amongst many other factors to pounder upon. With all the info currently available to non-beta testers, I think the price is too steep. My main objection, though, is the theme. I am not interested in vampires.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:46 pm

game price =/= game length

Those two things have nothing to do with eachother. Games have a standardized price(I think?) which, in the US, is $60. That price does not equate to the length or quality of the game. For example, game X has a 8 hour single player, it has no multiplayer, but its a AAA game, so it is going to cost $60. Dawnguard's estimated time of 20 hours is probably on the low end of things, anybody who plays it a lot will probably get more out of it then that.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:53 am

That's nothing more than sugar coating it to justify you silly logic.

No, think about it. If an RPG took 10 hours to beat, people would be outraged. If a shooter toke 40 horus to beat, it would be game of the year, assuming it was high quality. With an action game, the game developers take painstaking time trying to map out each encounter to make sure it brings the most cinematic action like sequences, putting certain enemies in certain spots so that player reaction is perdicable but exciting nontheless. With an RPG, they are just like, okay, we will make a dungon and then put some enemies in it. Okay done

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:20 am

your avertar is hilarious

Are you kidding, its going to give me nightmares

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:23 pm

Other games have about 15 hours of gameplay. You're lucky the DLC isn't 60.

Also, support the developers, they work hard on this stuff, making this DLC is almost like what other developers work to make a regular game, and 4 dollars for it won't be a very nice paycheck.

Aaaandd, while it has 300 hours of content, the average person may only play like 50-60 hours. So, I'd say a dollar per hour is a pretty accurate.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:21 pm

surely it would be up to you if you thought it worthy of a purchase and it sounds a good price for a fair ammout of content to me ...

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:15 pm

But as I said, you can do all the major stuff in Skyrim in about 50 or 60 hours. That's a buck an hour.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:29 am

Do you know what is even better?

Bethesda stop making dlc altogether (that means there will be no dlc at all for skyrim or any future game) and start making content patches (like in the good ol' days) where there were patches that also provided extra content for the game (kinda like skyrim's 1.6 patch with it's mounted combat) free.

I think that sounds reasonable to me.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 8:22 am

Do you know what is even better?

Bethesda stop making dlc altogether (that means there will be no dlc at all for skyrim or any future game) and start making content patches (like in the good ol' days) where there were patches that also provided extra content for the game (kinda like skyrim's 1.6 patch with it's mounted combat) free.

I think that sounds reasonable to me.

I don't think Microsoft and Sony would be happy about that. Bethesda probably had to pay a hefty sum of money just to get mounted combat into a patch.

They still need to make money. That's like buying a new Ferrari and expecting a new paint job every couple months for free.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 3:34 pm

No, think about it. If an RPG took 10 hours to beat, people would be outraged. If a shooter toke 40 horus to beat, it would be game of the year, assuming it was high quality. With an action game, the game developers take painstaking time trying to map out each encounter to make sure it brings the most cinematic action like sequences, putting certain enemies in certain spots so that player reaction is perdicable but exciting nontheless. With an RPG, they are just like, okay, we will make a dungon and then put some enemies in it. Okay done

Your logic is stupid because your asking for the wrong thing to be cheaper. Beth shouldn't be cheaper in there prices, other publishers should. With your logic it's okay for a shooter to charge $15 - $20 for a map pack that takes very little time to make compared to Dawnguard which has new landmass, quest, voice work, new models, and much much more. No Dawnguard is set a the correct price, and if your not buying it then there is little point in this thread.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:05 pm

Do you know what is even better?

Bethesda stop making dlc altogether (that means there will be no dlc at all for skyrim or any future game) and start making content patches (like in the good ol' days) where there were patches that also provided extra content for the game (kinda like skyrim's 1.6 patch with it's mounted combat) free.

I think that sounds unreasonable to me.

Fixed that there for you.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 5:29 pm

I want something for nothing.
And I will complain loudly about it if I don't get it.
So there.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 9:24 am

they said its about 20 hours just for the faction quests there most likely so much more

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 6:18 pm

Your logic is stupid because your asking for the wrong thing to be cheaper. Beth shouldn't be cheaper in there prices, other publishers should. With your logic it's okay for a shooter to charge $15 - $20 for a map pack that takes very little time to make compared to Dawnguard which has new landmass, quest, voice work, new models, and much much more. No Dawnguard is set a the correct price, and if your not buying it then there is little point in this thread.

woah woah woah, I was talking about quality action games, not Call of Duty

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 1:55 pm

Hi there illuknisaa. Hope you're having a good day.

Do you know what is even better?

Bethesda stop making dlc altogether (that means there will be no dlc at all for skyrim or any future game) and start making content patches (like in the good ol' days) where there were patches that also provided extra content for the game (kinda like skyrim's 1.6 patch with it's mounted combat) free.

I think that sounds reasonable to me.

It certainly does not sound reasonable to me. I think it's a fair assumption - and please feel free to correct me - that all the free content we have gotten is a way for Beth to mitigate the backlash reaction to the bugs and lag issues. Now, I think Beth more than made up for it, but of course I have been unaffected by such issues. So, why should Beth feel compelled to keep producing content for free, beyond the reasonable ammount it has already offered?

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:18 pm

I want something for nothing.
And I will complain loudly about it if I don't get it.
So there.

I'm confused, I could have sworn 4 dollars was greater than zero dollars, or did I get my math wrong.

» Fri Jun 22, 2012 7:41 pm

You're lucky the dlc doesn't cost $60, most games give 10-20 hours. Think about it.

EXACTLY.
a TES DLC is the size of your average game, and only cost 20 dollars