RitualClarity Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 What I am try to say (which is being ignored in favor of disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing) is that Bethesda has a set number of dlcs for FO4 and they will not be making new packs above an beyond what is already budgeted for. YES, they are saying more packs are coming (that's a given looking at previous games). What they are not saying is that they are making more packs than they intended to from the start. If they intend to make 12 packs that's how many they will be making, regardless if people paid $30 or $60. They are simply raising the price of the season pass. They say exactly that, and it's one point I believe them on because it's a chickenshit way of doing business and that's what Bethesda is about these days. What I predict: After Far Harbor there will be at least two more major dlcs, maybe as many as five (but I doubt it). I am not counting tinker toy packs like Automatron and Wasteland Workshop. For Oblivion they made 8 like that; Vile Lair, Fighter's Stronghold, etc. I get what you are saying, there is just one problem with your statement. You cant prove it's true (and I cant prove the opposite is true), so right now it is a statement and discredits Bethesda... Dam I was ninja'd by Kendo Can't prove that statement, yes you are correct. However I know of no business model that will allow free reign at their level to start changing things out. They have dev teams, plans on production and time for completions before they start moving to the next TES6 or whatever. Simple business practice and procedures indicate that they had a specific amount of DLCs planned out to complete. They have specific plans for each DLC and time to complete. If they don't they start cutting the game. Like many games before. Simple business practice is what this statement is based on and I tend to believe this until someone shows me a real valid reason why not to.
Kendo 2 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 But it makes more internet sense to believe that Bethesda exists in a vacuum, removed from what corporations do. So Bethesda says they are upping the price of the season pass and there will be more content coming. They do indeed intend to release more content...the unreleased content they already planned and budgeted for. Bethesda is just word-smithing and making implications. No where are they promising extra content above and beyond what was planned. Fans are reading the intentionally ambiguous press releases and announcements and seeing what they want to see, and then they get mad when someone says something based on the reality of how businesses operate. The same thing is happening with the FO4 EULA and people reading it as saying 'mods will be free'. What the license really says is no one can charge for mods other than Bethesda/Zenimax. People get mad when that gets pointed out too.
Kendo 2 Posted February 25, 2016 Posted February 25, 2016 Yeah, being aware of the facts and making information based decisions is a bad idea. But okay, I'll play along. Bethesda is going to make extra content for FO4. Everything in the EULA is just for show. *shrugs*
Hanson Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 From a business standpoint it seems Bethesda is stacking the release of the first three dlcs to pad their second fiscal quarter. FO4 was released at the end of last year's third quarter (November). That means they will have been theoretically in the red with FO4 for six months by the time this year's first quarter starts (March). So, the first dlcs will have staggered releases throughout the first quarter, with Far Habor hitting Steam sometime in May. That will put Bethesda accounting books back in the black at the start of the second quarter. This is standard business practice. And before anyone here starts, it doesn't matter if FO4 has sold millions of copies and Bethesda has tons of money. Product sales have nothing to do with department project planning and operating budgets. The money to R&D and dev FO4 was considered spent when the projects were initially budgeted and that capital is not part of the fiscal cycle. For accounting and tax purposes those funds are frozen. So first of all, i do realise bethesda is a company and do things like corporates does. And i would totally agree with you if bethesda were a company in the stock market, but bethesda is a llc and thus does not require a "good balance" every quarter of the year to satisfy shareholders. With good balance i dont mean they can have a negative balance, i mean the kind of "we increased our sales by x%, blub blub blub". I also think thats the problem of ubisoft, ea which are on the stock market and they need to show every quarter a good balance because otherwise the stocks drop and the shareholders will be unsatisfied... therefore they start to release smalls dlc and microtransactions and shit so they can go to the shareholders and say "look, we are still making money with this game, buy our stocks and giv mor money" And I need to say, I am not an US resident, so therefore i dont know the exact meaning of a llc and its responsibles. Also Bethesda should have enough additional income to not rely complelty on fallout/elder scrolls. Isnt dishonored about to be released soon? That would be the income of this quarter (or next one). Another thing which comes to my mind. They needed to release the season pass before the release of fallout and as we certainly can agree guessing sales beforehand is pretty difficult. I mean what if shitposts started to roll harder and most of the people steppeb back from buying? You cant know that beforehand but you need to make an announcement for the season pass. So you go with an safe number and say 30 bucks woth. After release you realise your game sold well beyond your expectations and you want to support the game longer so you decide you make 60 bucks of content. Maybe it was discussed in a metting before like "ok we will certainly make XXX sales and we will do 30 $ of dlcs, but if we exceed the higher number of YYY sales we increase our dlcs to 60." That way they wouldnt even had lied because with the first number of sales the 30 $ package was planned. And you dont reveal every detail of your planning to the public because of security and espionage reasons. Besides that i dont like season passes because they limit the developers to a certain amount of dlcs and cant "add" some later if they think the games deserves one more. I guess i still buy the season pass, because it will take a while for the season pass to be reduced in price with a sale and most likly mods will require all dlcs at some point... but still not sure, I still ahve a few days left to decide...
Ernest Lemmingway Posted February 27, 2016 Posted February 27, 2016 From a business standpoint it seems Bethesda is stacking the release of the first three dlcs to pad their second fiscal quarter. FO4 was released at the end of last year's third quarter (November). That means they will have been theoretically in the red with FO4 for six months by the time this year's first quarter starts (March). So, the first dlcs will have staggered releases throughout the first quarter, with Far Habor hitting Steam sometime in May. That will put Bethesda accounting books back in the black at the start of the second quarter. This is standard business practice. And before anyone here starts, it doesn't matter if FO4 has sold millions of copies and Bethesda has tons of money. Product sales have nothing to do with department project planning and operating budgets. The money to R&D and dev FO4 was considered spent when the projects were initially budgeted and that capital is not part of the fiscal cycle. For accounting and tax purposes those funds are frozen. So first of all, i do realise bethesda is a company and do things like corporates does. And i would totally agree with you if bethesda were a company in the stock market, but bethesda is a llc and thus does not require a "good balance" every quarter of the year to satisfy shareholders. There's one problem with that argument. Bethesda is a subsidiary of Zenimax, which is traded on the stock market. So they actually do have people outside the company they need to please and do need to meet certain balance quotas every quarter. Those in charge at Zenimax wouldn't hesitate to shut Bethesda down if they failed to turn a profit. And like any traded company, they're primary concern is pleasing the stockholders and the bottom line. Those in charge, including the stockholders, most often don't know or care about whatever the company makes. So long as it makes them money. That's how these disasters that try to appeal to a wider market but alienate their core customers get made; it's a gamble to turn a bigger profit. Shit rolls downhill and all that.
Guest Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 I have no idea what you just said since it's a bunch of double talk, but whatever. Bethesda won't be making more dlcs than they planned for and the season pass that was $29.99 will provide for the same content a $59.99 season pass. End of story. They said they will be making more. Bethesda realizes they got competition now. Witcher 3 blew them out of the water completely. They know they have to get their shit together, lets see what they do. Bitching about it here accomplishes nothing really.
Kendo 2 Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 It depends on what Bethesda's definition of 'more' is. Does 'more' mean they are going to release the dlcs they already have planned and that's it, or does 'more' mean they are going above budget and and making additional dlcs that weren't planned for? Bethesda's statement was intentionally vague and given their track record of lying and deception, it would be stupid to think they are going to advance the project budget and make more content than planned for. Bethesda has never worked that way and considering the state of FO4 at release they are cutting corners, not expanding. The only people 'bitching' are the ones who think they are going to get more than they paid for from a company like Bethesda. Specifically they're bitching at me for making reasonable assertions and saying 'Yeah, probably not going to work out that way'. I'm not the one making the Bethesda/FO4 cluster fuck happen, I'm just the one who pointed it out.
RitualClarity Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 It depends on what Bethesda's definition of 'more' is. Does 'more' mean they are going to release the dlcs they already have planned and that's it, or does 'more' mean they are going above budget and and making additional dlcs that weren't planned for? Bethesda's statement was intentionally vague and given their track record of lying and deception, it would be stupid to think they are going to advance the project budget and make more content than planned for. Bethesda has never worked that way and considering the state of FO4 at release they are cutting corners, not expanding. The only people 'bitching' are the ones who think they are going to get more than they paid for from a company like Bethesda. Specifically they're bitching at me for making reasonable assertions and saying 'Yeah, probably not going to work out that way'. I'm not the one making the Bethesda/FO4 cluster fuck happen, I'm just the one who pointed it out. It is however possible that they will be adding a bit "more" content and "more" time to the DLCs considering that it didn't make GOTY etc. Anyway, so long as they give what they promised with the DLCs I am happy (along with of course a functional CK that modders can use to mod the game ASAP )
Hanson Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 From a business standpoint it seems Bethesda is stacking the release of the first three dlcs to pad their second fiscal quarter. FO4 was released at the end of last year's third quarter (November). That means they will have been theoretically in the red with FO4 for six months by the time this year's first quarter starts (March). So, the first dlcs will have staggered releases throughout the first quarter, with Far Habor hitting Steam sometime in May. That will put Bethesda accounting books back in the black at the start of the second quarter. This is standard business practice. And before anyone here starts, it doesn't matter if FO4 has sold millions of copies and Bethesda has tons of money. Product sales have nothing to do with department project planning and operating budgets. The money to R&D and dev FO4 was considered spent when the projects were initially budgeted and that capital is not part of the fiscal cycle. For accounting and tax purposes those funds are frozen. So first of all, i do realise bethesda is a company and do things like corporates does. And i would totally agree with you if bethesda were a company in the stock market, but bethesda is a llc and thus does not require a "good balance" every quarter of the year to satisfy shareholders. There's one problem with that argument. Bethesda is a subsidiary of Zenimax, which is traded on the stock market. So they actually do have people outside the company they need to please and do need to meet certain balance quotas every quarter. Those in charge at Zenimax wouldn't hesitate to shut Bethesda down if they failed to turn a profit. And like any traded company, they're primary concern is pleasing the stockholders and the bottom line. Those in charge, including the stockholders, most often don't know or care about whatever the company makes. So long as it makes them money. That's how these disasters that try to appeal to a wider market but alienate their core customers get made; it's a gamble to turn a bigger profit. Shit rolls downhill and all that. hmm.. ok didnt know that.... so forget what i said; these are not the droids you are looking for...
Benmc20 Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 More info about Bethesda : - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bethesda_Softworks - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZeniMax_Media
DocClox Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 The whole "season pass" thing is interesting now I think about it. With DLC sold individually, the company doesn't really need to think more than one DLC ahead. They'd release the game, patch and bugfix, and by the time the game approached stability they'd know if there was enough interest to make a DLC worth the investment of time and effort. Then when the DLC releases, there's a patch-and-bugfix time following, and they can use that to decide if another DLC is viable. I'm told that the "season pass" isn't just for a season as the name suggests, but for the lifetime of the game. Which interesting if true, because it changes that model. If you price your season pass on the assumption that you'll make two major expansions, then you can't then decide to make three DLC without the season pass holders getting the new content for free. And if the season pass has been very heavily subscribed then alost all of customers will get it for free ... which means you're not making any money on the DLC and your developers are better employed on another project. Based on that, I wonder if the season pass price hike was not so much because they decided to make more, but so they could make more if they decided there were enough non-SP holders interested.
Guest Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 It depends on what Bethesda's definition of 'more' is. Does 'more' mean they are going to release the dlcs they already have planned and that's it, or does 'more' mean they are going above budget and and making additional dlcs that weren't planned for? Bethesda's statement was intentionally vague and given their track record of lying and deception, it would be stupid to think they are going to advance the project budget and make more content than planned for. Bethesda has never worked that way and considering the state of FO4 at release they are cutting corners, not expanding. The only people 'bitching' are the ones who think they are going to get more than they paid for from a company like Bethesda. Specifically they're bitching at me for making reasonable assertions and saying 'Yeah, probably not going to work out that way'. I'm not the one making the Bethesda/FO4 cluster fuck happen, I'm just the one who pointed it out. It does not really matter. Well to me anyway. Look at it this way, I am a huge fan of Total War games, Rome 2 was a piece of shit and the Attila game was lackluster (I gave them a chance). Now the new Warhammer game, with barely any preview of the core game have already announced pre-order DLC with a price tag of $80 CAD. Whats more apparently they will no longer be supporting modding as Games Workshop (who owns warhammer) does not like losing that sweet mini-DLC money (8-15$ a pop if history is anything to go by). If you think Bethesda is bad, you have not seeing anything yet. Anyway I vote with my wallet and I am not going anywhere near the Total War franchise again (unless +80% sale of course).
DocClox Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 If you think Bethesda is bad, you have not seeing anything yet. Anyway I vote with my wallet and I am not going anywhere near the Total War franchise again (unless +80% sale of course). I think that's probably the point, though. It's not so much that Bethesda is bad as that the direction they seem to be taking doesn't seem to be a good one. From a buyer's point of view anyway. Totally agree about voting with the wallet by the way. I don't believe in pre-ordering anything and if they really are going to charge double price for anyone who orders piecemeal, I'll wait for what used to be the GOTY compilation offer. Of course, the trouble with that approach is that from Bethesda's point of view, they can't tell the difference between "not buying becuase of the season pass" and "not buying because I'm not interesed in F4 DLC". So from that point of view there probably is some point to talking about it onlne.
RitualClarity Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 The whole "season pass" thing is interesting now I think about it. With DLC sold individually, the company doesn't really need to think more than one DLC ahead. They'd release the game, patch and bugfix, and by the time the game approached stability they'd know if there was enough interest to make a DLC worth the investment of time and effort. Then when the DLC releases, there's a patch-and-bugfix time following, and they can use that to decide if another DLC is viable. I'm told that the "season pass" isn't just for a season as the name suggests, but for the lifetime of the game. Which interesting if true, because it changes that model. If you price your season pass on the assumption that you'll make two major expansions, then you can't then decide to make three DLC without the season pass holders getting the new content for free. And if the season pass has been very heavily subscribed then alost all of customers will get it for free ... which means you're not making any money on the DLC and your developers are better employed on another project. Based on that, I wonder if the season pass price hike was not so much because they decided to make more, but so they could make more if they decided there were enough non-SP holders interested. Most of these devs have plans for their DLCs included in the dev plan of the game. Stuff that originally couldn't be put into the game in the time intended under the cost required. Likely they developed some of this content in unison of the rest of the game (laddering project. where parts of the project for future is done at the same time because it is cheaper to do even though it won't be used at the time.) Story boards, character, (mild develop) some story etc, Stuff to get approval and framework to be able to continue. So in this case they likely know exactly how many DLCs they want to create to "fill out the game" the way they envisioned it when they started the project. This is how a project is ran. A project for info purposes is a task that has a clearly defined beginning, middle and end. Only way to have this is to have a plan. What people are discussing is possible "project creep" where ideas and subjects are being added to the project at various times that increase the project task and effort. This does indeed happen and for various reasons. I believe they have the designed amount of DLC's they might possibly decide to fill them out more and make them more "complete" and add some of the content that origanally was put to the side in the first stages of desiging various aspects of the DLCs. to make the DLCs more entertaining or fleshed out (one of the complaints of the consumers reported with fallout 4). The request for more money for the DLCs might be because of this. Your comment: I wonder if the season pass price hike was not so much because they decided to make more, but so they could make more if they decided there were enough non-SP holders interested. Could be a factor however considering how tight projects are in the gaming industry and their many power being finite I would tend to think otherwise. They have other projects running at the same time which the texture artist, sound and other crew have to report to/for so unless there was a delay or a serious change in planing (for a DLC? They already got the main coin from the game) I doubt this is true. I tend to believe because of the popularity reported for Fallout 4 as the reason for the price to go up for the DLCs (demand = price) They believe they can increase the price and those that want it will pay the difference. Also.. lets not forget they made the price hike public and gave plenty of time for most gamer to buy it before hand. Forcing them to make the decision and spend more $$$$ they might not have otherwise (being waiting for he price to drop That is another way for them to get some coin for their development of the DLCs if they feel their budget tight for completion of the task. One factor that makes your statement interesting is I don't know if they can still be eligible for the GOTY edition if they release DLCs this year. (complete the release and be eligible for GOTY edition status in 2016) or if they are ineligible. If they are eligible then perhaps the company will try to really roll out the DLCs (same amount) but with massive increase in content to silence those that stated the game was "empty" Paving the way to possible GOTY status which would be something they would crave and possibly something the stock holders would get behind as well. Barring this .. I doubt it is anything more than the fact they want to "encourage" those that haven't gotten the season pack to get it so they can get the money they need and be able to plan the amount of content for each of the DLCs (time involved to develop) through this year. Those that buy later will just add to their bottom line and do nothing to increase the content of the Fallout DLCs. That money would go to some other projects. It is all business, all the time.
Ernest Lemmingway Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 The whole "season pass" thing is interesting now I think about it. Based on that, I wonder if the season pass price hike was not so much because they decided to make more, but so they could make more if they decided there were enough non-SP holders interested. You've uncovered their evil plan! It could also be a way of further padding their profit margins by tricking more people into buying the SP before the price hike goes up. Hell, it could be both.
DocClox Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 Likely they developed some of this content in unison of the rest of the game (laddering project. where parts of the project for future is done at the same time because it is cheaper to do even though it won't be used at the time.) Story boards, character, (mild develop) some story etc, Stuff to get approval and framework to be able to continue. So in this case they likely know exactly how many DLCs they want to create to "fill out the game" the way they envisioned it when they started the project. This is how a project is ran. Well, it's one way a project can be run. I'm a software professional and contractor with ... let's just say "decades" of experience and I've seen a lot of projects, well run and otherwise ) Admittedly, none of that has been in the games industry, so it's possible they do things differently there. I can see the sense in doing some work back-to-back: voice acting while the actors are available and while the part is fresh in their minds; maybe some modelling and texture work. That said, Beth's expansions don't feel right for that sort of production model. I mean ... I could imagine Dawnguard being pretty well conceived when Skyrim was released. Hearthfire, of course wasn't - it came out a game jam session - but then it was trivial enough that it could be jammed in between planned expansions. Dragonborn though ... I can't imagne that was planned out much beyond "First vs Last Dragonborn" and "Solstheim, because Nords". The mini-Morrowind and Apocrypha elements seemed to be there primarly in response to comments that Skyrim itself was a bit lacking in the exotic. Going back further ... well we know rhat Broken Steel was very much in response to criticisms of the ending of the base game. Mothership Zeta, maybe. Point Lookout ... I honestly have no idea, I don't know what they were thinking with that one. The Pitt though is clearly foreshadowed in Rockopolis. Project Anchorage wasn't foreshadowed at all, but there's no reason it couldn't have been planned up front. I think you might be right, but I'm not sure that's the whole story. There seems to be more flexibility in evidence than I'd expect if the planning was that tight. I believe they have the designed amount of DLC's they might possibly decide to fill them out more and make them more "complete" and add some of the content that origanally was put to the side in the first stages of desiging various aspects of the DLCs. to make the DLCs more entertaining or fleshed out (one of the complaints of the consumers reported with fallout 4). The request for more money for the DLCs might be because of this. Hmm.. I could easily belive that they did some early prototyping for a number of projects and decided which to proceed with based on feedback One factor that makes your statement interesting is I don't know if they can still be eligible for the GOTY edition if they release DLCs this year. (complete the release and be eligible for GOTY edition status in 2016) Well, they just made a big show of accepting the GOTY award at the DICE gathering the other week, so they can probably claim GOTY 2016 based on that. Really though, isn't it just a marketing ploy? You bundle the bits of the software together into one product, slap some blurb on the packaging saying "Winner of the NNNN Game of the Year Award from YYYY" and call it a GOTY release. I didn't think eligibility came into it at all.
RitualClarity Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 Well, they just made a big show of accepting the GOTY award at the DICE gathering the other week, so they can probably claim GOTY 2016 based on that. Really though, isn't it just a marketing ploy? You bundle the bits of the software together into one product, slap some blurb on the packaging saying "Winner of the NNNN Game of the Year Award from YYYY" and call it a GOTY release. I didn't think eligibility came into it at all. that answered my question. They got the GOTY for 2016 when the game was released in 2015. ? Don't understand that. Witcher got the award for 2015. Anyway that eliminates the thoughts I had for the reason for expanding the content on the DLCs. At least based on their desire to win if able. . Admittedly, none of that has been in the games industry, so it's possible they do things differently there. I I imagine that they do. It is as much an entertainment industry as a software industry and thus a blending of the various aspects of both. I worked with and known some very jr. people that worked in the gaming industry (midway games) as well as some professors at my college that taught this field. It is like the movie industry but with a software instead of a film background. Different levels of development with different companies as you experienced with your software experiences. Some companies plan more and some not so much. I just don't believe they are adding more DLCs however I hope they are adding more content (and more complete) content in the DLCs being released, however short of some breach of security from Bethesda, I doubt anyone will ever really know... (except anyone that works for Besthesda that is . to which I am sure someone here does )
RitualClarity Posted February 28, 2016 Posted February 28, 2016 I agree they will milk the awards as much as possible. They will milk Todd's award as much as possible as well. There are more platforms that give GOTY awards? If so I didn't know that.
Darkening Demise Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 Just want to see the water being used. Since it takes up majority of the dinky wasteland. Can't wait for modders to expand the map too. The cut Institute quest featuring the only swimming Sea Creature had me pissed.
Kendo 2 Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 I suspect an underwater facility of some sort will be in a dlc. There is too much map for there not to be one.
Guest Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 I suspect an underwater facility of some sort will be in a dlc. There is too much map for there not to be one. There are many clues about this but never an official confirmation. The perks, some rare rifles, some armors, available space in the map (as you said.) Let's see. Maybe Bethesfa will do a DLS underwater. I am confident Also because I don't give a shit about the contents of the first two official DLCs. (sorry about the language)
RitualClarity Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 I suspect an underwater facility of some sort will be in a dlc. There is too much map for there not to be one. There are many clues about this but never an official confirmation. The perks, some rare rifles, some armors, available space in the map (as you said.) Let's see. Maybe Bethesfa will do a DLS underwater. I am confident Also because I don't give a shit about the contents of the first two official DLCs. (sorry about the language) The underwater DLC might be interesting but not so sure. That will have to be done very well to make any difference. Something like that might be seen as an Serra Madrid DLC. Most didn't like it. I have a save backup with Valentine so the Far Harbor DLC might be interesting for me because I have already fleshed out that play through. I am more interested in the CK release then the DLCs so that the modding community can start really digging in and creating more advanced mods that can't be created now. It has been amazing what has been able to be done without the aid of a CK. What can be done once they do have the CK? I for one do hope if they create new world spaces that they be pretty large, larger than Point Lookout for example. More to explore and use. Provided they do flesh it out as well.
Guest Posted February 29, 2016 Posted February 29, 2016 The underwater DLC might be interesting but not so sure. That will have to be done very well to make any difference. Something like that might be seen as an Serra Madrid DLC. Most didn't like it. I have a save backup with Valentine so the Far Harbor DLC might be interesting for me because I have already fleshed out that play through. I am more interested in the CK release then the DLCs so that the modding community can start really digging in and creating more advanced mods that can't be created now. It has been amazing what has been able to be done without the aid of a CK. What can be done once they do have the CK? I for one do hope if they create new world spaces that they be pretty large, larger than Point Lookout for example. More to explore and use. Provided they do flesh it out as well. Hello RC, what will be possible with CK? Scripting. And that is enough to provide better mods. About a larger map, I don't think so. But I am not sure.
Guest Comrade DR. MAHUJ DIK Posted March 1, 2016 Posted March 1, 2016 I dont know if it has any conection to DLCs but they have not used meshes for a spy base.
LidiaSun Posted March 24, 2016 Posted March 24, 2016 There are good business and bad business. My personal view (doesn't matter who cares about) first time to the world of Fallout series is with mixed feelings. Right now not going to mod again the game because with every update they find a way to screw at least my settings probably others have the same problem and definitely more patient. I got tired and decided to play it again if and when I will see in youtube good mods and also read positive posts in the sites. It was my first time also to Witcher series with #3 with much better feelings. Many years a customer of Steam but after the mod incident new customer to GOG Galaxy. So what is business about? Making money yep but how? Good business is when I have 1 customer satisfied he will bring me some more basic rule in business. Bad business when I start loosing customers. What that does mean for companies producing games? It is a success after the first game that customers believe on the company Done! It is a success when people buy the second product game Done! It is a success when i listen what the customers talk about Done! It is a success when everyone talks or interact with my product. Done! It is a success the longest the time people use it. Done! It is a success when my customers grow because of the previous steps. Done! e.t.c. Bad business is the opposite side of the above. Now everyone who is interested check on youtube or on twitch in which place for how long Witcher 3 , Fallout 4 and Skyrim people where interested about them. Especially for games look in sites with mods how many mods have been made for a product. See how the success is growing or decreasing to see if companies are gaining steps or not. So Personally I see the games: Witcher 3 distributing free content if I remember well 15-16 free dlc's which has 1081 mod files in Nexus site. Fallout 4 not any free content yet, and having 8938 mod files in Nexus site. Skyrim not free content, 4 dlc's and having 46550 mod files in Nexus site. Go now on twitch and check how many people are looking in the content of each game. If you want you may see how many people were interested about the game in the first weeks and for how long a game was in the first position. From all these facts you can easily see what the majority of customers liked for how long. The biggest the period the best for a company. Finally what it matters about games is taste strictly personalized but also it matters with you wallet which one you support and how any company translates this support. Some companies in the way to gain more satisfied customers they distribute free content others they try to gain money on others people work. Some they try to control the market and others are trying to free it. The whole world and the people act different in any case. The result of these thoughts is that as one of the persons who buy a product it matters how much I trust a company, how much I value their efforts and how much I am willing to buy their product and if they are correct in the business way then I won't have any problem if not they lost even one single customer and there is when the problems start.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.