PDA

View Full Version : Mass Effect 2 for PS3 with exclusive content!



Dyndrilliac
11-15-2010, 07:16 PM
PS3 Exclusive Content Clarification - Official Mass Effect 2 Forums (http://social.bioware.com/forum/Mass-Effect/Mass-Effect-General-Discussion-NO-SPOILERS-ALLOWED/PS3-Exclusive-Content-Clarification--5188310-1.html)

This clears up any confusion and allows us PS3 owners to salivate over the coming goodness. I am glad I pirated my copy of the PC version and its DLC so when this clearly superior PS3 release gets dropped I will have no reason not to finally support the developers and simultaneously add an awesome game to my legitimate collection.

gamepin126
11-15-2010, 07:35 PM
What you mean is exclusive right now.

zack
11-15-2010, 09:51 PM
I'm excited about this one. The demo was trying to kill my computer with excess heat, but the ps3 should handle it and give me a great game.

Pr0nogo
11-16-2010, 08:21 AM
Meh. I can't say I'm interested in Mass Effect 2 anymore, especially when they're denying exclusive DLC to the 360 and rewarding the PS3 with that stuff for being a year late. Makes a whole lot of sense. Not.

CrazyGerbilEater
11-16-2010, 09:50 AM
seeing how a lot of games are developed exclusively for the 360 then ported over, and I'm sure there is exclusive content given just to them. I'm fairly sure it does make sense.

Pr0nogo
11-16-2010, 09:58 AM
seeing how a lot of games are developed exclusively for the 360 then ported over, and I'm sure there is exclusive content given just to them. I'm fairly sure it does make sense.

So if I was late to class, I should get a gold star, right? A gold star that the people who are early or on time don't get?

zack
11-16-2010, 11:57 AM
No, if you are releasing a game, that has been released for other platforms, it might be a good idea to give people a little extra reason to want to buy the game.

CrazyGerbilEater
11-16-2010, 12:48 PM
you obviously have a serious deficiancy in your ability to think abstractly

that analogy is horrible, doesn't make any sense.

I as the customer wasn't late, the supplier was late in delivering something to me, therefore it is felt by I as the waiting customer that something is owed(whether it is or isn't) and the supplier chose to compensate for their tardiness by offering me something.

If you said you'd pay a bill on the 20th, but ended up paying on the 25th, assuming there is a 2 day grace period, you are late and have to compensate the company for that right? Or should I say, it is expected that you have to. Society views as most companies do, that you are obligated to somehow compensate when you do not meet expected deadlines. Us as consumers waiting for a game expect to receive it at the same time as other people, and since it's important to keep a customer happy, and perhaps boost sales, the supplier decided to compensate us.

your analogy implies that the company is rewarding itself for being late? or maybe that we are being rewarded for being late in something, you seem to have confused the idea that the customers are not the ones who were late.

Dyndrilliac
11-16-2010, 01:39 PM
Early adopters of software and hardware and legitimate customers are always shafted when it comes to price versus product. Games are no different. And your logic that buying a game early is like paying your bill on time is ludicrous.

CrazyGerbilEater
11-16-2010, 10:10 PM
you seem to not understand the analogy, it is focused not on someone who bought it early, but someone who is getting something late. You fail, my point was entirely directed at someone getting something late should be compensated, not anything at all about early buyer. The game is late on ps3, not early on pc and 360, it'd be silly to think that way. It was on time for those two. failcounter

arcanise
11-17-2010, 05:33 AM
he is saying the game was released late and the company is giving an extra for being late on the release of the game. god i swear the brain cells on this site couldn't even fill the skull of a goldfish.

Dyndrilliac
11-17-2010, 09:59 AM
Show me an instance where early adopters of technology (be it hardware or software) were not in some way penalized either by paying an outrageous retail price or by getting a somehow lesser product at least initially than later adopters due to bug fixes, revision updates, feature additions, etc.

You're idea might seem right to you, but there is absolutely zero precedent for it. Sorry. Better luck next time.

NickF
11-17-2010, 10:15 AM
Early adopters pay more than they should
People late to the game miss the fad
Must buy in its prime !

Dyndrilliac
11-17-2010, 11:26 AM
Well, I for one pirated the PC version along with all of the DLC. Were it not for the sweet deal they are offering I would have absolutely zero incentive to buy the game.

CrazyGerbilEater
11-17-2010, 12:37 PM
well, if I were to step into the argument that early adopters are penalized, which I haven't even touched in any of my previous posts, I would say that it makes sense as well.

Companies put themselves at risk when they offer a new product, or create one. They invest large amounts of money that they have no way of guaranteeing that they'll sell. Much like the window 7 phones, microsoft invested so much in just the advertising alone, yet they are not seeing yet, from what I've seen, a large enough return on. Therefore companies must attempt to create "early adopters", by launching ad campaigns and building hype, these people who are willing to purchase their product at a much higher price point. As a company you MUST maintain a profit, and after spending millions of dollars on something it becomes that much more critical to get a return. As a public company, you also have a responsibility to the shareholders to get that positive return that much faster.

To make a return on investment quickly it makes sense to offer the product at launch at a higher price point, after building demand up through advertising, and maintaining it while demand is high. Then as demand lowers at that price point the company can now lower the price and raise demand again and make a profit at both points. This is a proven method that most companies use. You are not so much being penalized as you are paying a premium to get your product faster.

And it is the nature of any product to improve after time for such revisions, its ridiculous to expect a 100% perfect product at any launch, something will always be added on later. By the time a later adopter gets the product, youve already had that product x amount of time, and time has value. You are not getting a lesser product because you got the product + time, and they got the product + revisions. How much is 1 year of your time worth?

It makes a great deal of sense that if they aren't lowering the price, or if they cant any further, to add something onto the product to raise its value and therefore increase demand again. If it's already been a year, does it really matter that much to you?

Besides, it's a completely separate product despite what we'd want to think. A turbo for one car is not considered the same as a turbo for another car that has to be designed differently? even if they offer the same benefits and are made by the same companies, they are not interchangeable and therefore different products. Why do you see the PS3 version as the same product? As a different product realistically it renders all the arguments here moot unto it's supposed unfairness.

You seem to ignore that time has value to us.

Sight
11-19-2010, 07:22 PM
Meh. I can't say I'm interested in Mass Effect 2 anymore, especially when they're denying exclusive DLC to the 360 and rewarding the PS3 with that stuff for being a year late. Makes a whole lot of sense. Not.

http://lookpic.com/c1/i2/972/yUfrBk4W.jpeg

SNIIIFFF,
hmm... smells like a fanboy.

Abrupt
11-21-2010, 03:12 PM
Meh. I can't say I'm interested in Mass Effect 2 anymore, especially when they're denying exclusive DLC to the 360 and rewarding the PS3 with that stuff for being a year late. Makes a whole lot of sense. Not.

whoever pays more for exclusive rights, duh.

Irene
11-21-2010, 05:34 PM
I think that games will need to go for re-code and bug check before moving from platform A to B. It takes time, during the process the team can add new ideas into the game. It is not actually 'late'. There is also this video clip Final Fantasy : Advent Children , they add a bit of things into it and attempt to sell it again. Same platform, some time difference, and some exclusive content.

If I'm out of topic again please don't laugh because I have only speed read the first 3 posts and I'm at work now.