Wait, I'm sorry, I'm just being told that the community doesn't have the balls to make EA sweat one drop. Scratch that last comment.
There's a world of dislike waiting to be unleashed on EA one of these days, and while it's never going to happen because people won't stop buying the games in order to send a message, the publisher/developer is continuing its experiments to mine their customers for more money in unexpected places. That doesn't mean that gamers have to sleep with their asses to the wall just yet, though, as EA is focusing more on how to expand their digital catalog through DLC and "premium" downloads.
It always bothers me when "premium" gets used to describe anything. Premium is a scary, misleading word that seems to imply that the product attached to it isn't going to be utter crap. Just remember that the Nintendo Seal of Approval gave us Friday the 13th, stale Starbucks coffee is marked up all the time due to the label, and when I think of a premium sandwich, I think McDonalds. It's a contrived term used to justify a mark up in prices or somehow make a product more legitimate while still managing to be piss-poor. Premium means expensive, and that is all.
When EA rolled out its cheap tactic for conning gamers into paying for something they should already own, I rolled my eyes and remembered why I don't buy anything from that company if I can avoid it. The games were crap, I don't like Madden, and any EA Games entry can be purchased on the cheap later on in the year. It used to be that Electronic Arts would try out new things, sign new developers, and break a few molds, but for about a decade they rested on the success of their sports franchises and did little to improve their other IPs. Seriously, after Goldeneye, the company tried its best to run the Bond franchise into the ground, so you know they weren't focused on the customer. That is, until EA's recent push to, gulp, return to innovation. It's slow and you would barely notice, but there are signs that things may change. Unfortunately, this is going to come at a cost to the consumers. If EA wasn't already rolling in dough, they've practically admitted that they are afraid to try anything new because unless a franchise is established they can't make bucketloads.
This is where you come in. EA's Mass Effect 2 tactic already pissed me off, but then they rolled out something else. Now, you will be asked to pay for something that's more than a demo, but not quite a game. I'm not sure if I see this as a bad thing, though.
Here on IGN, the news from EA is that they will pursue a different sales model that focuses on getting full but feature lacking titles such as Battlefield 1943 onto the marketplace. Right after the initial article that made it sound as if they were going to charge for game demos, they made a quick effort to clarify that this was not the case. Basically, EA is officially in the PSN/XBLA/WiiWare market, now.
At least, that's what it sounds like. It's not entirely accurate, and while it's clear that EA has severe ego problems at this point, I'm actually going to defend them on this one.
It's one thing if you are asked to pay $15 for 3 original maps in a DLC. That's...hilariously stupid. I sold back Modern Warfare 2 for that insult, Activision, and I thank you for helping me make that decision. It's quite another, however, to package up working game engines as a complete experience minus all the frills you'd find in a retail game. The obvious example would be Battlefield, but take Fat Princess into account as well. The simple, addictive, and minimalistic game was absolutely worth the $15 price tag. It was a complete experience in itself and provided the absolute minimum needed to get a sprawling community of players onto the PSN. If the company decided that it needed to go retail and package it up with extra single-player campaigns, it wouldn't be worth the price tag.
Think of FPS deathmatch modes, for example. While it's true Halo and Modern Warfare have proven that multiplayer will sell a $60 game, there are some games out there that don't interest us as a complete product. If the Conduit, for instance, allowed a $15 download that was simply an elaborate deathmatch lobby without the single player, even a year after release it would be a rousing success. Some games just don't need a campaign, and if the engine and gameplay is up to spec, the developers shouldn't force themselves to waste time and money just so they can print a full retail game. More development teams could spend time creating small, single purpose games that don't require the $60 price tag, are insanely fun, and will encourage creativity. If development costs are getting so high, it only makes sense that new ideas could be tested out in this way with minimal risk to the developer and the consumer.
In reality, this announcement is just a way of making EA's entry into the online marketplace visible. Many people have already taken this the wrong way, and while I'll be the first one to call out EA as uncreative and greedy, I really don't think that this means they will literally try to charge for demos. That doesn't mean I don't have doubts. They say that this can be a great way to beta-test games, and I'm sorry, but that means that they will be asking people to pay for incomplete titles. Hopefully, EA will use this as an opportunity to listen to the fanbase and create good titles worthy of $60 out of this arrangement while keeping the $15 multiplayer cheap and supported. If that isn't the case, then this is absolutely what it sounds like. Wait and see, but at first glance, it's not as bad as it seems. The time may be right to tone back on bigger-budget games until some good concepts make it to our consoles, first.
Digg It
Stumble it !
Reddit
No comments:
Post a Comment