Jump to content

DRM, Online Pass, Project Ten Dollar and the like


Yantelope
 Share

Recommended Posts

As for charging several people for one service, my attitude to that is why should Game get the money for charging twice for the same game when EA could have it instead?

 

Because GAME is the one selling used games and EA isn't? Once EA has their own trade-in store that sells used EA games I'll agree with you. GAME gets to keep used sales because they're the ones selling the used games. It's a bit silly to demand EA get a cut every time the game changes hands for whatever reason, especially because in their eyes it really doesn't change their day-to-day operations.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So it does just ultimately boil down to "waah wahh, we want more money". And as consumers it's just a case of waiting and watching to see what crazy money making scheme EA will tack on this week.

 

I dunno, as a consumer I just feel violated. I am a piggy bank that's just waiting to be raped dry by the publishers. That's just not really a feeling a consumer should have.

 

Just waiting for Online Pass to just become universal, new and used (Hey it's a service EA provide, why should only used people be charged extra for it?). "Pre-order from Gamestop to get Adept and Infiltrator class!" (Front cover only does show Sentinel/Engineer). War Tour: Enlist for just $25 get early access, faster XP gain, and priority server access.

 

God it's kinda sad I can even come up with these. And this isn't even the really dirty shit EA could pull. Say storing your Shepard online, then charging a monthly fee for this service (Or a $5 import fee to import your old shepard). Putting in Micro-transactions on BF3. Slicing off pretty much all side-quests. They are after all unneeded to get to the end of the game. And maybe other things. I don't work for a games publishers so I don't know all the little snippets extra you can charge for. I guess demo-demos too (I hear capcom tried that) $1 to play the demo. It's not a high price. I'm sure people would pay. Fuck then you can start charging for the "EA Insider account". $20 a year for access to trailers before anyone else. (aka a few hours, probably less if you're at work at the time). Collectors editions that comes with...real manuals. Just like the old days. God anything that isn't the box and disc and beyond the beginning. middle. and end of the game is pretty much fair game. And as ACII showed even the middle is up for grabs too to the highest bidders.

 

 

TN as someone who works directly for EA and not to on any of the studios and not in any marketing or content creation role is your income and financial situation really tied to the performance of the games? If SWTOR was to bomb miserably would EA really go after the legal dept?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if say some designers at Black Box, a company different to that which you work for, were to produce a crappy pale imitation of a GTA clone, or if the marketing dept was to fail to generate hyper and differentiate said clone with GTA, and this resulting game and marketing effort was to bomb. Then you as someone working directly for EA in a entirely different department, would find your salary lower than usual? And vice versa (i.e EA was successfully sued for...copyright infringement/not paying royalties/something else) then the folks over at DICE would find their pay packets lighter too?

 

Just I'd have thought it would be related to the ability to keep EA out of legal troubles and to successfully bat off any cases that come their way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the most valuable lessons I learned working retail is that value is all about perception. The online pass and dlc create a negative perception.

 

Pretty much. EA feel that it's adds value to a new customer. But as a consumer Multi-Pass and Project $10 DLC just makes it feel like something was taken out then popped back in just cos EA reckons I've been a good boy. There's no added value, no incentive.

 

It's the usual tactic of most of the games industry, perfectly crystallized by DRM: The games publishers know only how to punish than to reward. And even basic understanding of headology tells you that you catch more flys with honey.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the most valuable lessons I learned working retail is that value is all about perception. The online pass and dlc create a negative perception.

 

Pretty much. EA feel that it's adds value to a new customer. But as a consumer Multi-Pass and Project $10 DLC just makes it feel like something was taken out then popped back in just cos EA reckons I've been a good boy. There's no added value, no incentive.

 

It's the usual tactic of most of the games industry, perfectly crystallized by DRM: The games publishers know only how to punish than to reward. And even basic understanding of headology tells you that you catch more flys with honey.

 

I'm sorry that's how you feel. It genuinely I honestly believe it is extra content and is intended to reward first purchasers by giving something extra. If that's not how it comes across, then I suggest you write an open letter on your blog to raise awareness of it. I'll even reshare it to my G+ circles so other EA folk see it.

 

With regard to my pay. Without going in to too much detail it's based on personal performance and company performance so yeah, if a game bombs it can affect my pay, and if something I do gets us sued in can affect everyone elses pay.

Edited by Thursday Next
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know everyone feels differently about things. I think EA can foster a mindset of "we created extra content for this game" rather than "we cut out part of your game and are selling it to you later" by avoiding things like the locked rooms in ME2. It may be 6 one way and half a dozen the other but it's the perception that matters in the minds of many gamers like myself.

 

I guess the other question that I ask is "would this content have been included with the game before the advent of DLC?" Things like the extra party members lean me to think "yes".

Edited by Yantelope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://truepcgaming.com/2011/08/08/kerbal-space-program-developer-interview/

 

My opinion is that DRM is an illusion. You can’t beat piracy more than you can beat an earthquake. And in the end, all DRM does is make your paying customers resent you. I often compare it with running a store, and doing cavity searches on your customers while the thieves are coming in through the back door.

 

(bunch of other stuff in their too)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is trying to "beat piracy" as much as they are trying to limit or contain it for a short while. So much of a games profits (almost all of them) are made in the first 6 weeks. If you can make it take 6 weeks for someone to crack your game then you've succeeded.

Edited by Yantelope
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nobody is trying to "beat piracy" as much as they are trying to limit or contain it for a short while. So much of a games profits (almost all of them) are made in the first 6 weeks. If you can make it take 6 weeks for someone to crack your game then you've succeeded.

 

To be honest, I think most publishers would be happy with half that. The first weekend sales are pretty huge % wise and then begin to drop off after that. The first few weeks are generally where you'll see your highest PSUs and it's when the buzz for a game is highest. If it's a choice between paying and waiting almost a month, a lot of people will pay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given that the PC delay was announced a couple of days before launch, I'm guessing that the PC version was ready and that they were talking to Microsoft until the 11th hour to see if they could launch simultaneously on PC and Xbox, or Ubi had assumed that Xbox exclusivity meant PC + Xbox and MS got in touch late in the day to say "What's with this simultaneous PC launch eh?".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.eurogamer...internet-debate

 

"Diablo 3 will make everyone else accept the fact you have to be connected," he said. "If you have a juggernaut, you can make change. I'm all for that. If we could force people to always be connected when you play the game, and then have that be acceptable, awesome.

 

well, errm...yeah. I see really badly wording things is an industry talent cos "force things to be acceptable" is not really the best line in the world.

 

Also automatic updates and always on DRM isn't really something that goes hand-in-hand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.destructo...er-208629.phtml

 

Hmmmmm.... I wonder what's in these "hatches".

 

This sets a dangerous precedent as far as I'm concerned. Locking out whats essentially a large group of sidequests is what it appears to be. What's next?

Edited by excel_excel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.destructo...er-208629.phtml

 

Hmmmmm.... I wonder what's in these "hatches".

Didn't he say it was extra items? That sounds entirely fair. It's not like you're missing out on entire sections of the game; just small, item-filled hatches. If I remember correctly, Dead Space 2 did something similar, only the hatches were brought online by owning and running Dead Space Ignition at least once.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with DukeOfPwn, I think this is entirely fair. Over on Kotaku, people are exclaiming punishment and so on but it really isn't. It's an incentive for people to buy new, it's added content for new buyers. I've seen the car analogy quite a bit used in offence against this but it doesn't work at all. The car industry is the whole time offering incentives for new buyers. When Gamestop is undercutting developers and publishers on day 2, that's a big problem and it was only a matter of time before the industry said "hold on a second!".

 

If you're unwilling to pay an extra fiver at retail, I say screw ya. If you know you're not supporting the developers or publishers by saving a measly fiver then you deserve to be missing some content and if you buy the game later, when it's on sale for cheap second-hand then paying for that extra content on top of it shouldn't be an issue.

 

It's not a punishment for used-game buyers, it's a reward for new game buyers.

 

All that said, it's a thin line between a fair incentive and an unfair money-grab but in this case, I think id are firmly on the side of fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...