EA: "We might have you start buying demos."

[Minvaren]

Article link : here

As Pachter explained to Gamasutra, "I think that the plan is to release (paid downloadable content) at $15 that has 3-4 hours of gameplay, so [it has] a very high perceived value, then [EA will] take the feedback from the community (press and players) to tweak the follow-on full game that will be released at a normal packaged price point."

To an extent, they're doing what TV broadcasters have done - pilot, and if everyone watches, it becomes a series.  If I remember right, the makers of Torchlight are doing this as well by adding multiplayer later.  The difference is that Torchlight is pretty much done, single-player wise, and the games affected by this strategy will likely not be.  I can't say I'd pay $20 for that Mafia demo I downloaded some years back, or to play a single race over and over in the next NFS title.

Your thoughts?

[BitWarrior]

I agree with your analogy and I would never pay for the privilege of watching a pilot show, and I would never pay for a demo.

Pachter is out of touch and doesn't understand what demos are for.

[Azazel]

It's a result of the overuse of DLC. Games like AVP and BF:BC and Dragon Age and so on and so fucking forth with release-day or week-after-release-day DLC propping up the back-end of sales. From a business perspective it only makes sense to see if you can prop up the fore-end of sales with even more DLC.

Personally, fuck that for a joke. Then again, how much content did the SP of MW2 have again...?

[tgr]

My thoughts are: "please for the fucking love of god, please stop it with the fucking seppuku, PC gaming is getting skinny enough as it is."

[Lakov_Sanite]

DLC as a general rule is not popular, neither will this be. People are going to see it, some will try it but it'll die the death of the virtual boy.

[Azazel]

My thoughts are: "please for the fucking love of god, please stop it with the fucking seppuku, PC gaming is getting skinny enough as it is."

PC gaming? I saw this as console or multiplatform demos pilots. Consoles is where the moneys is at, after all. It's just an exec looking for additional ways to monetise the industry, which in a sense is his job. Just like Kotick Satan trying to and expecting to sell you and I a new plastic guitar and set of drums each year, right until he has a game which fails (band hero, anyone?)

[Ingmar]

DLC as a general rule is not popular, neither will this be. People are going to see it, some will try it but it'll die the death of the virtual boy.

Hm, is this actually true? Yes there's a lot of complaining about it around here and other places on the internet, but is that actually reflected in bad sales for it?

Paying for a demo just seems way beyond the line though.

[Rasix]

I don't see me paying for this shit.

"Tweak the game."  Paying for single player beta.   

[Goreschach]

I'm already not paying money for 5 hour long games. Not buying the demos for games I know I'm not going to buy is not going to kill me.

[01101010]

bah, read it wrong... but I do agree with tgr...

My thoughts are: "please for the fucking love of god, please stop it with the fucking seppuku, PC gaming is getting skinny enough as it is."

[Velorath]

They'd have to give me $15-20 off the full game if I buy the demo to get me interested in that, and even then I'd only buy demos for stuff I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy (Dead Space, Burnout, any of Bioware's stuff).  That wouldn't be too much different from something like Gran Turismo 5 Prologue.

[Lantyssa]

It's a logical extension to single-player games of what MMOs have done for years...

[tgr]

PC gaming? I saw this as console or multiplatform demos pilots.

Christ, I guess you're right, I didn't see the PSN/XBL in the last paragraph. I guess I'm just too used to PC gamers being the ones getting the shaft.

MW2 SP would probably have been sufficient for the $15 pricerange, if we have to see this shitty idea implemented. And as Velorath says, if I'm to buy a "demo" (i.e. be a paying betatester, essentially), they'd damn well give me $15 off of the finished product.

[Slyfeind]

I would totally pay up to $5 for a demo, but not a penny more.

[Musashi]

Look at it this way.  At least they're admitting up front that they're selling you an unfinished product.

[NowhereMan]

See shit like this works ok with small-time studios. I paid for the Mount and Blade Beta because that was clearly a group working on a game that needed funding and they were working on something interesting and different enough that I felt it warranted some money for an unfinished client. Big studios doing it? Perhaps if say purchasing the demo was £5 and you received £10 off the price of the full game but demos are meant to act as advertisements. They give players a chance to evaluate the game itself, not act as a separate source of revenue. Fuck can you imagine if cinemas started charging extra for the trailers at the beginning of films? Also DLC is an interesting concept but generally they're used for nothing more than fluff (yay horse armour!) or adding in something that really should have been in the original game, which is why people hate it. I don't see a problem with using DLC to tell more or new stories within a game but in terms of development costs that probably would be somewhere between pointless fluff/stuff that didn't quite make the original shipping deadline and full blown expansions so studios don't want to do it if they won't be getting full expansion price but the content itself doesn't justify that.

[schild]

They'd have to give me $15-20 off the full game if I buy the demo to get me interested in that, and even then I'd only buy demos for stuff I'm pretty sure I'll enjoy (Dead Space, Burnout, any of Bioware's stuff).  That wouldn't be too much different from something like Gran Turismo 5 Prologue.

If half the companies around today put 1/10th the work into their demos that Polyphony Digital put into Gran Turismo Prologue, the gaming landscape would seem a lot less bleaker.

[eldaec]

Article link : here

As Pachter explained to Gamasutra, "I think that the plan is to release (paid downloadable content) at $15 that has 3-4 hours of gameplay, so [it has] a very high perceived value, then [EA will] take the feedback from the community (press and players) to tweak the follow-on full game that will be released at a normal packaged price point."

To an extent, they're doing what TV broadcasters have done - pilot, and if everyone watches, it becomes a series.  If I remember right, the makers of Torchlight are doing this as well by adding multiplayer later.  The difference is that Torchlight is pretty much done, single-player wise, and the games affected by this strategy will likely not be.  I can't say I'd pay $20 for that Mafia demo I downloaded some years back, or to play a single race over and over in the next NFS title.

Your thoughts?

You wouldn't pay for it, plenty of people would.

I won't pay for it, so it doesn't affect me and I don't care.

[tmp]

(..) then [EA will] take the feedback from the community (press and players) to tweak the follow-on full game that will be released at a normal packaged price point."

Your thoughts?

"Sure, in theory figuring that out is part of our job in the first place, but how about you pay us so you can then tell us what sort of a game you want."

Brilliant.

[Ingmar]

I won't pay for it, so it doesn't affect me and I don't care.

Sure it affects you - you no longer will have the option to get said demo for free.

[Malakili]

If I remember right, the makers of Torchlight are doing this as well by adding multiplayer later.  The difference is that Torchlight is pretty much done, single-player wise, and the games affected by this strategy will likely not be. 

I'd say its pretty different really.  Torchlight is just a single player only ARPG game, at a price of 20 dollars.  They are making the franchise into an MMO after the fact (though there have been rumors aplenty about the idea of a multiplayer version of the single player game, non MMO).  They were pretty much all in on the project and the single player wasn't really to test the waters.  It was more to put together a solid product on a short time frame, make some money, and then shift focus to another (related) project.


Anyway, Torchlight aside, I think this is a pretty stupid idea.  I can't really see myself paying anything for this sort of thing.  I don't have to pay to watch the pilot of a TV show, and I'm not going to pay for this.  Hell, on the topic of TV I'd rather get a 30 second ad for something when I start the demo than pay for it directly, if they absolutely felt the need for some sort of pay structure.

[Merusk]

I won't pay for it, but then it's not about me.  I'm not the target audience anymore since I'm 35 and funds are beginning to divert themselves elsewhere.  The gaming budget gets smaller and smaller every year.  It's my nephews and kids who are and they'll fork over the $5 or even $15 without a second thought and do so for the next 20-25 years until their kids are the target.

Just like it was predicted that PC gaming is going to move towards the online-only model AND would include DLC with every game, and not for just trivial "cosmetic" shit.  Hey look where they're headed with that.

[Threash]

See shit like this works ok with small-time studios. I paid for the Mount and Blade Beta because that was clearly a group working on a game that needed funding and they were working on something interesting and different enough that I felt it warranted some money for an unfinished client. Big studios doing it? Perhaps if say purchasing the demo was £5 and you received £10 off the price of the full game but demos are meant to act as advertisements. They give players a chance to evaluate the game itself, not act as a separate source of revenue. Fuck can you imagine if cinemas started charging extra for the trailers at the beginning of films? Also DLC is an interesting concept but generally they're used for nothing more than fluff (yay horse armour!) or adding in something that really should have been in the original game, which is why people hate it. I don't see a problem with using DLC to tell more or new stories within a game but in terms of development costs that probably would be somewhere between pointless fluff/stuff that didn't quite make the original shipping deadline and full blown expansions so studios don't want to do it if they won't be getting full expansion price but the content itself doesn't justify that.

You paid for the mount and blade beta because you downloaded the DEMO and realized it was going to be a kick ass game.

[stu]

I'll pay five bucks for the demo if it means I get to fuck the guy's wife. Mmn... roast beef.

[NiX]

This could work only if what you paid for the "demo" is deducted from the cost of the full game.

[rrazcueta]

If any company could do this right it'd be EA.

[Azazel]

I'm not a fan, but the nerdrage in this thread is getting a little thick. I read it more like they plan to release what is effectively substantial DLC as games' prologues. Not Demos, as mentioned in the thread title. Demos for the most part are simply a couple of levels chopped out of the main game that may or may not be any good, and thrown out there, often a little rough and/or unfinished.- This is substantially different from 3-4 hours of content.

The other thing is the perception of valiue. Right now, demos have little to no percirved monetary value. This is because they're for the most part simply a couple of levels chopped out of the main game that may or may not be any good, and thrown out there, often a little rough and/or unfinished.- This guy is talking about a "very high" percirved value and 3-4 hours of content.

I'm reading their plans as a bit more akin to (maybe GT Prologue), or Half-Life episodes, or that Ratchet & Clank mini-adventure on PS3, or the DLC adventures they released for Mass Effect/Fable/Dragon Age/Borderlands. But a little more self-contained. Probably ending on a cliffhanger of some sort with "play the next exciting adventure in 6 months" as the conclusion of the game.

Which is miles away from paying for the demos that are all over XBL and PSN.

[Margalis]

I find it interesting that the companies making the most money this generation are the ones not trying to nickel and dime people, while how much a company pursues "alternate revenue streams" is highly correlated with how poorly they're doing.

That could be a chicken and egg problem, maybe the reason some companies are going DLC-crazy is that they desperately need money.

[Velorath]

I find it interesting that the companies making the most money this generation are the ones not trying to nickel and dime people, while how much a company pursues "alternate revenue streams" is highly correlated with how poorly they're doing.

Which companies are you talking about that are making the most money because I can't think of too many publishers right now that aren't trying to nickel and dime people in some way or another?  Nintendo maybe, but I can't really think of anyone else.

[Azazel]

And on that note, the MW2 DLC map packs are about to hit.

Because, circus around the IW fonunders aside, clearly MW2 made almost no money for either IW or Activision. 

[tmp]

I'm not a fan, but the nerdrage in this thread is getting a little thick. I read it more like they plan to release what is effectively substantial DLC as games' prologues. Not Demos, as mentioned in the thread title. Demos for the most part are simply a couple of levels chopped out of the main game that may or may not be any good, and thrown out there, often a little rough and/or unfinished.- This is substantially different from 3-4 hours of content.

Considering they claim to be planning to adjust the final game based on the feedback, i'd say the "couple of levels of the main game that may or may not be any good, often a little rough and unfinished" seems to be exactly what you're going to get with this scheme, too. Just simply rebranded as "PDLC" rather than "demo" to justify the payment.

The main difference is likely going to be, right now you get the demo which is 'couple of levels chooped out' while with "PDLC" you'll rather be getting 'couple of levels cobbled together' to see if that generates enough interest to justify dragging it out into a whole game. I think they're hoping this will be a cost-saving feature since in theory it allows them to generate some (extra) money from the "demo" without having to produce all the art assets needed for the full product and limit their losses in case it flops badly, but then i feel they're too optimistic about just how much of the art/content they can save themselves from making before they have on their hands anything that's actually worth showing, let alone 3-4 hours worth of a game.

[Azazel]

Yeah, I'm quite dubious at how well they could pull this off, but let's remember, they have to have something decent for people to buy it, else it'll fail harder than Ubi's (or EA's) recent DRM attempts.

Or maybe not. I did notice a couple of "yeah I'd pay for a demo" post in this thread, so perhaps we really are doomed.

I would totally pay up to $5 for a demo, but not a penny more.

 

[tgr]

I'm not a fan, but the nerdrage in this thread is getting a little thick. I read it more like they plan to release what is effectively substantial DLC as games' prologues.

The way I'm reading it (while being old and bitter) is that they want to release a preliminary look into what they're building, get feedback on that, and update the finished product accordingly.

If there had been incentives such as a reduction in price on the finished product, then fine. If they still insist on charging full price for the finished product, then basically what they're doing is outsourcing alpha/betatesting and playtesting. This is something I personally think should either be done by the players for free, or kept in-house.

Charging money for gamers to do their work for them without any rewards later on is (in my view) clownshoes, no matter which platform we're talking about. The gaming industry never ceases to amaze me.

[Merusk]

Charging money for gamers to do their work for them without any rewards later on is (in my view) clownshoes, no matter which platform we're talking about. The gaming industry never ceases to amaze me.

They are merely a reflection of their market.  Someone's willing to pay for it, so they'd be fools to not charge.

[ajax34i]

I won't pay for it, so it doesn't affect me and I don't care.

Sure it affects you - you no longer will have the option to get said demo for free.

Hello, piracy?