New subscription service would offer discounted DLC, exclusive DLC, and presumably other things not relating to DLC.
EA has long been the leader in finding new, progressive ways to charge people for content. One need only look to last year's introduction of the EA Online Pass--a one-time use code that prevents used game buyers from getting online without paying a nominal fee--as a shining beacon of their groundbreaking work in the field of charging people for things. Many imitators have since come along, but few have displayed such capitalistic verve.
The document in question. Now, according to a consumer survey acquired by PastaPadre, PlayStation Universe and other sites EA allegedly has hit upon an entirely lucrative methodology of getting your money every single year. The document dictates plans to introduce a yearly subscription service that would tie into all EA Sports titles. For a yearly price--the cost is currently being bandied somewhere between $14.99 and $34.99--users will gain access to a number of exclusive offerings, including: == TEASER ==
Discounts on DLC
Exclusive DLC
An in-game and website-based "Digital Badge"
Ability to transfer paid content from older titles to newer titles
Early downloadable access to new feature titles
In practice, this actually sounds a little like the PlayStation Plus model for subscription-based gaming. Those who just want to buy a copy of Madden NFL 12 and not futz with all of the extra perks and downloadables and whatnot can do so, their enjoyment only encumbered by the need to enter a code to play online and an aural assault courtesy of Young Jeezy and Ozzy Osbourne. But were you the kind of hardcore player to take advantage of things like multiple DLC downloads, these discounts and exclusives could prove a legitimate enticement.
EA, for its part, declined to comment on this story.
"We have no announcements at this time," said a company spokesperson this morning.
If this is a real thing, we will undoubtedly be hearing more around E3 2011.
"Ability to transfer paid content from older titles to newer titles"
So that means they're going to charge you for something you should be able to do for free considering that you're already paid for the DLC. Where I come from we call that "double dipping".
Wasn't that done with Rock Band or Guitar Hero, too? If you paid some amount you could then use the DLC you bought for one game on another?
I'd be upset if this was a genre I cared about but it's troubling because I am sure it will be adapted to RPGs and shooters soon enough. Imagine if you want to use Kasumi in Mass Effect 3, you must have already purchased her DLC and then pay an extra fee to have access to the character in the new game. Anyone who bought the Kasumi DLC could add the character to Shepard's party, but only those who paid the additional fee would be granted that option. Or maybe you bought maps for Medal of Honor and if you pay the extra charge you get to use them in MoH 2. That's good for EA because they get to sell you the same content twice.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of DLC as it's marketed today. It all seems like "horse armor" to me.
"
Double dipping, across two different games? Really? Is this where we are? How can you possibly believe that it's "buying the same content twice" if Kasumi was an add-on character in ME3? Would she have the exact same dialogue, character model, powers, quest? Extrapolate your position; it's the same as getting mad that you had to purchase Mass Effect 2 despite the fact you already bought Mass Effect 1. You would never make that argument about retail game, but somehow you feel it's different when it's an add-on?
And what game have you ever had 'ownership' of maps for every title in a series? Buying Goldeneye didn't give you all those maps for use in Perfect Dark. Yet here we are with people getting mad when 'classic' maps from previous games are being released in new ones.
I'm not a sports fan, but a good way to make the ones of us that do like sports okay with this whole idea is by not selling us a game and simply selling us a new download of the next years worth of roster upgrades, graphics improvements and other stuff like new gameplay features etc.
I mean this's basically what people do already when they buy the next years' game, which is just a rehashed version of last years videogame but with some updates.
Except that gamers have to actually leave their house and waste petrol and time to go and buy a physical copy from the shop, where, very likely, the assistant is useless when it comes to talking about video games and being helpful.
They will never admit it but they would actually be able to bring the price down if they did this, because pay for man hours would be brought down and cost of resources would brought down significantly so as well.
This's be awesome! But it'll likely never happen until it's legally enforced, which won't happen either because it isn't important enough.
" What's the point of getting mad about something you don't plan on purchasing? If it's a bad deal, you don't buy it, and then it goes away. If you don't buy it, they change it until the value is such that you do buy it.Video game players seem like they have no control over their money. Whenever a company makes some low-value product, they bitch and moan like they don't have the option to just not purchase it. If a game isn't a good value, you don't purchase it, you don't really have any reason to be upset. "
I'm sick of this idea of, "if it doesn't affect you, then don't bitch." It's such a fucking simple-minded way of looking at things, and it's a retarded catch-all defense for this bullshit. This is like the expanded Cerberus Network. You'll get some stuff for free, but at the end of the day, you'll be paying the same amount as everybody else when it comes to content. Can I say Cerberus Network was a true value? It was for trivial stuff like armor and weapons, but at the end of the day, the actual meaty content had to be paid in full the same amount by everybody. "
Then... don't buy Cerberus Network? I don't understand your point. If it's a bad value, don't buy it. But it's impossible for them to 'screw you over' as tons of people are making believe. "
Clarification: I didn't actually purchase Cerberus Network. It was free with the new copy purchase of Mass Effect 2. My point being is that my one non-purchase isn't going to change anything, and I am open to state my feelings as I choose and discuss this as somebody who is a videogame consumer. The notion that, "stop complaining, because this is how it is," is a catch-all defense that makes no sense. This is just like preorder bonuses at GameStop, and day-one DLC. This was all shit that didn't used to be, but now it's, "this is how it is," so now it literally can't even be debated in terms of validity without somebody bringing up that it's how things are, and to stop whining about it.
" What's the point of getting mad about something you don't plan on purchasing? If it's a bad deal, you don't buy it, and then it goes away. If you don't buy it, they change it until the value is such that you do buy it.Video game players seem like they have no control over their money. Whenever a company makes some low-value product, they bitch and moan like they don't have the option to just not purchase it. If a game isn't a good value, you don't purchase it, you don't really have any reason to be upset. "
I'm sick of this idea of, "if it doesn't affect you, then don't bitch." It's such a fucking simple-minded way of looking at things, and it's a retarded catch-all defense for this bullshit. This is like the expanded Cerberus Network. You'll get some stuff for free, but at the end of the day, you'll be paying the same amount as everybody else when it comes to content. Can I say Cerberus Network was a true value? It was for trivial stuff like armor and weapons, but at the end of the day, the actual meaty content had to be paid in full the same amount by everybody. "
Then... don't buy Cerberus Network? I don't understand your point. If it's a bad value, don't buy it. But it's impossible for them to 'screw you over' as tons of people are making believe.
@Khann said:
" @CosmicQueso said:
" @Khann: So what you're saying is you're not a big voter? "
I don't vote, no.
I do however not buy games or services that I don't agree with in one way or another. I am under no false belief that my non-purchases have any effect whatsoever, because the masses will continue to buy any bullshit that is shoved down their throats.
"
Well, actually they do. You're not a unique snowflake, neither am I. If both of us are capable of making a value judgement and don't purchase products that are bad values, those products either disappear or are changed to boost sales. It's the people who complain "They're ripping us off with this crappy DLC!" and then buy it anyway who are perpetuating the cycle.
" What's the point of getting mad about something you don't plan on purchasing? If it's a bad deal, you don't buy it, and then it goes away. If you don't buy it, they change it until the value is such that you do buy it.Video game players seem like they have no control over their money. Whenever a company makes some low-value product, they bitch and moan like they don't have the option to just not purchase it. If a game isn't a good value, you don't purchase it, you don't really have any reason to be upset. "
I'm sick of this idea of, "if it doesn't affect you, then don't bitch." It's such a fucking simple-minded way of looking at things, and it's a retarded catch-all defense for this bullshit. This is like the expanded Cerberus Network. You'll get some stuff for free, but at the end of the day, you'll be paying the same amount as everybody else when it comes to content. Can I say Cerberus Network was a true value? It was for trivial stuff like armor and weapons, but at the end of the day, the actual meaty content had to be paid in full the same amount by everybody.
I've sunk about 200h into my NHL09 "be a pro" career. There is no way I'm going to start over in a new game. Only way I'd pay for a subscription or even buy another NHL game is if that save can transfer over. It takes about 50h to play through one season. How did they expect people to finish a career in a year? It has the same problem as the Fotball (soccer) Manager games. I'm still playing FM2007 every now and then and I've still got plenty to do in that game. Unless my save can transfer why buy a newer version of the game? These games have become like MMO's where you have invested hundreds of hours and you don't want to start over from scratch.
" @Khann: So what you're saying is you're not a big voter? "
I don't vote, no.
I do however not buy games or services that I don't agree with in one way or another. I am under no false belief that my non-purchases have any effect whatsoever, because the masses will continue to buy any bullshit that is shoved down their throats.
" What's the point of getting mad about something you don't plan on purchasing? If it's a bad deal, you don't buy it, and then it goes away. If you don't buy it, they change it until the value is such that you do buy it.Video game players seem like they have no control over their money. Whenever a company makes some low-value product, they bitch and moan like they don't have the option to just not purchase it. If a game isn't a good value, you don't purchase it, you don't really have any reason to be upset. "
Yes, because my one single (non)purchase is going to destroy everything.
" I love all the anti-EA comments on this from folks with the subscriber badges.
It's the exact same model as GiantBomb!
A lot of people would say subscribing to Whiskey Media is nickel and diming and ridiculous or whatever but if you enjoy it and want to pay for it because you like it then who cares?
So much f'ing handwringning and complaining from the gaming community when it comes to how other people want to spend their money.
"
I wouldn't say it is exactly the same.Imagine if you had to buy an annual membership to GiantBomb to view it at all, and then on top of that there was an additional subscription to view quicklooks, and you start to get closer to what this EA thing sounds like. "
Exactly the same? Well if you're talking dollar for dollar then no. GB is $50/yr. This would be $60 (at full price) plus the subscription. So... GB is less on a simple comparison. However, the offerings are comparatively similar:
Exclusive DLC - TNT? Happy Hour?
An in-game and website-based "Digital Badge" - Mmmm hmmmmm
Ability to transfer paid content from older titles to newer titles - Ability to download video content?
Early downloadable access to new feature titles - A bit in the same vein as with the above. Subscribers do get earlier access to some things and deeper access to others.
So really, it is pretty darned close. And that's fine. Gamers should buy what they want and let the market determine what works and doesn't. Yay capitalism.
"Ability to transfer paid content from older titles to newer titles"
So that means they're going to charge you for something you should be able to do for free considering that you're already paid for the DLC.
"
No, they are not obligated to do that at all. In fact, transferring and integrating all that DLC into a new title costs time and money. So you should be happy that you even have that option, all for a measly 15 bucks a year. Stop feeling so butthurt and get a reality check.
I'm not against subscription models, in fact I think it's an inevitable part of the evolution of video games, but I just wish people would make subscription models for shit people will actually care about. The best you can do for me is discounts on DLC? Come on, man...
The majority of EA sports titles are top quality and each year they seem to include more and more features. It is inevitable that a company such as EA with innumerable sports titles, all of them extremely profitable, would want to monetize the hell out of them. EA is a business and it's in the business of making money.
The price is not as shockingly offensive as I'd originally imagined. This only seems useful if you're getting several EA Sports titles a year and I'm not sure how many people who do that would also be interested in this too.
" I love all the anti-EA comments on this from folks with the subscriber badges.
It's the exact same model as GiantBomb!
A lot of people would say subscribing to Whiskey Media is nickel and diming and ridiculous or whatever but if you enjoy it and want to pay for it because you like it then who cares?
So much f'ing handwringning and complaining from the gaming community when it comes to how other people want to spend their money.
"
I wouldn't say it is exactly the same.
Imagine if you had to buy an annual membership to GiantBomb to view it at all, and then on top of that there was an additional subscription to view quicklooks, and you start to get closer to what this EA thing sounds like.
" @heatDrive88: Yeah, I don't see that happening. EA wants to make even more money, so they will keep titles at $59.99 AND expect you to buy a subscription. "
It's consumer-hopeful, but you're probably right. For something that is so heavily annualized, I really would like to see them integrate the online pass as a membership with tiered SKU's right down to 3-day or 5-day memberships along with monthly or yearly selections. It could be a good solution to the dilemma regarding online passes and game rentals, possibly.
I'm not entirely sure who buys all the junk DLC that is offered through EA Sports games anyways. I mean typically all you want is the ability to play online, plus roster updates where necessary, unless I'm completely missing something, right?
"Ability to transfer paid content from older titles to newer titles"
So that means they're going to charge you for something you should be able to do for free considering that you're already paid for the DLC. Where I come from we call that "double dipping".
Wasn't that done with Rock Band or Guitar Hero, too? If you paid some amount you could then use the DLC you bought for one game on another?
I'd be upset if this was a genre I cared about but it's troubling because I am sure it will be adapted to RPGs and shooters soon enough. Imagine if you want to use Kasumi in Mass Effect 3, you must have already purchased her DLC and then pay an extra fee to have access to the character in the new game. Anyone who bought the Kasumi DLC could add the character to Shepard's party, but only those who paid the additional fee would be granted that option. Or maybe you bought maps for Medal of Honor and if you pay the extra charge you get to use them in MoH 2. That's good for EA because they get to sell you the same content twice.
Yeah, I'm not a big fan of DLC as it's marketed today. It all seems like "horse armor" to me.
I don't have a problem with this at all so long as it's Electronic Arts adding value.
I'm happy with the 60 dollar value they provide right now in their yearly releases - so as long as they don't subtract from that package in order to bolster this subscription, I'm happy.
I'd be interested to see what value they'll be adding in order to justify a subscription though...
@heatDrive88: Yeah, I don't see that happening. EA wants to make even more money, so they will keep titles at $59.99 AND expect you to buy a subscription.
The key thing I believe is that the typical off-the-shelf game needs to be discounted to soften the blow for this annual subscription model to work, however. I'd get behind this idea if it means the overall cost of an EA Sports game is significantly lower, something like Madden being sold for $39.99, rather than the typical $59.99 pricepoint that EA Sports titles will sell at.
That would give users who want to escalate their online experiences to an additional $14.99 and $34.99 at a very reasonable overall pricepoint, especially if you are the kind of person who buys EA Sports games annually.
Not only that, but if it includes the Online Pass System being rolled into this annual subscription rather than needing one Online Pass per EA Sports game I buy, this could be pretty handy, but we'll see how this pans out.
Oh this is great. You buy one game and pay a subscription and get all the roster updates for free! Oh wait, that's what EA would do in a perfect world. They just want you to pay a monthly fee to get what you're already buying the game for...
" Well, I'd be angry if I played any EA sports games, which I do not. The only sports games I play are the NBA 2K series, so I'm good. You have fun with that though, Madden players. I'll be over here hangin' out. "
EA doesn't only publish sports games you know. They fucking own Bioware for god sakes! "
Well, obviously. :) The memo was regarding EA sports titles though, and only those. No mention of anything else, so everything else is seemingly safe for the time being. No need to hit the panic button just yet.
" And the Death Knell sounds at EA. People are soon to be fired. :/ "
Seriously? What's wrong with subscriptions? For games I'm really into, in my case that would be Battlefield, I'd rather have a one-time yearly subscription fee for access to all DLC, instead of buying everything individually. Something like a 'Season Pass'.
Now if a subscription model for DLC would be the only way to obtain it, that would have a lot of upsides. It only splits the community between subscribers and non-subscribers, instead of further breaking the community apart with every subsequent piece of DLC.
In such a world, we could also have stuff like DLC weapons and other 'unbalancing' content, because it's been a clean split form the get-go. Non-subscribers never play with subscribers (unless by invitation).
Then again. I know you to be a hater. So whatever.
I think this model would only work if the games they made weren't yearly releases. If they made a game and it lasted at least 2 years, then a subscription might make sense. But if there's a new one guarenteed to be out in 12 months then what's the point in subscribing.
I do love me some sports games, and as long as they keep the Ultimate Team stuff free, I won't subscribe to a thing, since I usually play my sports games offline due to annoying lag in Madden.
Fine, as long as the base game doesn't cost much. Even though I don't play sports titles from EA (especially since they benched Skate), as a gamer with limited income, I hate when companies get away with charging more than they should. It sets a terrible precedent that others follow.
I have no problems with subscribing for something I'd use regularly or has awesome content, like Whiskey Media or Netflix but, it has to offer more than just discounted prices. I would subscribe to this if I didn't have to buy a new football game every year just for a roster upgrade.
I love all the anti-EA comments on this from folks with the subscriber badges.
It's the exact same model as GiantBomb!
A lot of people would say subscribing to Whiskey Media is nickel and diming and ridiculous or whatever but if you enjoy it and want to pay for it because you like it then who cares?
So much f'ing handwringning and complaining from the gaming community when it comes to how other people want to spend their money.
" This is a pay for additional content model. It's pretty close to the Whiskey model of subscribers paying for content that it pricey to create in addition to the main content, but has a smaller user base. If anyone gets snarky about this at Whiskey media, or writes condescending things about charging people looking for additional content, while not taking anything on offer away from their previous release list of content, I'll be pretty upset. This is a legitimate business model for providing additional content their hardcore audience wants, but would otherwise provide no additional financial returns. "
I usually play FIFA quite alot, but I would never sign up for subscription. And the only DLC it ever had was Ultimate Team, which was free for 11, so yeah... @sofacitysweetheart said:
" @Brodehouse: You have a very simplistic model of the world. Indeed, I don't care about sports games, but these are just the right people to expose this "feature" to. When it falls out well with them, they'll expand to other genres, where it may one day impact me negatively that some jock lacks impulse control. "
How can it affect you negatively? If the product doesn't have value, you shouldn't be purchasing it. If you buy things that are a bad value, you are the one you should be getting mad at. EA can't take your money from you.
If Mass Effect 3 was an hour long and cost 100 dollars, the only way it could affect negatively is if I was stupid enough to purchase it anyway.
I remember hearing Peter Moor talk about this in a story on Joystiq a while back. I think I remember hearing something about expanding it across all EA games as well, somewhere, though I can't say for sure.
142 Comments