@ProfessorEss: EA have shown their hand (for a start, see DICE2012 presentation by EA guy for very frank talk about what they see as the way forward for narrative in games and how that is monetised).
You can buy a game anywhere you like, they'll keep pushing up prices with day1 DLC/CE only narrative content to increase the prices beyond $60 (I don't like that bit, in the UK it is more stark with some EA PC releases having a street price of £45 in an environment when PC gamers are used to £20-30 with consoles £35 including their 'platform tax') but over time those prices go down (which is just sane retail, catch the people at the maximum they're willing to pay based on how patient they are; also use sales to trigger a 'buy now, even though not planning to play today' instinct to grab the deal to attract more potential customers and generate awareness/advertising in the long tail) and EA don't care so much about that revenue. Anyone can sell their games, especially when something like ME2 is £5 or even less. They give the retailer the cut for enabling the customer to buy a copy of the game (even if they'd love it if you used Origin to give them all the money, they don't mind the retailer cut).
But ME2's narrative payload isn't completely provided for that £5 sale. The non-sale, non-depreciating priced narrative DLC not included in that £5 sale will cost you another £30 to buy piece by piece. You want the complete story of ME2, every event that the developers wrote up in that story arc? £35, almost all of it payable only directly to EA via their DLC store. That is where the money is. Get a decent revenue from selling the game and enjoying the long tail if the game is good enough but the real move is to maximise the revenue from every fan, even a fan who only came to the game late in the life and so got it cheap. There is not a way of enjoying the entire of ME2 on PC in the UK that costs less than a brand new, full price PC release. There has never been. And EA aren't sharing most of that cash with a retailer. That's why they moved off Steam, because valve decided that every game (going forward) with DLC would have to provide the option of a Steam DLC purchase. You can sell your DLC directly, you can get 100% of the money from an in-game or your store purchase, but you also have to give the option for the consumer to choose to buy the DLC using the same storefront they used to buy the main game. This policy obviously came in before they opened up the Free2Play gates (as otherwise they're providing many-GB downloads of the free client and getting no chance at a cut of the revenue). When EA decided to move all their games off Steam they gave up on some revenue from reaching those Steam customers who don't want to buy a PC game from Origin or somewhere else, because they see a majority revenue source from DLC and they have no need to share that with anyone. If they have to they'll remove their games from anywhere that isn't happy with that and only sell it on Origin.
They are looking at narrative experiences as semi-F2P with a traditional purchase price curve complemented with large revenue flow for the piecemeal DLC content that barely covers what would traditionally have been a £15 expansion pack bundled up 12-18 months after the original game's release. They're thinking seasons of content made up of blocks of episodic content with story arcs and cliffhangers to keep people buying their extra hour of content for £5-10 a shot. Why sell the series box set when you can sell the first (half-)season and then hit the people up who enjoyed it for a fee for every episode going on at a significantly higher price per episode (and no dropping the price over time)? We'll just keep taking £5 off you each month until there aren't enough fans still paying for the small content chunks.
I don't like that model of gaming. I have significant ethical concerns about the so called F2P whales and how you build a game to hook into the player and try to reel in the person who is spending far more than we've traditionally considered value for money for this entertainment form. I see this as the single-player extension of that sort of idea, that twists the design into a type of low payload episodic breadcrumb trail.
So the Origin thing is, for me, an issue with the direction EA are indicating they're travelling in. I enjoy buying games, I own far more than I can reasonably expect to play for more than a few hours to sample (and a few that I simply must devour completely); I like to spread the funds over things that look like they deserve some revenue (especially indie) and a lot of the time that's through sales and buying 6 months after release. I don't like the idea of fast-turnaround ongoing narrative games that end up costing hundreds of pounds for the length of maybe a traditional RPG or small MMO. When you're in an MMO world then you're paying for the server on which the game actually runs to allow you all to play together, it's a bit different. I'm not sure I'm a great fan of that design but I'm on the fence.
I don't like a story based single-player game that has a sticker price that bears no relation to the cost of enjoying all the narrative and each block of content being considered too small for review by a lot of places so getting an informed opinion about it before purchase being tricky. And I really don't like DLC content that makes people feel like they didn't get their money's worth, because that is short term gain and will turn people off gaming. The choice of either constantly knowing you didn't get to see some of a world you liked, or spending the money and thinking you didn't exactly get much for it and flicking between both of those sub-optimal states of mind about a product. Hell, it might even send someone towards TV, or movies, or book, or some other form of entertainment where they know that if they like something, there's a good chance the initial purchase will buy them something they find fillingly complete, that satisfies their desire for a self-contained product without obvious hanging threads of a measly proportion. If there are threads to be picked up it'll be from a similarly large serving of content in a future instalment or prequel. Maybe, if they want a cheap price, it'll require waiting a bit for that next item to depreciate in value, but that'll happen if they have to patience to wait a bit.
I want lots of money coming in to the games industry to build everything we want constructed for years to come; I do not believe EA are concerned with the long term health of the entire industry with their current direction. So I avoid using Origin.
They also do plenty of other things that are rather dubious (but always have been, from the first days of Live and their ultimatum to MS that they'll pull a Dreamcast on them and ignore the service unless they got more control). I think they're pretty rubbish for turning off matchmaking servers and so on, especially with the bullcrap they spout about large ongoing costs to maintain them (despite their lack of popularity so they're only hurting a small percentage of their paying customers when they switch it off). Anyone who has spent any time maintaining servers will laugh that one off, especially as these are just auth and matchmaking services usually, the actual games are all P2P so the cost is going to be tiny, especially for low user volumes. And the purchase of studios for their IP and gutting of the teams, that's another long term concern but maybe a thing of the past.
Edit: Ye, so obviously it's more of a "don't trust them -> not giving benefit of doubt over future direction" thing more than anything. But if we'd had this conversation on any EA forum the likely result would be us all getting banned from accessing any of our games, single-player or otherwise with Origin hooks, (as is within their rights; their forums, their rules), I don't think the world of them and their policies (especially the ones that contradict their public statements about those policies). [added link to DICE talk]
Log in to comment