What, what? Charging for a demo. But, the demo is suppose to intise you to purchase a game. If they make it more involved and add different story then the retail game will be delayed. If EA is not happy with demos, then do not make them. The last thing I want is a demo that you pay for. The only game that I would buy a demo for is Madden. Read more about it hear.
This topic is locked from further discussion.
That's ok. I'll just wait for the reviews and user reviews. I'm not going to just out right buy a game nowadays. Too much of a risk. I'm sure the smaller studios will continue to put out demos. The last demo I played was Mount and Blade. And I bought the game 5 minutes after I exited out of it.
ha, that is really stupid idea. demos are suppose to be a release to get people hyped for the game and to show people what the game is going to be like. u would never find me buying demos. only thing i could see buying if they release like a multiplayer only part of a game or something like that and be cheap.
"Recoup the losses of creating the demo?"
Wait, what? I'm going to really generalize this here, but all they really have to do is take a portion of the main game, and then add barriers to prevent the player from doing anything else. Sure, there's slightly more programming and maybe a few more assets used, but REALLY? Recoup the losses? How much does creating a demo honestly cost? In the scope of a game's budget, I'd assume next to nothing.
I'm not about to start paying $70-$75 per game, especially not when you still expect me to enter some stupid code for some, "free DLC," on your special little EA Club for every game you put out.
Knowing some people, they will actually buy a demo with their wallets. Though I don't see how beneificial this will be on EA's part.
Not like it really matters to me. For some reason I don't really bother with demos, they never give me the full impression of a game.
" @StarFoxA: Exactly. This can only result in losses. Only reason I've bought so many of my XBLA or PSN games is because there was a demo. And so often I will not buy a game on PSN because there isn't a demo, if I can't try a demo for free when I'm not so sure on a game, I just won't buy that game. I'm not about to start paying $70-$75 per game, especially not when you still expect me to enter some stupid code for some, "free DLC," on your special little EA Club for every game you put out. "The same thing holds true for me. I have nether bought a Wii ware game as there is no demos. I tend to stay away from the PSN as there are few games that have demos. This is cumming from someone that has bought over 50 downloadable games on the Xbox Arcade, and just a handful on the PSN and Wii. Demos are a must. If they are going to charge more for a game, then they need to eliminate paid DLC. If games were 70+, then they should have 10+ hours of free DLC within a year.
I think people are overblowing things out of proportion. While I agree charging for demos are retarded; not all games so far have any demos to begin with. MW2 did fine without a open beta or demo; selling some 14 million copies and rivaling its predecessor's sales.
The idea of this stuff being like, prequels to future retail games appeals to me, but of course I'm only extrapolating that idea thing about BF 1943 and if they did come out with a WWII game a few months later. I could get down with the idea that you get a smaller (4-8 hours of gameplay) for $10-$15, that acted as a sort of advertisement for the retail game, but was also a perfectly competent game, I guess I could deal. I don't want to pay $70-$75 for a game.
" It's fine you guys, jeez. I swear, sometimes you act like a business making a buck is a fucking crime. "Fine, let the game companies charge you more for games. It will not be long till you are paying $100 a game. If this happens, I will only buy a game or two a year, and get the rest of my games from GameFly.
If anyone read the article(obviously not, based on most of the posts here), they don't mean demos as we see them. The article mentions something like Battlefield 1943, and how that could be promo content for a future Battlefield game. I'd pay for a "demo" that's like Battlefield 1943.
It not that I am against giving game companies money, but they are constantly giving us less and charging more. Ubesoft just said they are going to stop giving us instruction manuals. Will we see a day where they are charging $10 bucks for each team in a sports game? Lets not go further down this path, or they will just people to pirate.
Charge $15 to people who buy the game used if they want access to the free DLC (this is fine)
Fairly consistent stream of DLC that nobody would really care about otherwise, but it will stick in the consumers mind, "Well they did give us some stuff before they started charging," (not so great weapons, costume pack) and of course Zaeed, which most people found to be the most boring character because they didn't earn him.
Hammerhead DLC was pretty good I guess, a good effort at the very least.
But in the end it's just all the justify the Cerberus Network and make it so they can eventually charge for DLC because they are putting a small team, and resources, into making this DLC, instead of using these dudes to help the rest of the team with ME3.
I dunno, maybe I'm just a bit sour about the whole thing.
I wanted to draw some attention to this excellent comment from the article page.
"The only thing more abhorrent than PAYING for a Demo is the ridiculous Apologist Spin from this article, that shows a complete contempt for the intelligence of the rest of us.
You really do think we're that stupid, don't you, John?
Why don't you tell us what Corporate ass tastes like, since you seem to be kissing so much of it here.
This is just another way to rip off consumers by making them pay as much as possible, for what will undoubtedly amount to as LITTLE as possible.
Paid DLC is a joke to begin with.
Those of us who remember the golden Age of gaming in the 90's remember playing HUNDREDS of levels for our favorite games like Quake, Half Life, Total Annihilation, and many others for FREE, all created by fantastic user communities that had no limits, and no boundaries have had just about enough of the current system of BS from entities like EA, who only seem to care about squeezing as much money out of gamers, for as little effort as possible.
What a JOKE gaming has become in the last 10 years.
And people like you are too ignorant to realize that the JOKE is on YOU."
Basically as soon as you add an extra step involved in downloading something (as in paying for it) it turns me right off. Something I might lazily click download, then suddenly wants a credit card number will not get my purchase, because that's just inconvenient. No one will download demos if you charge for them. No matter how arbitrary and small a price, it's an extra inconvenience, and you DO NOT get in the way of a consumer who's on the fence about your product. They might buy or never buy it on a hair trigger, so don't give them any reason to do so.