Apparently EA might actually start charging for game demos. They're calling it "premium downloadable content", but I think it's obvious what their intent is.
http://www.ggmania.com/?smsid=28721
http://www.ggmania.com/?smsid=28721
Electronic Arts to charge for game demos?
- Thread starter JDR13
- Start date
I don't know what math these people are using but I perceive this as very shitty value...
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!! Since when did EA hire comedians!!!! The only people more stupid than EA would be those who would purchase such a demo!!!!
P
pibbur
Guest
From Pink FLoyd: Pigs, 3 different ones ("You" is EA here, not Corwin):
"You're nearly a laugh,
You're nearly a laugh
But you're really a cry."
fatBastard()
Hello, I'm a Zombaholic
Well, to be frank the Gran Turismo guys already did this. The Gran Turismo Prologue was basically meant as a teaser to the real game and was therefore rather cheap. It sold so well that the production cost for many months of the REAL game was covered by the sales of the teaser.
It seems from many threads here at the Watch (and many other places as well) that a lot people don't realize just how much time, effort and money are required in making games today. One example, taken from the extra material of God of War 3, is that in GoW3 it took the animators 5-6 WEEKS to create a character as opposed to the 5-6 DAYS the very same people spent to create a character in GoW2. That is 7 times longer.
Another general misconception is that relationship between Developers and Publishers. For the most part the relationship between the two is the same as for actors in movies. Brad Pitt gets X amount of $ for his participation in the movie regardless of whether is bombs or become a blockbuster hit. (I know Tom Hanks made a percentage deal in Forrest Gump but that is not the norm)
In most cases the publisher finances the development of the game in the same way and win or lose it is the publisher taking the financial risk.
Do I think it is a good idea to charge for a regular demo? No, not at all. But what the article is suggesting is that the community feedback from this premium demo will be used to fine tune the final product ... a sort of beta testing where you opinion matters ... sounds like something a LOT of people could be interested in.
Then again, it might just be PR bull ...
It seems from many threads here at the Watch (and many other places as well) that a lot people don't realize just how much time, effort and money are required in making games today. One example, taken from the extra material of God of War 3, is that in GoW3 it took the animators 5-6 WEEKS to create a character as opposed to the 5-6 DAYS the very same people spent to create a character in GoW2. That is 7 times longer.
Another general misconception is that relationship between Developers and Publishers. For the most part the relationship between the two is the same as for actors in movies. Brad Pitt gets X amount of $ for his participation in the movie regardless of whether is bombs or become a blockbuster hit. (I know Tom Hanks made a percentage deal in Forrest Gump but that is not the norm)
In most cases the publisher finances the development of the game in the same way and win or lose it is the publisher taking the financial risk.
Do I think it is a good idea to charge for a regular demo? No, not at all. But what the article is suggesting is that the community feedback from this premium demo will be used to fine tune the final product ... a sort of beta testing where you opinion matters ... sounds like something a LOT of people could be interested in.
Then again, it might just be PR bull ...
Beta testing in which the gamers are paying to do the developer a favor?
Um….no.
Um….no.
If you were to get a discount from the full game later on (full game price: $40, demo price: $15, full game after having bought demo: $25) then this wouldn't strike me as such a bad idea...
Übereil
Übereil
themadhatter
Philosopher Emeritus
- Joined
- February 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
Really?
Consider this: let us assume, having completed the demo, that you don't like the game and have no interest in a full purchase. What then? You're out the $15 with absolutely nothing of worth to show for it.
Also, ere you suggest that the money be returned in such cases…well, that brings up the question of charging for the "demo" in the first place.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
I didn't say it was a good idea, just that it wasn't as bad as just charging for the demo.
Though I don't really see the big problem you seem to be seeing. If I buy a game I don't like then... I've wasted the money, yes. Pepole sometimes buy things they end up regret buying. That's a fact of life.
This does heavily discourage getting the demo though, which I think will reduce sales (pepole won't be sure if they like it or not so they don't buy it). It might work if the demo price is really low, but I still think just having to pay would be a problem (I mean, I wouldn't get it since I hate giving out my credit card online).
Without the discount on the full price I doubt they'll get any downloads whatsoever though. If that's the case it really would be throwing money in the sea to get the demo, as opposed to paying a part of the price to get to try the game out a little before deciding if you want to buy it or not.
Übereil
GothicGothicness
SasqWatch
- Joined
- October 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,292
I am boycotting EA and this surely does not make me stop. ( yes that means I will not be playing dragon age or ME anytime soon )
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,292
themadhatter
Philosopher Emeritus
- Joined
- February 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
That is the problem: you are not purchasing a game, you're purchasing a demo. That is, a fraction of the game. Try that with any other medium and you'd be booed out of business.
Imagine, paying for the first chapter of a book alone, the first ten minutes of a film, half a banana…it's little more than corporate greed.
Research indicates that mosquitoes are attracted to people who have recently eaten bananas. This is a fact of life...see? I can also add completely irrelevant "facts of life" to a discussion concerning EA's ridiculous business practices.
Bravo, I say, bravo!
Sure, most people will remark that a one-person boycott is "meaningless" or whatnot, but from where I stand it is the single most-powerful act an individual can take. Besides, in cooperation with others these single-person boycotts can create sufficient market force to generate a real change.
EA isn't in the process of developing anything that peaks my interest, so I'm with you.
Also: banana. Somehow I managed to insert the word into every other paragraph. It just seems appropriate to continue the motif.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
Why not? It's not like they're fooling me into believing I get the full thing. You'll also be allowed to buy the full thing straight away if you want to.
When you buy the first book of a book serie you don't get the entire story straight away. This is especially true in Sweden since Fantasy publishers have a strange love for splitting separate books in two (every Wheel of Time book turned into two when translated to Swedish). Nobody thinks this is strange at all.
If you don't like paying part prize to get part game then don't do it. I know I'm not going to, but I also know that the whole concept isn't stupid/immoral just because it doesn't appeal to me.
The difference between what mosquitoes are attracted to and my example is that my example is relevant to the discussion at hand. If you buy the demo and end up not buying the game then you made a mistake buying the demo, just like any other thing you buy that you don't end up using enough for it to be worth the prize.
Disregarding that if you'd bought the full game instead you'd be $40 short with nothing to show for it instead of $15.
Übereil
themadhatter
Philosopher Emeritus
- Joined
- February 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
I can name a number of concepts that are, strictly by virtue of not appealing to me (or any other rational individual), thereby rendered both stupid and immoral. I trust you can come up with some on your own. Where I'm concerned, this is among them.
No, mate, it's really not. I addressed that with the term "irrelevant."
Case in point: somewhere, in this great big world of ours, someone is contemplating this offer to purchase demos from EA while consuming a banana. That person is now considerably more attractive to mosquitoes...and now it's relevant. Why, because there's an obvious link and I said so.
See how it works? Irrelevant is irrelevant, no matter how you stretch things. The discussion is not about the poor judgment people demonstrate in life, but the practice of demanding money for what, essentially, is an incomplete product.
Brilliant! I imagine door-to-door salesmen adore customers like you.
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
I acually can't since there's nothing that's wrong for the sole reason that pepole doesn't like it. In fact, wether someone likes something or not is irrelevant to how moral said thing is.
Morality isn't based on what we like, it's based on how it affects us. It's not that we dislike something that determines if said thing is wrong or not, it's why we dislike it. If we dislike it because of some lame, arbitrary reason then we're the problem, not the thing we dislike.
No, the discussion is about paying for things that risks not benefitting you fully. Like when you buy a game you never finish. Or a book you never read. Or a piece of clothing you never wear.
None of those cases bothers pepole so why should this one?
Door-to-door salesmen? Now, that's a different subject. That for some reason makes me think of bananas and mosquitos.
Übereil
I'll have to see the final product to make a judgment. If they offer a sizeable demo for the right game, at a $10 pricepoint, I might buy it. There are some games that I would like to play a sizeable chunk of, but I don't want to buy the full $60 version (e.g., Tiger Woods golf).
The size of the package is the key consideration (that's what she said). For the price they're discussing, it needs to be about a fifth of the full game. If it is smaller than that, or the size of a standard demo, forget it.
The size of the package is the key consideration (that's what she said). For the price they're discussing, it needs to be about a fifth of the full game. If it is smaller than that, or the size of a standard demo, forget it.
themadhatter
Philosopher Emeritus
- Joined
- February 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
Rape…
Slavery…
Genocide…
Need I go on?
Thanks for the "morality and ethics for preschoolers" lesson, much appreciated, mate.
Apparently where you're coming from that's true, frankly, I could not care less.
Hello, brick wall! Didn't I just run into you with my last post?
EDIT:
Looking over the thread, I am forced to revise that to "last few posts."
- Joined
- Feb 12, 2007
- Messages
- 141
Holy shit guys... stop with the semantics.
- Joined
- October 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,469
Nice move! 
Heheh next time they'll try to sell us exclusive official game trailers, after all there are enough stupid people who are willing pay. And funny how I thought that demos were advertisements. 
Heheh next time they'll try to sell us exclusive official game trailers, after all there are enough stupid people who are willing pay. And funny how I thought that demos were advertisements. - Joined
- Oct 19, 2006
- Messages
- 2,469
They aren't wrong because pepole dislike them. It's the thing that makes pepole dislike them that makes them wrong. Some pepole don't like swearing. Does that make swearing wrong?
Well, it was you who made the point that if you buy the demo and don't like it you're sitting on a product that you don't have much use for. I fail to see why it's such a big deal in this case and no deal at all in all other cases. You keep claiming that all other cases are irrelevant without explaining what makes this case so incredibly different.
Übereil