The $10 Issue: How EA Screws Itself
Wednesday, May 26, 2010 at 02:29PM
"Do you want us to hate you?!"
I originally wrote a blog post hating on EA and their $10 policy plan. If you don't know, EA (and now Ubisoft and THQ) has started a plan where a code will be given to NEW versions of their popular games (for EA they are limiting it to their sports franchises) that will allow for online multiplayer gaming. A feature that for years has been included in their games now costs $10 if you buy the game used.
| It seems like stating the obvious in a blog probably isn't the best thing to do. But I suppose there are people that might not know, DRM doesn't work. It doesn't stop piracy. All it does is limit the actual consumer, the person BUYING your product.
I'm worked up because Electronic Arts (one of the largest game publishers) seems to think that they can succeed where so many people have failed. John Riccitiello seems to think that their new plan will benefit the gamer. Let's go over their stupid idea.
EA plans to include a voucher with online enabled EA games that will activate said component for that gamer. If you didn't buy the game new, say used from Gamestop, you'll have to shell out an extra $10 for the privilege to play online.
From Mr. Riccitiello, "Invariably, the consumer is getting a boatload more content to experience than they otherwise would." Let's go ahead and start with the obvious, because some loser pays you guys more money to play online we all get to reap the rewards because more cash is coming in. With Tiger Woods 10, the user (me and you) could play online without having the shell out more money to EA. But with Tiger Woods 11, not anybody not buying the game new will have to pay the extra $10 to play online. Wait, thats not MORE content. I think thats less. Let's do some simple math here:
game + online = full product
game - online != full product
Hmmm, something is missing here. But luckily Mr. Riccitiello has another fine point, "We used to literally pull our teams off of a game within maybe four to six weeks pre-ship and they'd go work on something else because the game was done, it was going into manufacturing. Their jobs were done." So what? Wait, when somebody finishes a product they go and work on ANOTHER project? But now, "Our teams are being held in place up through and beyond ship to continue to create content to entertain the consumer with new content associated with the IP they like best." Doesn't that just sound like downloadable content (or DLC)? Thank god we can now have DLC for our EA game! Wait, Madden NFL 10 had 11 pieces of downloadable content (some of those were bundles of other content, those also counted here) that came out starting with the ship game of Madden up until 1 month and a half after release. EA released DLC for NBA Live 10 two months after ship date. So maybe we are talking about DLC that happens well after the product has shipped? Because Madden, NBA Live, Tiger Woods, FIFA and others are YEARLY franchises. You are telling me that the Madden team will sacrifice a few team members to work on the OLD game? That means LESS people working on the NEW game. That sounds like it's improving MY experience. Unless there are people at EA simply twiddling their freaking thumbs all day long I'm pretty sure they can find something to work on.
Extending the game time seems like it couldn't be a bad idea. More planets to explore in Mass Effect 2, sure. But if that EVER comes at the cost of a delay of Mass Effect 3 then it wasn't worth it.
The problem here is that EA is pissing on me and trying to convince me that it has regenerative properties. What they are doing is strictly a business decision. They feel that they are losing money for every used game sale (Buuuuulllllssshhhhiiiittt) and need to make up for it. That's fine. You want to screw the consumer, do it, but don't try to sugar coat it. Treating me like an idiot isn't going to make me simpathize with you.
|





