EA Considering Paid DLC Before Game Release

[Brotherofwill]

I'd never buy this. Never. If they announced MGS 5 'extended demo' today for immeadiate consumption tommorow, I wouldn't buy it. If they did it with The Last Guardian I wouldn't.

This exploitation and 'small price' pretense of DLC has to stop. Seriously.

 

[Gamegodtre]

why does the saying
This sounds so retarded it isn't funny
come to mind right now?
i mean paying for a demo.... Really EA screw you

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

Sonn enough, you'll buy your game, and then HAVE to get the dlc for it, what does this dlc do? It unlocks the game for you to be able to play it of course.

 

[Enigmers]

Depending on the game, it could be either "You paid 15$ for this crap? Now buy the full game." or "This 15$ DLC has everything in the game worth owning."

 

[Low Key]

$10-$15 for a glorified demo is way too much. They shouldn't charge anything, but if that's what they are going to do, they should keep the price in the single digits, especially when they expect the people who buy the demo to also buy the full game.

It should be treated like a rental, which if costs $10-$15, no one would even take a second glance. This glorified demo doesn't add anything to the gameplay of the full game, it pretty much becomes useless after a month or two, and from the sounds of it, it basically give the consumer a broken version and asks them "what pisses you off the most?".

 

[Nurb]

It just keeps getting worse... This is just horrible. Paying for a demo? Are they nuts? This is like Champs online charging people to get access to open beta during their server stress tests!

Is charging for unfinished products even legal? It's like a store charging people to try out a floor model camera.

NNNNGGH.. EA, Activision and Ubisoft really need to go bankrupt. They have no business making games anymore. I have no sympathy for their crying over piracy as they keep making the final cost of playing games more expensive and prove themselves to be overly greedy.

 

[The Random One]

I don't have live, but if I did, I'd say I'd probably buy some of these. Of course, since I rent most games, I end up paying around $15 to play them for a week anyway.

 

[jasoncyrus]

I hate financial analysts more than I hate jack thompson.

Jack Thompson just wanted to get rid of games and have us spend money on something marginally more valuable.

These "financial Analysts" aka some accoountant hoping for a payrise. Just want to leach us dry for all the money we got.

Honestly They've just given me ANOTHER reason to pirate their products. They're truely giving me no reason to actually wanna pay for thier shit.

First mountains of idiotic DRM, now *paid* demos?

Two words: Fuck That.

 

[WorkerMurphey]

Do games not get enough media buzz or coverage already? Aren't games supposed to be fixed before release through testing or at least patching?

For me this is like paying to see the trailer to a movie before I go see it.

 

[SenseOfTumour]

This COULD be good you know...

Include the Tutorial level, then a bunch of levels written for the demo, and only in the demo.

Then, it might be worth grabbing that before the full game is released, although then I'm wondering, if they're that close to completing the full game, just get it out, don't mess with extra bits.

I'm normally the cynical one, but it's just possible that they could release a demo unconnected to the main game, with levels only available in the demo DLC, but not essential to enjoying the full game. If done like that and done well, then it may well be worth a $5-10 outlay.

However, in the end it will still be a promotional item, and and a demo, and I think asking more than $5-10 will stop it being an impulse buy.

 

[Spleenbag]

If they took that chunk out of the full-retail price, this strategy could be great.

If you could get 10 to 15 off of the actual release, then that would be pretty reasonable.

Yessir.

That's what of a lot of you naysayers need recognize, actually, assuming this is used to give people a taste of the game.

You pay $15, you get, say, 1/4 to 1/6 of the game content. You enjoy it? Bring $45 into a store or type in your credit card info and buy the rest.

See how easy that was? And if you didn't like it, you only spent $15.

Alternative: rent things before buying them. That's about $7 a week where I live (California) and surely it's comparable elsewhere.

I think a lot of the knee-jerk reaction here is because of the term Pre-DLC. That stirs up bad memories of DLC and how shitty some companies are being with their DLC policies.

 

[Plurralbles]

You know Bioshock's opening scene? i could see that getting cut and placed into the PDLC.

I don't like this. I dont' like this at all.

 

[Deathfish15]

Worse idea EVER!

I mean, it's practically a secret price hike for their products that people don't yet see.


However, if these pre-demo content things are similar in content features of that of the SIN Episodes or HL2:Ep1 and contained content different from the full retail product yet still similar and related, it would be fine. But, by the description of what's going on, it sounds like it sucks.


P.S. I honestly HATE Michael Pachter and think he's the worst person for the video gaming industry since Jack Thompson. All he does is tells companies the best/fastest way to make a quick buck off their customers and to milk them (us) for everything we got. That's just wrong and ruins our ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY.

 

[HolidayBrick]

If it is actually prequel content, and not just content that would have been part of the full game, I might go for this.

The problem is, all EA is trying to do with this is drag themselves back up to profit. They've been losing a lot of money recently, and they'll do anything to get back in the green. This content is going to be whatever they have done at the time, and I can almost guarantee it will be a random part of the final product.

EA is really starting to frustrate me. I know they're just trying to stop sucking, but the way they're doing it feels sneaky and overly defensive.

 

[Meggiepants]

If it is actually prequel content, and not just content that would have been part of the full game, I might go for this.

The problem is, all EA is trying to do with this is drag themselves back up to profit. They've been losing a lot of money recently, and they'll do anything to get back in the green. This content is going to be whatever they have done at the time, and I can almost guarantee it will be a random part of the final product.

EA is really starting to frustrate me. I know they're just trying to stop sucking, but the way they're doing it feels sneaky and overly defensive.

Yeah, which is why I'm going to be very cautious before I purchase such a thing.

Like I said to another poster, the use of the word "demo" worries me. I don't want to pay for a "demo" expanded or otherwise. I might give them the benefit of the doubt the first time they come out with this kind of content. But if they screw me over, it will be the last time I buy such content, no matter what they say it is.

 

[Weaver]

Why doesn't EA just stop dicking around and keep making games?
Surely dragon age and mass effect 2 (ea is bioware's parent) sold well enough? Why not try to forge some more GOOD studios?

EA is god damned in love with DLC and it's driving me crazy. It's like their whole idea is to treat every single game as a DLC platform. Why cant I just buy the game anymore? Why can't we just have expansions (on the PC) like we used to? All this DLC nonsense is really irritating. Coupled with basically no GOOD system to manage it all, you're just left in the dust.

 

[Firia]

The next step for EA is to begin releasing smaller versions of their upcoming games for around $10 to $15 on Xbox Live and the PlayStation Network. This "premium downloadable content" would essentially function as large demos, build marketing buzz, and allow developers to fix glaring problems.

"A full-blown packaged game would follow shortly after the release of the PDLC, bearing a full retail price.

So lemme get this straight. I buy the PDLC for 10 or 15 dollars, then I buy the full retail game for 60 dollars (all of course, plus tax). Total of which runs me $75 dollars (+tax)?? There is no way in HELL I will ever subscribe to a paid BETA of a game. Ever! For even entertaining the idea upsets me some.

I never really subscribed to the old train of thought that EA were a horrid game company. In fact, when they released Dead Space and Mirrors Edge, I really liked them! But they just lost some respect points. Here's hoping they don't follow through.

 

[Firia]

If they took that chunk out of the full-retail price, this strategy could be great.

If you could get 10 to 15 off of the actual release, then that would be pretty reasonable.

Yessir.

That's what of a lot of you naysayers need recognize, actually, assuming this is used to give people a taste of the game.

You pay $15, you get, say, 1/4 to 1/6 of the game content. You enjoy it? Bring $45 into a store or type in your credit card info and buy the rest.

See how easy that was? And if you didn't like it, you only spent $15.

Alternative: rent things before buying them. That's about $7 a week where I live (California) and surely it's comparable elsewhere.

I think a lot of the knee-jerk reaction here is because of the term Pre-DLC. That stirs up bad memories of DLC and how shitty some companies are being with their DLC policies.

IF that is how it indeed works, then they should elaborate on that when they get interviewed. As it sounds right now, it's bonus cash for EA for content already available on the disk.

 

[aaronmcc]

Soooooooooooooooo EA are gpnna charge us to test their games for them?

Don't think so dude.