EA's Free-To-Play GM Says $60 Games Are "Exploitative"

[Michael O'Hair]

We've become more cautious about our buying habits, in fear of wasting the cost of a night out on another subpar third-person shooter.

Therein lies the solution, and the problem, to the future of the video game market and the crash back in the beginning of the 80's. Price isn't the core issue, it's the game not being worth the price.

Consumers are getting used to the games being currently released; they're very much recycled ideas from decades past.

The novelty of games is fading again, and one solution is to lower the unit price of each game. Another is to make games with worthwhile content while keeping the price the same.

Which would be cheaper in the long run?

 

[Stormz]

My problem with lowering the price is that it gives the devs more of an excuse to make even shorter games and add even MORE DLC. Which I hate.

 

[samsonguy920]

As soon as Bulletstorm's price gets chopped down, then I will believe this guy has any relevance in the company. As it is, I agree with what he is saying, but I doubt it will make any difference.

 

[Galliam]

It wouldn't kill the industry to have 50$ games instead of 60$. I feel like they would sell enough copies to make up the difference and get more potential sequels out of it. Maybe thats not the case, but I would think it is. 40$ games even more so, but my real beef is with DLC for 7 - 10 bucks. If all DLC was under 5, I would feel better about buying a 60 to 70 dollar game. If the game was 40, I wouldn't mind spending 10 dollars here or there on DLC.

And free games with microtransactions piss me off because usually the things they charge for are so extensive that really, the free version of the game isn't worth playing. Oh, I can't customize my characters at all? Screw that then. I'll load up one of my old CDs and play a FUN game.

 

[samsonguy920]

I really got to laugh at how many consider 60$ a game is expensive, when we in Norway fork over the equivialent of a Jackson for a new release.

So you only pay $20 a game? That's rather interesting.

 

[BabyRaptor]

So he doesn't think people should pay for stuff if they don't like it? Not only is that iffy, it's very easily exploited.

Maybe it's just me, but I would feel like I was ripping off the people who worked on the game if they don't get something.

 

[Zeema]

aussies pay $110 for a new game fix that first

 

[Carlston]

Wait wait 60 bucks is to much?

They aren't 60 bucks...

Add in the DLC and your up around 80-90 for a full game.

DLC at launch = You the customer are slime and don't get our best work and full finished game for 60 bucks, you need to pay more. SUCKER!

 

[Altorin]

Some games are totally worth 60 dollars. It's a shame if they price the other games at what their actual worth is, they tip their hat and say "This is actually a pretty shitty game" before you actually buy it.

 

[Thorvan]

Jaaa-aaa-son, where did he go,
You've got me paying high and low,
My wallet's wasting,
Pay 1 to Jason...

 

[Unrulyhandbag]

Eh, split single player games into episodes. Sell said episodes for 5-10 dollars a piece. Help the less fortunate gamer get his game on. (Even if he/she has to wait for the next paycheck to catch up. I remember how that goes.)

I mean $60 is too much. I should be able to buy two new releases for $100+tax. It'd certainly make it more feasible to buy more then two games every 4 months. Gaming is a hobby, and if it keeps getting more expensive, I might just have to take up painting.

How about going back to the shareware way of selling games; only without the dependence on magazine cover disks?
Break the game into 3 or 4 parts and make a slightly inferior version of one of them easily accessible for free. These days you could use in browser openGL from a social site to give a low resolution version of episode one out to garner interest.

Even if you didn't like a game everyone in the world would know you tried it (can't beat automated online word of mouth for advertising) and at the very least it would make facebook games a hell of a lot better.

 

[teethofymir]

WHAAAT?!!! Words of sense coming from EA?!!! The world truly has gone mad!!

 

[Necromancer1991]

SNIP

Well you do make some valid points, and frankly the examples you've quoted are the worst of the F2P market, I also agree that giving us the illusion that paying isn't necessary only to limit us to crappy items and bare-bones content is in fact BS, and in that regard I agree with you. Unfortunately that also means that this statement rings false from the draconian Bait-&-switch policy that EA's "F2P" content has, in that yeah you can PLAY it for free, but you really can't ENJOY it for free.

 

[kalt_13]

aussies pay $110 for a new game fix that first

This.

The fact that paying only $60 for a game is considered "Exploitative" and is worthy of complaining annoys me. We would love prices like that over here. Only way to get decent prices is to import the game.

 

[Larsirius]

I really got to laugh at how many consider 60$ a game is expensive, when we in Norway fork over the equivialent of a Jackson for a new release.

So you only pay $20 a game? That's rather interesting.

That was supposed to be a Franklin

 

[Dooly95]

It seems that we are at an impasse. A crossroads; where we, the consumers stand against the producers (and devs, but they don't really get a say) and neither side will budge unless one gives way.

Oh wait, the producers can charge you $60 for a game with improved graphics and new rosters. And charge you $10 for content already on the disk.

Producers are losing money, so they're not willing to shell out for risky games, meaning we get stagnant, run-of-the-mill clones of whatever's popular. It also does seem that we've been spoiled in recent days. We want it all, but for nought. It doesn't seem too fair, does it?

Free-to-play is an alternative. But, hey, $100 on Smurfberries, that doesn't sound too fair either.

We, as consumers, are now rewarding those who innovate and create new ways, methods of telling and engaging us. Producers need to awake to this, and try to put more IP out there that will get the attention of our pockets.

Or, you know, they could just keep making CoD clones.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

Torchlight is a prime example of this. I'd rate it pretty average out of my game collection, but for the price I feel I got more than my money's worth.

That's a great example. I bought it during the Steam sale where it was 5 or 10 dollars, and I got a solid 20 hours of play time out of it. What a great game that was at that price point.

 

[Piotr621]

The reason why I am a PC gamer using Steam? A new triple A console game in Australia is some ONE HUNDRED dollars, if not over. PS3 games are usually $110.

 

[lowkey_jotunn]

Steam is the way of the future And not just for computers, and not just with Steam itself.

My guess is downloaded content will outstrip store bought games sometime in the next console generation. Motion Controls should earn us a few more years on the current gen before we're seriously hankering for the Playstation 4, XBox 720, or whatever craziness Nintendo comes up with. By then, multi-terabyte drives will be easy peasy, and even Solid State Drives should be up in the half-TB range. Imagine, if you will, keeping a modest library of 50 or so games on your local HDD, with one or two that you're currently playing stored on the SSD. If you own more than 50 games, the others would be associated with your account online, and you can swap those out at anytime.

Getting back to the point at hand, this model allows for things like free games, and content a la carte. If I don't care about CoD's campaign mode, and just want to play Multiplayer, that could be downloaded for a lower price than the full shebang. Or if a new company wants to get their name out there, they could release a couple cheap/free games and a demo of the "big one" to get you hooked. This will not only allow for cheaper games, but it will force companies to put out solid products, or risk being buried under the competition.

This model will also allow for the video game publishers to have direct control over pricing. If Bioware wants to sell Mass Effect 1 and 2 on the cheap (or maybe a package deal) leading up to the release of ME3, they would have to coordinate that with Target, Best Buy, Walmart, etc, each with thousands of physical locations. And they would have NO sway over used-game sales.

We can already see the start of this. From consoles to PCs to smart phones, cheap and easy content is ready to busy out. We just need the infrastructure and devices capable of handling it. Somehow, I don't think the iPhone was designed with 6 straight hours of Angry Birds in mind


Only problem: once content becomes entirely digital, what will I buy friends and family for birthdays and xmas???

 

[samsonguy920]

I really got to laugh at how many consider 60$ a game is expensive, when we in Norway fork over the equivialent of a Jackson for a new release.

So you only pay $20 a game? That's rather interesting.

That was supposed to be a Franklin

It's all good, I had to actually look it up to be sure, was a bit braindead today. Discovered some interesting bits about higher denominations even that aren't being circulated. Though the way things are going...
Either case, it may as well be $100 here for me with my income. So I feel your pain.