Jimquisition: EA Access ... Denied

[SilverLion]

EA said that the reason that there is no demo for Madden 2015 is because "they wanted to make the best game possible"
BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULLSHIT! BULL FUCKING SHIT! YOU'D BE BETTER OF FUCKING A BULL AS IT'S TAKING A SHIT SO THAT YOU GET SHIT INSIDE YOUR DICK AND DIE OF SOME HORRIBLE SHIT VENEREAL DISEASE!
SERIOUSLY, "we don't have a demo because the game is too good", what the FUCK kind of excuse is that? That's like saying "our amusement park is too good for the OSHA inspector to come around and check that the rollercoaster isn't made of fucking WAFER, we don't want him to ruin the fun by saying it has "inadequate toilet facilities!" I've hated EA for a long gime, but this is the straw that broke the camel's back that has persuaded me that they'll NEVER get better. The only good thing to happen to EA is for it's headquarters to get blown up by angry gamers. Fuck those **** punters!

 

[hydrolythe]

Subscriptions are just one more piece of the dark service-centric Hell that gaming will become if the market doesn't retain its spine.

I'm already wary of a service-centric game future, and the last thing I want is yet more financial validation for it.
(wary in spite of services that are largely considered to be upstanding like GoG and Steam)

Just like how the acceptance of DLC eventually lead to the extinction of feature-complete AAA games, so will the acceptance of Subscriptions lead us closer to the dark hell of Always Online, since a service is required for a subscription to have any meaning.

If there's any one common element to these schemes: It's to create a less-for-more scenario by changing the "game" part of the relationship into an opportunity that only leads to more opportunities to spend. Rather than what it used to be: a simple transaction of "I give you money, you give me your game."

Instead, AAA continues to try and push gaming away from that.
Imagine if the market had no spine at all, and it caved to AAA's every whim.

Within a decade, gaming would look something like this:

-Behold, AAA's Paradise-

Where the Gamer will...
1) Buy games at full price via pre-order or on launch

2) Pay a subscription fee to "support" the always online service required for the games

3) Buy DLC content as it's trickled out

4) Engage in social media to develop habits and attachment to the system (for the publisher to best gather personalized market data, and to discourage the gamer from using any competing service)

5) Engage in competitive/multiplayer activities (multiplayer is not only easier to develop assets for due to its nature, but competition provides a means to introduce a Pay2Win scenario for even more profit opportunities)

6) Be willing to grind for hundreds if not thousands of hours to maximize exposure time.

(grind-based design offers too many possible benefits for the publisher to be omitted; microtransaction opportunities, addictive conditioning ala Skinner psychology, and the content is more cost-effective to develop since grind-based content can be expanded by copy-pasting similar/existing assets with minimal effort)

7) Repeat the entire process for when the next self-derivative game/content is released

(Call "slippery slope" if you wish; the above is already too close to reality for my tastes. Take a look at China's online game market. Most of those are already implemented, and it makes megabucks.)

I think you forget one thing:
X) Are not influenced by better graphics engines so that they do not demand a better engine (right now, engines cost in between 8 million and 16 million dollars).
X2) Keep this process running for long enough that you can buy off the engine you already have.

Remove the idea of the AAA paradise once that has happened, since I predict that after it they will let the developer decide what title they want to make, making it like a sort of gaming paradise where the developer can make what he wants (with the game engine limitations taken into account) and a publisher wishing the best for its consumer (pissing off your customers is not giving you any profit in the long term).

 

[Atmos Duality]

I think you forget one thing:
X) Are not influenced by better graphics engines so that they do not demand a better engine (right now, engines cost in between 8 million and 16 million dollars).

Except a big part of the rising cost of development is tied directly to creating assets that make use of the engine.
What offsets this is Middleware and licensing, but that takes a considerable chunk of time to trickle down into the mid-cards. The Unreal 3 engine was several years old by the time Indie games started using it.

On top of that, eventually, the developer is going to have to produce assets on their own, and with higher fidelity comes a higher burden for detail.

One extra point to add for photo-realism, is the trouble with animation. The more realistic your graphics, the less leeway one has in rendering convincing animations. It's a psychological thing: and why a game that's done with 2D sprites might look fluid, but would look herky-jerky in 3D.

Motion-Capture might actually become required to avoid looking awkward.
FYI, AAA already uses Mo-Cap for many of their games, and it's pretty expensive stuff.

X2) Keep this process running for long enough that you can buy off the engine you already have.

Remove the idea of the AAA paradise once that has happened, since I predict that after it they will let the developer decide what title they want to make, making it like a sort of gaming paradise where the developer can make what he wants (with the game engine limitations taken into account) and a publisher wishing the best for its consumer (pissing off your customers is not giving you any profit in the long term).

I would love for Publishers to take the role you prescribe, where they develop engines and assets to be licensed out to actual developers and just let them do what they do without all of this Hollywood-esque marketing crap.

But sadly, I still find that extremely doubtful.

Why? AAA Publishers are control freaks.

They front the money for production, so in their mind, it's their industry. Period.
Everyone else just gets to participate.

Pissing off your customers not being profitable? That's exactly what they've been trying to do.
Jim Sterling's wouldn't have an audience for his video series if Publishers didn't regularly make the attempt.

I often say the relationship between gamer and publisher is similar to one between drug addict and dealer, because that seems to be how they behave: Are gamers hooked enough to tolerate more concessions? Implement those concessions, STAT.
No? Implement them and withhold what they want. They'll eventually crack and buy it anyway.

It's only when the market outright rejects something by overwhelming majority that they even stop and consider that they screwed up, but even THAT thought has trouble moving through the AAA brass.

For example: Just last month, EA came out and apologized for the travesty that was the Mobile Dungeon Siege...only to amend that apology with a statement that DIRECTLY BLAMED GAMERS for not being "ready" for that kind of model yet.
Everyone was rightly outraged; but it was also beneficial to have a rare glimpse into how they actually think.

And that attitude is what I base my "AAA Paradise" on.

 

[hydrolythe]

I think you forget one thing:
X) Are not influenced by better graphics engines so that they do not demand a better engine (right now, engines cost in between 8 million and 16 million dollars).

Except a big part of the rising cost of development is tied directly to creating assets that make use of the engine.
What offsets this is Middleware and licensing, but that takes a considerable chunk of time to trickle down into the mid-cards. The Unreal 3 engine was several years old by the time Indie games started using it.

On top of that, eventually, the developer is going to have to produce assets on their own, and with higher fidelity comes a higher burden for detail.

One extra point to add for photo-realism, is the trouble with animation. The more realistic your graphics, the less leeway one has in rendering convincing animations. It's a psychological thing: and why a game that's done with 2D sprites might look fluid, but would look herky-jerky in 3D.

Motion-Capture might actually become required to avoid looking awkward.
FYI, AAA already uses Mo-Cap for many of their games, and it's pretty expensive stuff.

X2) Keep this process running for long enough that you can buy off the engine you already have.

Remove the idea of the AAA paradise once that has happened, since I predict that after it they will let the developer decide what title they want to make, making it like a sort of gaming paradise where the developer can make what he wants (with the game engine limitations taken into account) and a publisher wishing the best for its consumer (pissing off your customers is not giving you any profit in the long term).

I would love for Publishers to take the role you prescribe, where they develop engines and assets to be licensed out to actual developers and just let them do what they do without all of this Hollywood-esque marketing crap.

But sadly, I still find that extremely doubtful.

Why? AAA Publishers are control freaks.

They front the money for production, so in their mind, it's their industry. Period.
Everyone else just gets to participate.

Pissing off your customers not being profitable? That's exactly what they've been trying to do.
Jim Sterling's wouldn't have an audience for his video series if Publishers didn't regularly make the attempt.

I often say the relationship between gamer and publisher is similar to one between drug addict and dealer, because that seems to be how they behave: Are gamers hooked enough to tolerate more concessions? Implement those concessions, STAT.
No? Implement them and withhold what they want. They'll eventually crack and buy it anyway.

It's only when the market outright rejects something by overwhelming majority that they even stop and consider that they screwed up, but even THAT thought has trouble moving through the AAA brass.

For example: Just last month, EA came out and apologized for the travesty that was the Mobile Dungeon Siege...only to amend that apology with a statement that DIRECTLY BLAMED GAMERS for not being "ready" for that kind of model yet.
Everyone was rightly outraged; but it was also beneficial to have a rare glimpse into how they actually think.

And that attitude is what I base my "AAA Paradise" on.

I do not think that that business model will however make the AAA paradise happen if the CEO's truly are control freaks (I doubt that they truly are since otherwise they would be trying to pay the programming team as little as possible, going as far as to hiring kids that ask like 5$ per product and yes, there existed video game companies with such a track record (Ocean Software for instance).), since programmers will just protest that their CEO treats them so badly and leave the company.

 

[Atmos Duality]

I do not think that that business model will however make the AAA paradise happen if the CEO's truly are control freaks (I doubt that they truly are since otherwise they would be trying to pay the programming team as little as possible, going as far as to hiring kids that ask like 5$ per product and yes, there existed video game companies with such a track record (Ocean Software for instance).), since programmers will just protest that their CEO treats them so badly and leave the company.

Programmers are easily replaceable in this market.
There are tons of them coming out of tech schools each year; including those specifically for game development.
Nevermind the laundry list of developers who get sacked by AAA or go under every year; that's a lot of talent looking for employment and a big part of why the indie game scene is exploding with new productions.

(Game programmer turnover in the AAA business is insane. To the point where I hear it's standard policy for AAA to hire a dude fresh out of college and then run them full-tilt for 5 years before dropping them for the next poor sap fresh out of college.)

In production, all the chips are on the publisher's side of the table, not the developer's.
Why? Because the developer doesn't own any of its own product; the copyright and IP is owned by the publisher.
All production is contracted internally, so anything produced is implicitly seized by Assignment of Invention anyway.

(which is why you NEVER want to commit any actual good or original game idea you have to code while under contract; if you produce something, the company can take it away from you, no matter how inconsequential or unrelated to your original assignment it was, and use it to quash any development you do on it after your contract expires)

Developer contracts are so ironclad I'd dare call it a mere formality since AAA not only fronts the money for the project, but usually owns the developer outright. They can fire or hire anyone on a whim, and with the glut of folks looking for work, it's all in their favor. (it's an extreme rarity to assign primary production rights of a major project to someone outside the company; cheap tie ins or subcontracting, perhaps, but never for flagship productions)

It's bad enough now that even probable fraud is merely a speedbump for those monoliths. (see Infinity Ward vs Activision)

The last time we saw a AAA production walkout of any significance was when EA was sued, class-action by its employees in 2006 and that was only because EA lost.

Trust me: Those CEOs may not give a shit about games, but they're definitely familiar with lawyers and bankers.

 

[Demonchaser27]

Subscriptions are just one more piece of the dark service-centric Hell that gaming will become if the market doesn't retain its spine.

I'm already wary of a service-centric game future, and the last thing I want is yet more financial validation for it.
(wary in spite of services that are largely considered to be upstanding like GoG and Steam)

I'll be completely honest with you. In spite of defending GoG as much as I do (and that's only because they seem to respect that the customer owns the right to what they wish, outside of selling and that does bother me a bit, there digitally bought game) and not so much Steam, I actually have to say I'm not to happy with this myself. In reality I just want to be able to buy the games I want and be free to make backups and share my game with my friends, you know like a normal, generous human being. I hold no singular loyalty to an individual company. I talk up GoG from time to time for respect of their message and what it could mean for gamers, not the company in and of itself. I respect the minds behind it. And if they ever changed into something worse then I'd lose that respect and likely take my business away, although I already don't buy many if any games anymore. So I completely understand your wariness of this potentially terrible outcome.

Just like how the acceptance of DLC eventually lead to the extinction of feature-complete AAA games, so will the acceptance of Subscriptions lead us closer to the dark hell of Always Online, since a service is required for a subscription to have any meaning.

If there's any one common element to these schemes: It's to create a less-for-more scenario by changing the "game" part of the relationship into an opportunity that only leads to more opportunities to spend. Rather than what it used to be: a simple transaction of "I give you money, you give me your game."

(And quickly I would like to add to this that losing more doesn't just mean in terms of the game itself, it includes your rights to own and do what you will with your game, in the case of subscriptions. In other words your right to control what your money buys entirely, not have them decide it for you.)

Yes, this is the thing I've said to others in my circle and we all kind of came to similar agreements. It's just so unfortunate to see it head this direction... and for what? More money and power? The sad thing is that none of the money and power really mean anything when you get down to it. Why do they want more money and power? Is it to enhance and make truly longer, better, and much deeper gameplay sequences? Do they even care about games at all? No, not really. It's all just addiction. Our system promotes, at the highest levels, an addiction to acquisition and power for the sake of it. Just for the high of saying, "People need me and require me to function, therefore I can do to people what I want." If the more money and more spending actually went to producing better games, we would all know it. We would feel it and see it. There would be games that had much more depth and provided replay value far beyond what many could imagine today (and that doesn't mean it has to have multiplayer either). We would have LAN and advanced (being multi-screens attached to one computer/console for dual tv local co-op and multiplayer) and old forms of Splitscreen still. But that's not what it's about, unfortunately. It's just about that addiction. That control for the sake of control. If it was truly just about the money then as soon as these schemes lost them money as they did with THQ and Capcom both, then they would stop. But funny thing, they didn't. Capcom and THQ actually INCREASED the use of DLC and other harmful business tactics that they KNEW people didn't like or want. Instead of smarting up and admitting they were wrong, they just tried 20 different ways of doing exactly the same manipulative, rip-off business schemes.

And sadly I hate to break it to people, but your absolutely right about "opportunities to spend". Having more ways to spend does NOT equal more freedom in how you play your game. It's a scheme to make you spend more than you would have for a selection of content. Spend roughly the same for less content and if you want more then spend more to get an even partially equal game to what was obtained prior to DLC (in it's modern form), Microtransactions, and subscription sub sets. Companies do this in literally EVERY. SINGLE. INDUSTRY. They give the user multiple different options until they make it more appealing to get into subscriptions (which secretly get them the most money anyway) and make it as appealing as possible first. All the "choices" of how to pay still exist but none of the choices really give many users what they truly want. Because it's not about giving users what they want... It's about giving users the illusion of self-made choices. You're choosing what THEY want you to choose, not what YOU want to choose.

Instead, AAA continues to try and push gaming away from that.
Imagine if the market had no spine at all, and it caved to AAA's every whim.

Within a decade, gaming would look something like this:

-Behold, AAA's Paradise-

Where the Gamer will...
1) Buy games at full price via pre-order or on launch

2) Pay a subscription fee to "support" the always online service required for the games

3) Buy DLC content as it's trickled out

4) Engage in social media to develop habits and attachment to the system (for the publisher to best gather personalized market data, and to discourage the gamer from using any competing service)

5) Engage in competitive/multiplayer activities (multiplayer is not only easier to develop assets for due to its nature, but competition provides a means to introduce a Pay2Win scenario for even more profit opportunities)

6) Be willing to grind for hundreds if not thousands of hours to maximize exposure time.

(grind-based design offers too many possible benefits for the publisher to be omitted; microtransaction opportunities, addictive conditioning ala Skinner psychology, and the content is more cost-effective to develop since grind-based content can be expanded by copy-pasting similar/existing assets with minimal effort)

7) Repeat the entire process for when the next self-derivative game/content is released

(Call "slippery slope" if you wish; the above is already too close to reality for my tastes. Take a look at China's online game market. Most of those are already implemented, and it makes megabucks.)

This is very possible and honestly, what they really would love for it to be. I imagine that the only thing stopping them from making this dream come true is... reality. Most people just don't make enough money for this kind of setup to be plausible. I mean they could bet on addicts (whales... though I hate that term) to spend big bucks, but that isn't even remotely sustainable because there are only so many out there for them to choose from. It just isn't sustainable as a business model.

All that being said Atmos, you're right. It certainly doesn't stop them from trying to make this a reality. No amount real reality subverts them from trying to promote their perceived "reality". The one they want to exist.

Applause from this side. So much truth in this comment of yours.

 

[Second World]

Aaaaaaand Electronic Arts proves Jimquisition's point within forty-seven minutes!

http://www.polygon.com/2014/8/11/5991063/madden-nfl-15-no-demo-ea-access

No, it really didn't

No, it did.

The article above states "The difficult decision not to do a demo for Madden was strictly a result of the team's commitment to deliver the highest-quality game possible. We chose to put 100 percent of our development resources toward the full game."

In other words, starting immediately, it will not be possible to try out some of EA's games on any console without using the EA Access subscription services. As a result, the potential buyer is pushed toward paying into the subscription service for games whose quality will be unknown to the player and into a subscription service whose offerings are subject to change without notice.

Under EA Access, the player has "unlimited access to the full retail version of a select set of EA titles." This means that you are paying a subscription for a rotation of games that is liable to change "with 30 days of notice." If the newest version of a game you own DLC for is out, you will likely be cycled over to the new version and offered equivalent DLC purchases to make. Unless of course you then buy the game outright from EA at a "discounted price" which is available to those with EA Access subscriptions.. (thus shunning away any doubts that they won't be removing games from the rotation.)

In other words, it's a more limited version of Playstation Plus, where the games you can play can be flexed out whenever they'd like, even if you're still paying for the subscription.

ick..
At least Playstation Plus can be obtained at $25 per year during most Black Friday/Cyber Monday sales.

And at least you wouldn't need an additional XBOX live subscription to play the games you'd get from that subscription online (like you'd have to do if you wanted this EA Access rubbish)

I believe I'll stick to playing PS3 and PC games online.

 

[keniakittykat]

Next up, subscriptions for each individual game.

Aren't those called 'season passes'?

 

[Lazy Kitty]

Next up, subscriptions for each individual game.

Aren't those called 'season passes'?

I don't know. Are they?
I thought season passes where the thing where you pre-purchase all the dlc for a game before it has been made.

 

[GonzoGamer]

Really? You mean people happily paid the monthly fees asked for by MMOs, then MS, then Sony, and now the publishers want to ask for their own monthly fees. Once again thanks for the Cassandra complex people; this is one of the things I saw coming years ago.
I hope people get fed up with it at some point because I'm not going to pay into any of it. I'm not getting the new consoles and I'm not jumping on any publisher's fee mongering either. If enough people don't pay into it, these companies will cut that shit out.
But I'm not going to be optimistic here. Gamers are the ones who made Gamestop a success, the 360, pre-orders, and preorder 'dlc' game content a success. I'd be surprised if all this fee stacking doesn't become a success too. But you never know, I'm still shocked at the backlash the XBone received at announcement. Maybe gamers haven't been completely neutered.

I would like to keep playing games but to be honest, I've stopped paying attention to them. I'm going to keep an ear out of the latest Bethesda and R* games and I'm probably going to play the hell out of them on the PC but for me, gaming is a hobby, a pastime, not a lifestyle. It's just weird because console used to be FOR people like me.