Ea plans online play , dlc for all new titles

[Acidrainopg]

Gamers better get used to buying additional downloadable content in their EAGames.

Electronic Arts chief operating officer John Schappert announced during the company's fiscal third quarter investor call this afternoon that every title released during its fiscal 2011 year (April 2010 through March 2011) will have additional online components.

"In fiscal 2011, every one of EA's releases will have an online component, both downloadable content and online play."

One of EA's major titles, Dead Space 2, has already been confirmed to having some form of multiplayer. What this could mean for the new Dragon Age title planned, as well as the new title from Epic Games, remains to be seen.

Source: Outpostgamez.com (http://outpostgamez.com)

[bacon]

I know why they are doing this, and I actually applaud them for trying new things other than more evasive DRM. Anything that gets pc players to buy games and not pirate is good for us fans. I still think there is more they can do in making this happen thou. If its just more DLC, and it too is available cracked and free then what is the point? Is has to be adding value, and getting your fans involved in some way.

I am a firm believer in the Trent Renzor business model, and believe there is so much money out for those who can use it effectively. One of my regularly read sites, techdirt (http://www.techdirt.com/)has coined this formula and I think its the way of the future.

CwF + RtB (http://www.techdirt.com/rtb.php)

Connect with Fans (CwF) and give them a Reason to Buy (RtB). CwF+RtB=$$$

[RaDioAcTivE]

I'm wondering if we just got the official announcement that game support in the form of modding tools and user created content is officially a thing of the past for all EA titles.

It's not too far of a leap to assume that if they're planning on charging on download content that they won't want users creating maps and mods on their own.

[richman61]

yeah right, pay for DLC, not a chance. I'll give up and will not buy such games. I wouldn't stoop as low to steal either.

keep this for the console kiddies.

[Acidrainopg]

I'm wondering if we just got the official announcement that game support in the form of modding tools and user created content is officially a thing of the past for all EA titles.

It's not too far of a leap to assume that if they're planning on charging on download content that they won't want users creating maps and mods on their own.

I was thinking the same thing when i read this, you are dead on the mark on this one.

[rudedog]

looks like we'll be stuck playing CoDWW, CoDMW, BF2, type games. Which, with the help of the community could be a good thing.:salute:

This could be the start of retro gaming 2010, in which the community keeps games these "old" games running through total conversions fresh maps and mods.

Then in about 2 or 3 years they'll figure out what sold their games and kept them "fresh" years after their release....

Hey they just figured out online MP is what sells games.

[vfn4i83]

So they plan to ask money for update and bug fixes are coming to surface.

Glade I moving to the indies, that have better games right now: Overgrowth, Natural Selection 2, Interstellar Mariner, ...

[bacon]

One of EA's major titles, Dead Space 2, has already been confirmed to having some form of multiplayer. What this could mean for the new Dragon Age title planned, as well as the new title from Epic Games, remains to be seen.

Source: Outpostgamez.com (http://outpostgamez.com)

Actually dead space 2 for PC is no more. Considering DS 1 sold like a turd despite it being a great game. I was seriously scared several times playing it in my dark computer room. :D

PC sales are truly sad when the devs can't even spend the time to port a game over. It has been confirmed on several sites but I saw it first on bluesnews (http://www.bluesnews.com/s/107212/no-pc-dead-space-2).

Dragonage sold well, and the expansion pack is already out. It is almost as much as the original game too. I have not played it yet but plenty of my friends say it is a brilliant rpg. I disagree with a game having to have a MP. I think you see better sales on MP games on PC because of piracy. This really is a sad reality of what the industry faces, and I hope will not be the demise of great SP games on the PC. I hate twiddling my thumbs, so I won't buy them for console. :(


I really believe that games like APB (http://www.ea.com/games/all-points-bulletin) is what the future of all successful PC games are gonna be like. This title is currently a PC exclusive.

[TRTL]

We are just going to have to wait and see how this all plays out for each game. We don't know anything other than speculation right now.

I will pay for dlc if its worth it. Keeps me playing the game longer. :)

[69thPaladin]

If they want to charge separately for single and multiplayer, sign my up for ONLY the multiplayer. I don't want to pay for half a game that I'll never use.

If this is additional money on top of the game price, sorry, no sale. $50 is more than enough to get a FULL game that includes multiplayer.

[Neil]

You dont have to pay for DLC. Its completely up to the individual unless however the DLC is in the form of patches. Patches for games should always be free. New maps, guns etc I can live without them if I choose not to buy them. Its freedom of choice just like when people from my clan bought Modern Warfail 2 and I didnt. They bowed to the pressure of being brain washed by overkill advertising where as I didnt. :salute:

[69thPaladin]

The way that release is worded sure sounds like the additional downloadable content is required, not optional.

In fiscal 2011, every one of EA's releases will have an online component, both downloadable content and online play

Are they going to limit online play to those who purchase the DLC? Sure sounds like it to me.

[Acidrainopg]

I wish I could remember the last time there was a game due out that I was looking forward to. All the trailers look good and they promise this and that but in the end they are just giving you that little old lady from Pasadena bit. Screw em ! Before long they will be trying to sell us our own username that we game with. I would glady pay for dlc if there was a game worth it. As it stands there is no such thing .

Gun,

I would have to agree, it is rather hard to recall the last time i looked forward to an game title. Yup, all the game videos look good and so do the screen shots and they do promise the world then the button falls out.

I also don't think supporting the older communities and games, i was once their at one time and it doesn't work that way. The thing is that we are simply going to see fly by night game titles as we are seeing in regards to what the Console is, fly by night titles. It is simply sad but true, the only option is really to either stick to smaller titles and do something their or simply find another avenue in which we are seeing gaming. Their are some very good titles coming out, the problem is that they are small, will have small communities though i dont know i could be wrong.

Cheers,

Acidrain

[Misnomer]

I have decided to take a different approach to this after reading an interview at Gamesindustry.biz with Randy Pitchford of Gearbox (Borderlands). Her is what Randy said:

Randy Pitchford: It's entertainment - as gamers, we want great entertainment, and we're really happy to spend money on the interactive entertainment that we love. The DLC option is about a convenient way to offer value to gamers that want it, and it's neat for gamers because if I love something, I'm excited when DLC happens. I can click a button, and a few minutes later it's there - I didn't have to drive to the store, it's not very expensive. It's a nice incremental add-on to something I already understand and trust, and had a great time with.

So it's nice for gamers, but it's great for developers too - it's something we can explore, and take risks with. There are things we've done in our DLCs that aren't the kinds of things we'd risk in the core game - because you know you're offering it to the audience that's the most dedicated and loyal.
You also know that if we sell 400,000 units of the DLC we're really happy, as opposed to if we don't sell 2 million units of this game we're not going to make our money back - so the economics of the relationship between the creator and the customer change. It gives us the opportunity to explore and take some risks, and it gives the customer a really convenient opportunity to get more of what they love.

The important part here is that if 400,000 people buy DLC it is an amazing success. To me that is great news for the PC community. We are a minority and we will never be able to generate the kind of sales that the console market does. So, why not target DLC to us after a game's release? It does not need to be content like maps and weapons necessarily. Say a map editor, mod tools, a professionally made but community driven competition mode for the game, in-game recording tools ....

At first this seems like the Activision micro-transaction/subscription model we have seen, but the key difference is that is does not that things we already had and charge us for them........it is safe to say that we no longer get these things.

But wait! You say, we used to get all that for free in our games so they should just start giving them to us again. Yeah and games didn't cost as much to make and CEOs who supported gamers (John Riccitiello) were not having their jobs threatened by investors who wanted more profits sooner. If we are going to pay more for a game why not have our extra dollars go towards DLC directed at our community instead of another Activision price hike for less (MW2). Activision is talking about charging us for access to lobbies for competing....not actual competition support.

Yes free like with TF2 and Killing Floor is a nice thought, but those games are not really cross platform. If we want to be involved in the big gaming picture, then maybe paying 5 - 10 dollars for DLC is not such a bad idea if it allows the studio to pay for a PC team after the initial high cost of development.

DLC often splits communities, well....the modding community and competition community often split themselves off of a game anyway. DLC for these extra features would mean it might be harder for first time gamers to get into the wonders of PC, but then again they might want to because of the advertising that comes with any DLC. Heck, I am always surprised by the number of people that buy Garry's Mod.

Just a thought. I know some angry people will explain how we used to get these for free, but these are arguments that carry a lot less weight than the investors who want profits now.

[TRTL]

I have decided to take a different approach to this after reading an interview at Gamesindustry.biz with Randy Pitchford of Gearbox (Borderlands). Her is what Randy said:

Randy Pitchford: It's entertainment - as gamers, we want great entertainment, and we're really happy to spend money on the interactive entertainment that we love. The DLC option is about a convenient way to offer value to gamers that want it, and it's neat for gamers because if I love something, I'm excited when DLC happens. I can click a button, and a few minutes later it's there - I didn't have to drive to the store, it's not very expensive. It's a nice incremental add-on to something I already understand and trust, and had a great time with.

So it's nice for gamers, but it's great for developers too - it's something we can explore, and take risks with. There are things we've done in our DLCs that aren't the kinds of things we'd risk in the core game - because you know you're offering it to the audience that's the most dedicated and loyal.
You also know that if we sell 400,000 units of the DLC we're really happy, as opposed to if we don't sell 2 million units of this game we're not going to make our money back - so the economics of the relationship between the creator and the customer change. It gives us the opportunity to explore and take some risks, and it gives the customer a really convenient opportunity to get more of what they love.

The important part here is that if 400,000 people buy DLC it is an amazing success. To me that is great news for the PC community. We are a minority and we will never be able to generate the kind of sales that the console market does. So, why not target DLC to us after a game's release? It does not need to be content like maps and weapons necessarily. Say a map editor, mod tools, a professionally made but community driven competition mode for the game, in-game recording tools ....

At first this seems like the Activision micro-transaction/subscription model we have seen, but the key difference is that is does not that things we already had and charge us for them........it is safe to say that we no longer get these things.

But wait! You say, we used to get all that for free in our games so they should just start giving them to us again. Yeah and games didn't cost as much to make and CEOs who supported gamers (John Riccitiello) were not having their jobs threatened by investors who wanted more profits sooner. If we are going to pay more for a game why not have our extra dollars go towards DLC directed at our community instead of another Activision price hike for less (MW2). Activision is talking about charging us for access to lobbies for competing....not actual competition support.

Yes free like with TF2 and Killing Floor is a nice thought, but those games are not really cross platform. If we want to be involved in the big gaming picture, then maybe paying 5 - 10 dollars for DLC is not such a bad idea if it allows the studio to pay for a PC team after the initial high cost of development.

DLC often splits communities, well....the modding community and competition community often split themselves off of a game anyway. DLC for these extra features would mean it might be harder for first time gamers to get into the wonders of PC, but then again they might want to because of the advertising that comes with any DLC. Heck, I am always surprised by the number of people that buy Garry's Mod.

Just a thought. I know some angry people will explain how we used to get these for free, but these are arguments that carry a lot less weight than the investors who want profits now.
+1 I think your "different approach" is what the pc gamer should really think about. If they want to continue playing new games. Everything changes in time, so should our attitudes.

[Herr Klugscheisser]

I know people just tend to complain about the cost of games these days. BUT ... I remember paying $40-50 for 8-bit Nintendo carts and $40-60 for games/software for the Commodore 64. In fact, the C64 prices were confirmed when I found some old Ahoy! magazines from the mid-80s in my attic a few weeks ago.

I'm sure Atari 2600 carts were $30+ too.

[Misnomer]

Well the more I think about it, the more it is just an okay idea. It comes down to me trying to think of a creative excuse to get developers to support PC directly. Tricking the accountants seems like a good option.

[zeroy]

[I]Randy Pitchford: The DLC option is about a convenient way to offer value to gamers that want it, and it's neat for gamers because if I love something, I'm excited when DLC happens.

Yes - but we need not to be taken for cash-cows. There is a fine line between DLC/Added content created after retail release and the ones Publishers make us think have been done after retail release. The result is the same - agreed - we get new stuff and for usually cheap enough or even free (Viva el PC!) but what i can't stand is a Dev house producing let's say 20 MP maps, keeping 6 under wraps and offering 14 on a $50 retail game then making an extra $10-$30 on the remaining 6 maps which were already there. Isn't that a little cunning or am I paranoid?

We have seen it with COD in particular where the rawfiles on retail hinted at those "new maps" and we also know that in a development cycle assets are locked for final retail perhaps 2-3 months before launch.... In the past DLC were called "expansion pack" and if you take the example of COD:UO, this was the same "buzz" Randy is talking about, ok with the trip to the shop added, but in essence it was better, you would get almost a full new game for half the price of the retail - say around $25. Battlefield 2 has also been a great example on how Expansion pack can add to a game longevity - 5 years on still a lot of players and 3 Expansions pack which contained a lot more than just maps!

So what im trying to say is that DLC looks more to me like a better engineered way to make $$ for the companies without much cost at all - Something expansion pack weren't. Its not like we didnt already get new content its just that Publishers/Dev House have now found a better, cheaper way for them to milk us!

I would say that up to now its been rare that DLC cost anything at all on PC so its all good, but the day we start to pay for them it won't feel the same - not to me anyway.

One thing i would also mention on DLC on consoles, have you tried to play MP on WAW with the stock game? You are constantly reminded that you need to buy the map packs to connect to the servers .... a seriously pushy way in my book....

[Misnomer]

Yeah I know a few console players who told me they went back to COD4 because they didn't want to buy all the Map Packs and on Console you have fewer people to play with if you don't buy them....unlike PC where the core games usually gets all the population (BF2 packs). Of course this is a shame because Treyarch's map packs were in fact great stuff, especially since the zombie game got more complicated each time rather than just shoving the same old maps down your throat.

I still haven't bought the Borderlands DLC because I just can't bring myself to spend 10 bucks for another hour or two of gameplay. Yet, I still kind of want to get the one pack that gets good reviews and seems interesting. It is mostly a cost thing to me since I know they made these DLC after the game went gold. Still, I think Fallout 3, Borderlands, and Dragon Age were a little too quick out of the gate with DLC. It works for their games, but it was like.....you bought our 50-60 dollar game, but we really wanted it to be 80 dollars and include 10% more.

This is why I suggested an alternative form of DLC. Think how much value buying access to mod tools and a map pack could get you (though truthfully the install base of users that can play custom content shrinking for a game never helped populate a modded server or custom map before). Perhaps the ability to play mods is free, but the tools are DLC. They would have to include a Far Cry 2 type map editor to make it accessible, but that isn't such a bad thing if they fully support in-game content ranking systems to weed out the crap.

My thought here is just that if they want monetary justification for giving us these tools, perhaps the most feasible way to make developers see it as a good thing is to make it DLC. Instead of seeing PC as hostile to DLC (which we are at the moment), maybe they should try something other than map packs and weapon skins. Something that meets the desires of PC users for expanded content.

[zeroy]

Perhaps the ability to play mods is free, but the tools are DLC

I don't think you'll ever see this happening - SDK/Modtools availability is always subject to a big "NOT SUPPORTED BY XXX" and so you can see that making someone pay for it would not fit with this. As for the reason why the SDK/Modtools are provided "as is" is really understandable, its raw files and stuff that the Dev house really cant start supporting officially...

On top of this just imagine the uproar that would start should IW / Treyarch / Valve or even DICE (known for releasing free SDK/Modtools) decide to charge for Dedi server or SDK/Modtools DLC! I for one would cry outrage!!

[Misnomer]

I don't think you'll ever see this happening - SDK/Modtools availability is always subject to a big "NOT SUPPORTED BY XXX" and so you can see that making someone pay for it would not fit with this. As for the reason why the SDK/Modtools are provided "as is" is really understandable, its raw files and stuff that the Dev house really cant start supporting officially...

On top of this just imagine the uproar that would start should IW / Treyarch / Valve or even DICE (known for releasing free SDK/Modtools) decide to charge for Dedi server or SDK/Modtools DLC! I for one would cry outrage!!

Then I guess the only thing left is to write eulogies for the FPS PC communities like we have been seeing lately. Games need to be more profitable to keep going right now. Valve hasn't used the TF2 model for any of its games since (L4D, L4D2) and Tripwire might not even release mod tools for RO: HoS for all we know. Of course building it on UE3 means that many people could mod it anyway... Point being that we are banking on a small developers staying small and continuing to support a fickle community for far less profit than if they did other things.


Eh. It was a thought, a stupid thought, but a thought. Using my logic it would also make sense to charge for DLC that enabled the colorblind to play a game with alternate colors (this (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/02/12/colourblind-gaming-is-it-in-his-eyes/) article set me thinking that). At a certain point, I have to admit that they should be making the game so that it is accessible or appeals to the minorities without hurting the core game for the majority. This is just a fact. I am not sure how we can convince any major publishers of this though. There is no solace for me in rants anymore, I just want to find a way to make it work.

Money speaks a bit louder than the weak willed gaming communities.

[Mike Nomad]

..... <snip>

Money speaks a bit louder than the weak willed gaming communities.


Very, very true! Like I said earlier, DLC will either prove to be a pot of gold or a can of worms.


Time will tell....

[bacon]

I take a really simple approach to buying DLC. If it is adding value, and it is a good deal then I am on it faster than a hobo on a sammich. Like Misnomer I did not buy the Borderlands DLC. There were (are) bugs that needed fixing before they sell DLC, that to me was an insult. I also didn't think it was worth $10.

If I feel the original title was gimped in the name of making mountains of cash on dlc then most likely I didn't buy it to begin with so the DLC doesn't matter I am playing one of their competitors games. :D

Consider what you spend on entertainment for a moment. I rent a lot of movies through my netflix sub, and haven't bought a movie in years. Being on the 2 movie blu ray plan I usually average two a week. So say 6 a month, for around $24. Six movies @ 2 hrs long each is 12 hrs of entertainment. So you could say that I am paying $2/hr to watch movies, and I think that is a great deal.

Gaming is much more different than watching movies being its an interactive media, so I would consider it much more valuable. I think $5 hour would be a fair price, and when you look at the titles you currently own and the hours you have played them (easy with steam) then you begin to see how much cheaper games you love are than say watching movies.

I really think EA is ahead of the curve on getting this new model going, and we will see more RTS replacing the current model for a FPS. I hope it remains to be a great value per hour I think it is now. Time will tell if PC gaming can become something the suits don't look at as wanting to spend as little as possible because console sales make the numbers look futile, to really nice profits and fierce competition between devs for your money.

[GaSplat]

Annual CoD releases set a higher expectation for new content than a much cheaper DLC - which after all is just an expansion pack delivered digitally (and not all expansion packs have the same amount of added content). Whether its a new version annually, DLC, or expansion packs - it all comes down to recurring income. That steady stream of cash that lets you continually improve and innovate. The problem with the current CoD model is that it still is a long drought before your next cash bonanza (a year being somewhat long - two years from the devs' perspective). The other problem is if you can really do a full game a year and still have enough truly new stuff in there to meet the customer expectation.

Valve tried it with HL2 Episodes but I don't think they really figured out a good cost/price/expectations and innovation mix. TF2 continuously gets new content but I don't know if recurring sales supports it or not. I suspect that is why they went a different route for the L4D/L4D2 releases (I would argue L4D2 is just an expansion pack). The STALKER series is also a set of expansion packs, but at least they are priced as such.