I think you and I are closer rather than farther in viewpoint though not perhaps completely in agreement. I feel that calling a full-price model of selling games more exploitative than DLC is not just the pot calling the kettle black, but to me its the black hole calling the kettle black. Many such systems are designed to screw people out of a lot of money (much more than $60) and sometimes are downright predatory on people with addiction problems - just like with gambling, yes you can gamble responsibly and many do, but that doesn't mean the system is designed for your benefit.

That said, I agree that DLC can be worth it and for those games, great, but just like with high-initial priced games, they often aren't. This to me is exactly the same as saying with a few games, the high-initial price can be worth it but again often isn't. Either way they're attempting to exploit consumers, but with DLC and micro-transaction they can exploit for much, much more. The only advantage to the low-initial-price version is that you get to see if the core gameplay is any good without spending much or any money, but demos also deliver the same ability. If EA really wanted to be a good partner with their consumers, they could release good demos on all their $60 games. (EDIT: I recognize this was only one EA exec in charge of a DLC section saying he wanted to be less exploitative with his consumers, but frankly I'll believe it when I see it, and you could easily lower the exploitative nature of a $60 games by offering demos)

Digital distributors still have sales and the like and the good ones often reduce the price of the first game if a sequel comes out. But I agree that this aspect of digital distribution is not nearly as nice as the old retail model and DLC takes full advantage of it.

Since you're a gamer and, judging from your posts, a thoughtful one*, you're probably very responsible about such things. So I agree that this system would work well for you and gaming with your daughter. A lot of parents aren't gamers though and don't understand until they get the bill how much someone, especially a child, on a machine like an XBOX, smartphone, or iPad with the CC info loaded in, can truly spend very, very quickly through micro-transactions. Now you can argue that is the parent's fault and maybe so, but the companies taking advantage of it certainly didn't seem to mind. Now that system probably won't last much longer as companies, due to the stink, improved the situation but again, sometimes I feel such DLC systems can be quite predatory and even worse in that respect than the high-initial price model.

*I know wondering about my approval of your posts was going to keep you up at night. :P

Enjoy gaming with your daughter. :)

I agree, but back in the Golden days (1983) i remember paying $75 for an SSI computer Wargame. You might want to mention that to Blizzard, I guess they think SC2 is worth buying 3 times.

To crazy Dave- EAsy is actually a F2P division of EA not DLC (I know not that big a difference).

Also I'd like to add that the whole micro/DLC thing is somewhat obfuscated by the fact that single player games and multi player games really give you different levels of worth v.s. time spent.

An example I'd like to use (and happens to be directly pertinent to the conversation huzzah!) is Bad Company 2 a game I actually bought twice (once for my brother and for myself), it cost me about 140, but I easily made that back in time spent playing which between us was like 500 hours maybe a bit more (and counting). Compared to Dragon Age Origins (which I enjoyed immensely) which I only put 80 hours into, making the DLC not even worth the consideration.

EAsy's pricing isn't that bad in that light (all the games they run are multi-player F2P, and while you could spend lots of money if you wanted 20 dollars is about all you would ever really have to spend, which is quite a deal).

If they charge $60 for the next two releases, then yes that will be exploitative. If they charge expack prices for them say $20 ($30 is getting expensive), then that will be reasonable depending on the amount and quality of the extra content of course.
True I conflated them - although to be honest most F2P is worse to me, because they often rely on micro-transactions which can be as I mentioned, can be really predatory and hardly "not exploitative".

Some single player games offer huge content and re-playability and you don't have to have DLC and micro-transactions to make multiplayer re-playable. Again, it's the potential for unlimited spending that I really don't like. Of course, some companies may be better or worse than others and EAsy may indeed be one of the better companies. But that doesn't make the model any more or less exploitative, similar to how any individual company with high-initial price games can offer reasonable content for that price, but some companies will be exploitative.

Okay you've done such a good job multiquoting and responding to individual points I'll make an effort to not just lazily snip:)

Sure, I buy that. I think we're just seeing the boogeyman that creeps us out the most in the parts that we find ominous.

I see why you're saying this, let me try this a different way: This guy is saying, okay, everyone keeps pushing buggy and shit games on people and it's for a quick buck, often times and it's wrong. So, let's let them see it, the whole thing, not some airbrushed demo that bears as much resemblance to the full game as a Playboy centerfold. If they like it, we'll build in a system where they can pay us for it.

I think this is brave. He's basically telling the industry to that a lot of what it's producing is shit and he's proposing a model where very little shit would get made, that's why I'm interested in the idea. Also, I liked DDO, I never felt compelled to be a VIP (I was for around 6 months), I never felt compelled to buy points (I did when I got a mega sale a couple times) and if I'd quit at level 10 when I ran out of most of the free content, I would have still had a great time.


They can, but I don't think that's what he's aiming for. There are already Zygna type studios out there, he doesn't need to say anything at all if he just wants to pump out that kind of crap. He's saying something, and to me it's compelling. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.

But this is a huge advantage, and it's purely an advantage to us. Remember how PC buyer's of Bulletstorm thought the lack of demo on PC was due to it being a buggy mess? Even if they'd managed to dress up a good one, you can fake a demo, it's hard to fake most of a game.

This is where we disagree. Demos help, in the absence of anything else, they're what we need, but more gameplay is better, not the same. Hey, we don't have to trash demos or do this for every game, but in games where it works, it's actually a pretty good idea and it forces devs to put their best foot forward, every time. It forces publishers to not cut corners to make quarterly numbers. Really this could be a win for many genres in this industry.


For sure, this a damned good first step, I completely agree. I'm actually glad it was an EA exec saying this. He's taking a shot at his own company as well, that does sound a bit more sincere to me.

I am, but I do hate it when people crucify parents for lack of parenting when they don't "get it". I've handed my kid my EVO before to play Angry Birds. Who hasn't? I know she won't drop it, so it's cool with me. When you have a purchasing system like the iPad had with that Smurfs game recently (where a password in the base OS for a purchase was cached and then allowed in game purchases by kids as well) this is bad design. It's pretty dumb to fault parents for this, it'd be like digging a hole in their front yard and then yelling at them for not watching their kids go out and play after the kids fell in. And yes, the Smurfs thing was pretty bad from what I understand, they were selling a wagon of Smurfberries for 100 bucks (from what I read). So without leaving the game the kid could spend 100 bucks. That's douchebag game design right there.

Incidentally if I thought that's what this EA guy was arguing for I'd be the first in line to give him a kick in the nuts. I don't, however, he's a guy who's got a good job, probably worries about feeding his family if he has one and all the layoffs in the industry and he's still brave enough to say something that probably has a few other EA execs hot under the collar.

Of course it would, I'm a worrywart:)


I will. So far this week, we've played Fable 3 some more, Pokemon Black and White, and a couple others. It's a kick, she might not always want to so I'm enjoying it, as well as all the imagination it seems to spark in her.

I will just throw up my feelings on DLC just so people understand why I approve of some and loathe others.

DLC makes perfect sense in the world we live in today. Back even to 5 years ago a large portion of the games buying public were stuck on dial up so in the most part if you wanted more content then you had to wait for an expansion pack. I remember being on dial up back in 2005 and even large patches were dreaded because they would take forever and most dial up plans had hours rather than data rates so downloading could get very expensive. At the same time games developers would only see the initial sales return on games so with no income continuing to flow they needed new ways to make revenue, this was either an expansion pack that could re-use existing assets or they would simply have to move on to a new project leaving a lot of older games still needing patches that would never come.

These days the vast majority have access to broadband so 200mb patches aren't an issue and most of us use GOG because downloading games of several GB in size isn't an issue. These days a games developer doesn't have to wait a whole year developing a full expansion pack to see future revenue from the same title they can release some of that content direct to the consumer along with patches. Ongoing DLC sales can help fund future developement of game patches in addition to future DLC content. The idea of DLC is sound and it's not really a new one, it was just given the DLC name with the Xbox but it was also known before that as Premium Content Packs and other things. A way to keep the game development alive and make the game self-funding.

Of course along the way publishers happened. I'm not sure which publisher was the first to do it but we all know in a boardroom somewhere some bright spark in a suit came up with the idea "well... DLC could be anything right? Instead of half-expansions that cost considerable money to develop we could... sell other things." And Horse Armor DLC was born.

Now I fully support developers who use DLC to add content to games of sufficient quality. Two good examples I already gave were Mass Effect and Fallout 3. For $6-$10 you get an additional 2-10 hours added to your game complete with new items, new voiced actors, new quests etc which adds value to your base package. What I don't support is any developer who decides to charge for content that by all rights should be included in the base package. Map packs are a good example of this. Back in the day when a sequel was made to a multiplayer game it would include all the maps from the previous game. Timesplitters would be a good example. Now days Activision expect you to pay to have Modern Warfare maps added to Modern Warfare 2.

DLC also serves a great role in restoring content. Making games can often be like making a film. Writers come up with lots of ideas that for budget or time reasons just cant make it into the game. Think of the Juhani romance in KOTOR or the Droid Planet in KOTOR2. Now DLC teams can work on this as additional content to add into the game making it a directors cut if you will. Shale in Dragon Age: Origins was saved from the cutting room floor as was Lair of the Shadowbroker as the original Liara mission was judged to get in the way of the pacing of the main ME2 game. However again some bright spark in a suit said "Well... how do they know what was cut? We can cut this mission out and tell them this is a whole new character/mission and charge them for it" yes I am looking right at Warden's Keep for Origins with our old friend Levi Dryden ready to take your credit card details.

Basically I like DLC when it's done right and by right I mean original or restored content at a reasonable price which genuinely adds value to the base product. I bloody hate the money grabbing DLC that is content cut from the main game or pallet swaps that could be done in mod tools for free.

So, is this how the exec really feels, or is it a marketing move planned by EA in order to convince consumers that microtransactions and DLC are the way to go? As you say, those can easily add up to well over $60.

FWIW, 15-20 years ago we were paying ~$40 for A-list titles. Looking only at inflation and not considering the effects of a digital marketplace, that would put $60 games in the ballpark today. I don't recall EA having any qualms charging $40 back then.

:) And you've raised the bar on multiquoting I see. Looking over the post I think it will be me mostly saying "I agree" with one or two caveats.

Yup, agreed.

Fair enough, another GOGer, inferator, also said he thought the EAsy guy was truly being sincere too and that EAsy seemed to offer reasonable value for price and model. If he can make his price-model work while being consumer-friendly, then I wish him nothing but the best of luck, truly. However, as a trend across the industry, I'm still worried by the specter of predatory, unlimited selling of small game assets.

It's true that demos themselves can be misleading. Also despite the hugeness of the game industry, game review/criticism still seems to be a rather nascent profession. Improving criticism/review would be another huge step towards maturing the video game market. A good company can release nice demos of their products, but you're right that there is still ample room to have consumer-hostile policies with the high-initial price point model. No disagreements there.

That said, once again I'm worried that his fellow EA execs won't share his social mores and will take his advice as a better way to abuse consumers rather than as a way to improve their own products or price structures. Perhaps I'm being unnecessarily alarmist. Again, this comes down to your earlier statement: that different boogeymen do indeed have us worried more in relative sense, but neither of us think either boogeyman isn't a problem.

I actually agree with these sentiments. Unfortunately a good number of parents still know little about how to operate their computers/electronics and, while I am occasionally irritated by this, I agree that they shouldn't be crucified for it. I do wish though that we could find some happy medium because parental controls can already be quite effective if setup properly. In addition to ameliorating problems such as the smurfs games, proper use of parental controls in tech could allow for less censorship of adult content - not pr0n, well not just pr0n :), but everything "adult" - by both companies and governments, which would be nice too. So I'd like to think there must be some way of putting parental controls more front and center or effectively educating people about what is already possible. The potential boon to society would be that more family-friendly and adult content would end up in the right place and hopefully result in better content for both. I also happen to think what tends to get censored in the US by the FCC and media/distribution companies and what is allowed through to be a little ... off. However, I suppose all of that on censorship, parental controls, and the like should probably be a different discussion in a different thread for a different day. I think I've gotten off on a bit of tangent here courtesy of lack of sleep.

Short version: I agree. :)

You're a parent, comes with the territory. :)

That's really great. My parents and I would play computer games together (flight sims w/ my Dad, puzzle & point-n-click adventures w/ my Mom) - a lot of fond memories there.

Actually even worse as some have pointed video/computer games used to be even more expensive like $70-80 - not even accounting for inflation. To be fair in those days the market was probably a lot smaller and certain costs were higher.

Apparently there are a couple here who have played EAsy games (honestly I'd never even heard of them before this article) and feel the guy is actually being sincere about truly offering better value for money with this price structure. What that translates into for the rest of EA, we shall see ...

Very good post! sums up my thoughts about DLC in general as well

Just for the record EAsy runs these games-

Battlefield Heroes - Cartoony 3rd person shooter, set during world 2 (Nationalists vs Royalists) I played this game a little never really liked it too much. From what I've heard the cash shop offered guns that were a couple percents better (damage, critical, bigger clip).

Battle Forge - A RTS cum Magic the Gathering (right down to the booster packs you can buy), Anyone who has played a CCG will know this can get expensive (trying to find THAT one card you need for your deck), but this is mitigated by the ability to trade cards with other players(except of course the gambler style players Crazy_Dave is rightly worried about.

Battlefield Play4Free - no comment till april

Surely it's not identical, don't you aussies have censored blood and whatnot?

agreed on the proper/improper uses of DLC

I think it was in the most recent PC Gamer, but they talk about how strategy games cost somewhere around $80+ right now, and their fan base is willing to pay it, even if some of it is just a very minor upgrade.

In any case, I don't mind some DLC. Most of it is cosmetic or a weapon or a map pack. Very few are story driven with the exception of RPG's. Dead Space 2 has an addon mission but I haven't bought it yet, mainly because I keep forgetting to. My bigger complaint is when the DLC is already loaded and installed but you have no way of accessing it until you pay for it.

Also, considering gaming has become about making money more than pleasing people, the DLC method is here to stay.