We have heard past comments out of Electronic Arts about how successful Battlefield 1943 was, and how the company would like to do more games in that vein. Wedbush Morgan's Michael Pachter has some clarification on how exactly this will be done going forward.
EA senior VP Nick Earl "revealed a strategy to release premium downloadable content (PDLC) as a product for sale prior to the release of a packaged product," explains Pachter. This PDLC would range in price from $10 - $15 for release on Xbox LIVE and PlayStation Network and "would essentially be a very long game demo, along the lines of 2009’s Battlefield 1943."
"A full-blown packaged game would follow shortly after the release of the PDLC, bearing a full retail price," continued Pachter. "The idea is that if the PDLC gets favorable reviews, it will build word of mouth for the boxed product. If the PDLC has issues, they can tweak the packaged product to address those issues, improving the final product before release."
If this sounds more than a little weird, I'm right there with you. My main concern with this strategy is that once you get the early digital version of a game, what's the incentive to go out and buy the full thing? Especially since the $10 to $15 you spent likely won't go toward the purchase of the retail product.
EA to release paid DLC before boxed games [GamesIndustry.biz]
Jordan Devore is Destructoid's PC gaming manager and founding ginger editor. He is said to be easy to love but difficult to know. When Samit inquired about his curious bio photo Jordan simply replied:
"bitches love sandcastles" ... yet, there is no sandcastle in that photo. We may never truly understand his ways.
Likes
Platformers, Pixel-based graphics, Stickerbrush Symphony, Pokemon, Leaderboards
Meet the rest of the team
| BBcode help |
| [b]Bold text[/b] |
Bold text |
| [i]Italic text[/i] |
Italic text |
| [url]http://www.dtoid.com/[/url] |
http://www.dtoid.com |
| [url=http://www.dtoid.com/]Web link[/url] |
Web link |
|
| [img]http://www.example.com/robot.jpg[/img] |
 |
Post a comment! You can also post a photo below:
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
47 comments | showing # 1 to 47
|
Comment with Facebook
Click connect and comment instantly!
|
Comment with Dtoid
New? SIGN UP - it takes 5 seconds
|
Comments policy
Destructoid is an open discussion community. You don't need to "audition" to post a comment - just speak your mind. We respect differing opinions on the site, so have at it. Be smart, funny, insightful, clueless, or cute -- but back it up with substance. Keep your cool, keep it fun. We only ask that you act respectfully and above all: don't be a troll and ruin it for everyone else. Don't bring down gamers or we'll, you know, gently shoot you in the face and stuff you into a flaming mailbox. Each comment is your opportuntity to make this community awesomer. Is that even a word?
Avoiding the banhammer only requires common sense: spamming, trolling, racism, NSFW stuff, and other forms of sucking will not be tolerated. If anyone is griefing please report abuse. Be good. Don't suck!
Contest:
2:30 PM on 03.22.2010
| 
Fuck off.
What was 1943 a demo for? Bad company 2? Really? I'm not seeing it myself.
Digging that hole again I see.
I hope no one supports it, but given EA sells cheat codes and they must sell since EA keep doing it, I guess this might work.
Bah!
I could see this potentially distracting the focus from polishing the full game in favour of creating the demo-version to build hype. Isn't there already enough of a hype-machine surrounding some of these games?
Personally, I generally don't play demos since they don't give a real sense of the game most of the time. I'm certainly not going to start playing demos if there's a price-tag attached.
Then again, BF1943 wasn't really a "full game" and I still feel like I got more than my monies worth....
So it'd be like an online beta you pay for? And if it was more of a demo/beta, than there wouldn't be final reviews because it's not a complete product.
Whatever. I'm not paying $10-15 for an incomplete game.
I would love to play Uncharted 2's multiplayer (especially the co-op), but I have little to no interest in the single player portion of the game.
Personally, I've grown tired of lackluster DLC. I'm going to be a lot more picky about my DLC purchases in the future.
That said, it would appear that he PDLC would not go towards the game...so EA is essentially just being idiots. Yay, EA! Are there are non-money grubbing game developers out there anymore?
I would love that.
Not to mention getting it before the main release.
Although i can imagine them holding more than the sp part back for the full release.
Oh to live in an ideal world!
Mark my words, a year from now you will be eating this shit up. EA is many things, but it ain't dumb. Look past the EA logo and think of the practical applications of this.
Or, putting it another way: are you seriously trying to tell me that a Starcraft fan wouldn't pay ten bucks to be in the Starcraft II beta right now?
(YES I KNOW IT'S NOT EA I WAS MAKING A LARGER POINT SHUT UP)
Uhh... no. It could be a year from now, or it could be ten years from now. I'll continue paying for full games and only full games.
I hope they just did a poor job communicating this to us, because that's how I'm understanding it.
In reality, I suppose the crux will be how they manage the distribution of the content. If the standalone DLC component really is self-contained (to a degree at least) and is a worthwhile purchase independently, such as with BF:1943, then this could be a good thing if it managed correctly.
If you are required to purchase both the downloadable content and the boxed game to gain the "full game experience" (there goes that marketing blurb again), then forums will be ablaze with hypocritical gamers who buy it anyway, then complain about it.