Computer games, the economics thereof, and dickery

[womzilla]

I can't remember if I've recommended Shamus Young's writings on computer games here before. Here's his summary of the new Electronic Arts business model:

On the PC, Mass Effect can only be activated three times, after which the game will no longer work. However, the people at EA are not completely heartless to the plight of their customers: They will gladly sell you another copy.

[. . . ]

Punishing earnest customers because you can't afford game development is like beating your dog because you want a raise. You're not solving the problem, you're just being a dick. (Unless of course you're employed as a dog-beater.)

[. . .]

It is nice that we can get this unobstructed view of the EA strategy: To spend a great deal of money very poorly and then punish people for buying its products.

If you missed out on Mass Effect, no need to worry: This scheme is slated to be part of the PC version of Spore as well.

(More about "the rising cost of game development" can be found here. I will say that, as a former computer game developer, I found nothing in this essay that was less than perfect.)

I realize I just summed up using a bulleted list, but let me sum up again, just to make absolutely sure I've driven my point home: You can spend far less to make a game with more value that can offer a better play experience to a larger audience with less pirates.

And now let me sum up my summary, for the benefit of those in marketing: You can spend less money and make more money.