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.

Comments

[montoya.livejournal.com]

Making low-tech games may or may not be a smart financial move for publishers, but I'd be sad if they did it. I mean, Mass Effect is a great game, and part of what makes it great is the cinematic immersiveness of it. That goes even moreso for something like Oblivion.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Dude, I got completely immersed in Donkey Kong. If a game is hypnotic, it immerses; if it doesn't, all the lens flash in the world won't make it fun.

[avram]

I'm guessing "activated" means something like installed, rather than something like launched.

[womzilla.livejournal.com]

Yes. Shamus has made a point that any requirement for online activation is unacceptable to him--he had a recent post pointing out (approximately) that of the six games in his collection from 1998, he has played five of them within the last two years, and of those the publishers no longer exist for two or three of them. Online activation would have kept him from replaying those. EA's new twist would have prevented him from playing those games even though EA is still in business.

Rule Zero of software ownership is, if you have to ask permission to run it, you don't actually own it.