Expect the future of a lot of games coming out of EA to be following this direction. EA new buzz words include 'digital distribution', 'expanding core IPs', and 'leveraging social media networks.'
It will probably equate to heavy Facebook saturation for coming games and continual updates to those games.
Personally I accept and agree with this strategy for a number of reasons. First, as a consumer, I get more value for the product. Usually these games are going to be free to play, monetized by exclusive content. So I get to try a game that I may or may not enjoy and not bet $60 on it.
The power of F2P gaming is huge. It means more people are playing your game because the risk/reward is in the consumers favour. It also means that the philosophy of a game being 'finished' when its released is no more. Because its distributed digitally, constant updates can be added to the game. Essentially, the game just begins when its released to the market. This means the longer people are playing, the more fun they're going to have.
And my personal favourite reason for the F2P games being the next standard model of development is that it makes developing new IPs a successful venture. People dont want to pay $60 for a game they never heard of- but they are willing to drop $60 on a game with an established IP (look at the selling difference between Assassins Creed and Assassins Creed 2, its staggering). However, if you make a new IP completely free to the user, then you have more people trying the game. If a lot of people are playing the game, then the IP is established, making it a success.
Free to play games are the future. Scratch that, Free to play games is now. Look at the success of Battlefield Heroes. It would have NEVER been successful if you needed to pay $60 for it. But make it free, and you have 2 million+ registered users within a year. Thats success if I ever saw it- and it has proven the business model for EA. Expect a lot more free games, because its working well for developers.
@TheOmnitron: In a way I hope you're right, it will open the gaming market to a much larger audience, but is it worth games potentially becoming shittier and shittier as they become simpler and simpler to rush them out to market F2P, then updating them over time?
@FlightBird: Not necessarily. If publishers like EA are getting into this, then theres a good chance theyre still going to make AAA games. At first they may be feature light and not all that good, but thats what closed betas are for. The longer the games are out there, the better the games will become- the benefit of having your game as a service!
I now will not consider any C&C from C&C4 and up to be considered official story. I'm not going to let them rape the shit out of my favorite franchise!
@jebsalump: You'd think that, but unlike MW2 boycotters I have a back bone. I already plan not to buy C&C4 because, well, quite frankly it has TERRIBLE gameplay
Why did gaming have to get popular?
Now I'll have to get a bloody facebook account to play games too in some of these games-designers minds?
Seriously, if they think the new platform for gaming is going to be the single most annoying website in the world, they're sorely wrong. I do not want to play a game to relax while all kinds of friends I don't talk to anymore "hit me up" or whatever.
I'll be looking around for the nearest 15+ story building with an accessible roof, in preparation for the inevitable day when EA turns Mass Effect 3 into a casual social Facebook game.
Facebook is already loaded with MMO games. This isn't really that bad of a thing. And for people screaming about EA, well SE is working on Facebook games too.
So...what is being said is effectively that EA is planning to ruin a classic franchise in one way or another. What's new about that? They do this kind of shit all the time. I fully expect EA to ruin everything at some point in time. They are the Ruiner of Things.
If they go through with this, they'd better have better netcode than in RA3. The online performance of that game was possibly the worst I'd ever seen in any game. It would constantly drop players, got incredibly confused by NAT, and just generally failed whenever you tried to take it online.
translation: "we've tried delivering story driven single player campaigns but have been so unsuccessful at constructing a well balanced single player experience that we'd like to rely on gamers supplying their own challenges in the future, namely each other."
11/28/09
It will probably equate to heavy Facebook saturation for coming games and continual updates to those games.
Personally I accept and agree with this strategy for a number of reasons. First, as a consumer, I get more value for the product. Usually these games are going to be free to play, monetized by exclusive content. So I get to try a game that I may or may not enjoy and not bet $60 on it.
The power of F2P gaming is huge. It means more people are playing your game because the risk/reward is in the consumers favour. It also means that the philosophy of a game being 'finished' when its released is no more. Because its distributed digitally, constant updates can be added to the game. Essentially, the game just begins when its released to the market. This means the longer people are playing, the more fun they're going to have.
And my personal favourite reason for the F2P games being the next standard model of development is that it makes developing new IPs a successful venture. People dont want to pay $60 for a game they never heard of- but they are willing to drop $60 on a game with an established IP (look at the selling difference between Assassins Creed and Assassins Creed 2, its staggering). However, if you make a new IP completely free to the user, then you have more people trying the game. If a lot of people are playing the game, then the IP is established, making it a success.
Free to play games are the future. Scratch that, Free to play games is now. Look at the success of Battlefield Heroes. It would have NEVER been successful if you needed to pay $60 for it. But make it free, and you have 2 million+ registered users within a year. Thats success if I ever saw it- and it has proven the business model for EA. Expect a lot more free games, because its working well for developers.
#speakout
11/30/09
#speakout
11/30/09
11/28/09
I now will not consider any C&C from C&C4 and up to be considered official story. I'm not going to let them rape the shit out of my favorite franchise!
11/28/09
11/29/09
11/28/09
Fact 2: New World Computing's games in the late 80s and early 90s did, in fact, rock my socks.
Fact 3: He's earned some good credit in my book to put to use.
(Caveat 1: I am not a C&C fan and thus am probably not as invested in this idea as most.)
11/28/09
11/28/09
Why did gaming have to get popular?
Now I'll have to get a bloody facebook account to play games too in some of these games-designers minds?
Seriously, if they think the new platform for gaming is going to be the single most annoying website in the world, they're sorely wrong. I do not want to play a game to relax while all kinds of friends I don't talk to anymore "hit me up" or whatever.
11/28/09
I don't have AIM, a cell phone, myspace, or facebook. I think that's all pretty un-American. Uh oh. Oh well.
I didn't like the technology leash. Or rather that many. I still like my Kotaku leash.
11/28/09
Half of the games are just menus where you click shapes and colors. Or 'Attack Boss' buttons.
I know a guy that refuses to hold the B button to run on Super Mario Bros. that plays them all the time. I don't want to be associated with that.
11/28/09
11/28/09
While maintaining my spaceship I found an assault rifle to share with my friends in Mass Effect 3! Claim it now while it lasts!
34 minutes ago via Mass Effect 3
Comment - Like
11/28/09
11/28/09
@Gravidos: NeoStarr likes this.
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/27/09
11/28/09
11/28/09
11/27/09
You have no friends in Common
Would you like to confirm Kane as your friend?
11/27/09
11/27/09
11/27/09
Can it even beat the juggernaut that is Mafia Wars?