It's a real shame. For a while, I really thought that EA finally got it. That they finally realised how to properly combat piracy (non-invasive DRM) and second hand sales (offer incentives for new buyers). Unfortunately, their approach to the new Tiger Woods game shows that I was wrong and that EA are still very much experimenting. Unfortunately, their efforts are going in a very bad direction.
In brief, in order to encourage new sales, you will only be able to play Tiger Woods PGA Tour 11 online if you have an Online Pass. New copies of the game will include a one time code for the Online Pass and if you buy used, then you will need to buy the Online Pass separately if you want to play online. Which is bollocks.
I don't mind EA including extra DLC for those who purchased new. The key distinction is that the extra DLC should be just that - extra. For example, new buyers of ME2 would get the Cerberus Network which would get you some free downloadable content. Naturally, people will argue that all this means is that content was kept out of the game for inclusion as day one DLC. I can't comment on whether this is the case. All I can do is look at the game without the DLC and decide if that game is worth it.
However, what EA have done with the new Tiger Woods game is to remove a core element of the game and make it available only to people who buy the game new or pay extra for the privilege. Granted, opinions will differ on this but it seems to me that multiplayer in a sports game is not a value added extra. In the modern era of console gaming, multiplayer is not the exception - it is the norm.
Also, factor in the fact that people are already paying money to Microsoft for an Xbox live gold subscription in order to play online in the first place. The net result of this is that it feels like a double dip from EA.
Hopefully, this is just a one-off experiment from EA and doesn't expand to other games. Unfortunately, the cynic in me knows that EA won't see any backlash in sales as a result of this decision as most of the buying public just don't care enough about these issues.
I also can't help but wonder if this is a more general move in the market. I know that publishers have long looked at how they can monetize the multiplayer crowd (particularly those who buy a game and then play for 200+ hours online) and the idea of charging for singleplayer and multiplayer separately has been raised before. I just hope this doesn't happen.
Speaking for myself, I enjoy multiplayer games as well but do find that most of my time is spent on singleplayer. If the multiplayer portion of a game is charged separately, what will likely happen is that I cut multiplayer out altogether and stick to singleplayer. Which would be a shame.
3 comments:
Aww to bad you have to pay for extra on that new game lol what a baby
Actually, no. If you had taken the time to read my post, you would have realised that I won't be paying extra.
But then, asking for reading comprehension skills from someone who clearly has trouble articulating themselves is probably asking for too much.
His lack of comprehension is actually your fault you know... serves you right for using such long and complicated words as "lose" and "plot"....
:p
Post a Comment