New Features Aren’t All Free in NCAA Football 12

[mattbooty]

I'm coming in late to the game on this thread, but I've posted in similar threads over the last week.

The one major point that hasn't really been mentioned yet in this thread is that web-enabled content requires ONGOING server/infrastructure costs to keep running. These are costs that increase proportionally to the number of people who use the feature. It doesn't cost EA any additional money if 1,000 or 1,000,000 people buy NCAA 12... but it is a significant difference if 1% or 50% of those use the web-enabled features and those costs are ongoing, it is not a one time deal.

These are not features they had to add to the game to be competitive (as there is no competition) or sell more copies (as mostly only hardcore fans want this feature and 99% of them are buying the game anyways). They did it because the hardcore fan was clamoring for it (which was noted in the article in OP). The only way they were going to add these features was to find a way to offset the server costs they would need to add to support them (with development costs on top of that but infrastructure costs alone justify this).

I do not believe we are looking at a question of do they offer these web-features as paid DLC or free, I think it is more do they offer them as paid DLC or not at all. A VERY small % of consumers (if any) will buy the game strictly because of these particular features, so considering the additional costs to support them these features are a money pit. Without recouping some money on them, what possible motivation could EA have to add them in?

Yes, EA has to improve the product each year to keep consumers interested, and (taking the "business" part out of it) just as payback to their loyal fanbase. And they have done that with dozens of new features this year that you get right out of the box for your $60. The key is that the costs to develop those features end the day the game goes gold (with the exception of possible future patches, but that is just part of every game's life-cycle these days). HDR isn't going to keep costing them money after the game is gold so there is no added costs for it.

I can understand the argument about alternate uniforms and similar items (although I personally don't use them so have no real care one way or another on those), but the web-enabled features I have no problem with the added charge, and I don't believe we get those features without the charge so if I have to choose between $7 or not having the feature at all I'll pay.

[kbmnm247]

Quote: Originally Posted by MrJ2006

That's fine, you still get to test it yourself before you spend your money, where all other DLC you have to buy it, and if you don't like it, oh well. No refunds.

What exactly am I supposed to be thankful for testing here? To see if the advance from a remote location actually works? I know what the feature is, does, and will do. It's simply a marketing tactic, the fact you think it's to test is a joke.

[4solo]

Quote: Originally Posted by kbmnm247

You don't find it ridiculous for the consumer who is buying these games every year for $60 to have to pay extra for a feature that the dev team took time and money out of normal game development to create? You're telling me that none of the profits or revenue from the $60 anyone pays for the game goes to pay for this online dynasty feature? It's all covered by the DLC that people will pay? That's another part of the issue, it's not entitlement, it's wanting the best game for $60 that you can get. Rather than spend that extra time refining and testing their game and improving gameplay we'll get the same shlop on day one that we always get and something will be broken for months after we, the $60 consumer, pay for it and test it. I can't believe that people are okay with this. This is TOTALLY different than map packs and episodes or chapter add ons. We are basically already paying $60 each year for the NCAA/Madden "map pack".

Once you pay $60 you get your disc. That $60 now belongs to the company to spend how ever they see fit. When you pay $60 you are not paying for future copies of the game you are paying for the current version. So if you don't like that current version then don't buy it. See the problem is that people feel that b/c the buy the game every year they are "investing in EA". But your are not. Your $60 does not make you a share holder. You chose to trade money for the product they currently provide. B/c you spend $60 that doesn't entitle you to determine how they make future products. Again if you don't like what they are doing in the future then as a consumer you respond by not giving them your money.

[NDAlum]

Quote: Originally Posted by mattbooty

I'm coming in late to the game on this thread, but I've posted in similar threads over the last week. The one major point that hasn't really been mentioned yet in this thread is that web-enabled content requires ONGOING server/infrastructure costs to keep running. These are costs that increase proportionally to the number of people who use the feature. It doesn't cost EA any additional money if 1,000 or 1,000,000 people buy NCAA 12... but it is a significant difference if 1% or 50% of those use the web-enabled features and those costs are ongoing, it is not a one time deal. These are not features they had to add to the game to be competitive (as there is no competition) or sell more copies (as mostly only hardcore fans want this feature and 99% of them are buying the game anyways). They did it because the hardcore fan was clamoring for it (which was noted in the article in OP). The only way they were going to add these features was to find a way to offset the server costs they would need to add to support them (with development costs on top of that but infrastructure costs alone justify this). I do not believe we are looking at a question of do they offer these web-features as paid DLC or free, I think it is more do they offer them as paid DLC or not at all. A VERY small % of consumers (if any) will buy the game strictly because of these particular features, so considering the additional costs to support them these features are a money pit. Without recouping some money on them, what possible motivation could EA have to add them in? Yes, EA has to improve the product each year to keep consumers interested, and (taking the "business" part out of it) just as payback to their loyal fanbase. And they have done that with dozens of new features this year that you get right out of the box for your $60. The key is that the costs to develop those features end the day the game goes gold (with the exception of possible future patches, but that is just part of every game's life-cycle these days). HDR isn't going to keep costing them money after the game is gold so there is no added costs for it. I can understand the argument about alternate uniforms and similar items (although I personally don't use them so have no real care one way or another on those), but the web-enabled features I have no problem with the added charge, and I don't believe we get those features without the charge so if I have to choose between $7 or not having the feature at all I'll pay.

Well stated sir

[kbmnm247]

Quote: Originally Posted by ODogg

According to...well everyone if you read magazines and websites, LOL. The cost of game development is to the point where DLC is going to be what (possibly, if it works) prevents the prices of games going up to $64.99 or $69.99. As has been stated, the price of games has generally stayed about the same for the last 30 years or so (around the $50 mark) whereas the game industry has changed from being a couple hundred thousand dollars and 3 programmers working in a converted garage making a game to a virtual city of hundreds working on a game with a budget in the millions.

The price went up to $60 per game from $50 IIRC during this jump to next-gen (360 & PS3). Gameplay quality went down compared to older games, specifically the ones you were talking about on NES, SNES. And you think the budgets went up for no reason? They went up because the gaming industry blew up, what was once for just children or geeks is now marketed and purchased by children, young adults and mature adults as well. If you think the revenue for these games hasn't increased at the same or a better rate than what they are spending on these games then you are insane. That is a LAME excuse. Basically you are saying games should be or will be $64.99 + (without DLC) because magazines and websites say it. They say it because that's what the gaming companies want to perpetuate through the media.

Quote:

Hopefully the DLC works, but if the DLC doesn't work then you can expect game prices to go up, probably to $69.99 starting with the next generation of games. So for all you folks out there who find this sort of thing repugnant and hope it fails, well be prepared if it does that everyone will simply be paying more and the choice of whether you think $2.99 for web services for a college football game is worth it or not won't be a choice at all anymore, you will pay more even if you don't use all the extra features such as this.

If you don't think next-gen games will be $70 no matter what happens with DLC then I have some land to sell you on Mars.

[quote]

[coogrfan]

Quote: Originally Posted by 4solo

But to be fair all of EA's DLC with the exception of the $15 for commishs to host multi OD, have be very reasonable compared to the rest of the industry.

Note that the cost for this will drop for NCAA 12 to $6.99 (up to 5 OD's, includes both the advance OD and sim online entitlements).

[mattbooty]

Quote: Originally Posted by kbmnm247

You don't find it ridiculous for the consumer who is buying these games every year for $60 to have to pay extra for a feature that the dev team took time and money out of normal game development to create?

The web features are a different skillset, its more likely they brought in a separate team to develop those. I find it very unlikely that they (for instance) went to the guy improving cornerback logic and yanked him off of that to develop the web-enabled features. It is very unlikely that the development of these features affected what other features everyone gets in any way. With or without these features you are getting the same game for your $60.

[kbmnm247]

Quote: Originally Posted by Senator Stone

Really? The ability to super sim from the internet should have been put in a long time ago? Give me a freakin' break. Once you pay your $60, you can still do an online dynasty for exactly $0. You can still sim those games for exactly $0. And you can still advance weeks for exactly $0. Charging extra for the ability to do some of this stuff from your PC is more than fine in my book. To me, it's like buying a PC game and expecting to be able to access certain extras on your PS3 or 360 for free.

What if I want to do 2 dynasties because, you know, some of us have 2 or more groups of friends who contribute to the millions in revenue they receive every year for these games?