| NiKKoM said: I can see it's worthwile for smaller devs and smaller games.. but for a company like EA? "For us, yeah, the revenue was worthwhile," said Glaiel. "[Subscription models] are not a replacement for selling games traditionally -- Humble Bundle isn't either -- but it's super awesome Sony is doing this, because it absolutely helps in the end," he said. |
I don't know why you'd highlight the "are not a replacement for" part and saying that's not good enough for EA...while praising EA for doing the exact same thing.
But the associated DLC that people buy (I repeat, that goes directly into their pockets) and larger exposure (later in the game's life, I'll add, after the majority of the sales have been done) to create a higher fan base for said game....that's not good enough either?
And I mean, it's not like EA is Square Enix....who sell 5M copies of a game and are still disappointed. Other than Madden, FIFA, Mass Effect, and Battlefield, what franchises does EA have where free exposure (due to being paid by MS or Sony, mind you) ---> larger fan base and more DLC money won't be a good thing? I just looked at the 360 (I think that's a safe platform, since EA sold most of their software on it last gen) and only Battlefield, L4D, and ME got above 3M (with Battlefield 3 skewing things up with 7M sales). You telling me Need for Speed, Dead Space, Crysis, Medal of Honor, Dragon Age, Mirror's Edge, Army of Two, etc. wouldn't benefit from people getting to play it, who overlooked it. Bought DLC, sequels, and whatever other merch....that's not "good enough" for EA? They're not needing 5M sales for these games to be successful, so the free money that Sony or MS could give them to put on PS+/GwG, plus the associated revenue from more people being exposed to these games.....if that's not "good enough", I don't know what is
