Murphy's Law: That'll Be $5 For 45 Uses of Your Paint Brush
Murphy's Law: That'll Be $5 For 45 Uses of Your Paint Brush
Posted 07/15/2010 at 7:50am
| by David Murphy
13
Comments
Print
I'm a pretty avid college football fan, which has absolutely nothing to do with the world of open source or freeware. Or does it? I just made my yearly donation to Electronic Arts in the form of a cash gift, of which they happily accepted and used, in part, to bestow me with a copy of their latest carbon-copy of last year's sports title of choice.
I'm referring, of course, to NCAA Football 2011. But when I fired up the title on my trusty Xbox 360, I nearly threw up. That's not because I was pregaming my ritual Ohio State-M*ch*g*n match-up, nor because I was sick to my stomach at the omission of a Toby Gerhart-like tank of a running back for Stanford's offense. No, I was upset because the first screen I saw upon loading up the title was one that asked for my special online multiplayer code.
My what?
As it turns out, Electronic Arts--in an effort to thwart used game sales--has made it so that you actually have to enter a physical code to unlock portions of the game (many of the multiplayer options) that have previously been part and parcel for any of its sports titles under the sun, if not "video gaming" as a general concept. If you want to access these parts of the game, but find that your code has already been used by another, you have to pony up a small fee to, you know, play what you purchased.
Okay.
It's a pretty ingenious move on EA's part, I'll give them that. And it got me thinking about my at-work hobby: The never-ending stream of software and applications that always need rounding up and reviewing in some capacity. Obviously, the closest we have to microtransactions in this environment is good ol' shareware--I don't often see many programs saying, for example, "for 500 uses the paint bucket tool, please pay $3 to..."
But why not?
You heard me. Why not? Consider this not quite shareware, more like a "freeware-plus" kind of a concept. It works like this: A developer releases a core application to the world, gratis. Super-basic functionality, perhaps with all features time- or use-locked to a set degree. Only, instead of releasing, "full," "lite," or "kind of spicy" versions of the app, the developer restricts each individual feature to an a la carte menu.
Power-users can just up and purchase the whole shebang and call it a day, whereas novice users can tinker with the bits and pieces they understand (or care to use) instead of hunting down a true open-source or freeware solution. These simpler users get the benefit of an (ideally) more stable and updated application that's, perhaps, easier to use; developers don't lose a sale because someone didn't want to pony up $50 for a program they just don't understand on sight.
You can mess with the equation any number of ways. Though, to be honest, I'm a bit loathe to do so. The last thing we want to encourage is for big-name developers to follow EA's footsteps in locking down common elements of a program--like file saving, or printing, or what-have-you--behind a fancy little mini-payment gateway.
There's a right way and a wrong way to integrate the microtransaction model into software and gaming. It's kind of like... the cherry on the top of the sundae. You can't just omit an expected scoop of ice cream or two under the guise of suckling more money out of your user base. Microtransactions are either all or none--a piecemeal effort to give users supreme customizability over their software or fancy add-ons, for fancy people, that aren't critical to the raw performance of said software.
While I still think we're a long way away from microtransactions coming to desktop applications, I strongly believe that the growth of this tactic in social gaming and mobile apps will make us all a bit more accommodable to the concept, at the very least. You might not ever have to pay a $1 fee to paint a digital box purple, or retune part of the chord on some sheet music, but you can bet your BSA that someone, somewhere, is envisioning the next great way to squeeze more money out of your typical software experience after-the-purchase.
And, when that day comes to pass, I hope--for all our sakes--they throw in the multiplayer package for free.
David Murphy (@ Acererak) is a technology journalist and former Maximum PC editor. He writes weekly columns about the wide world of open-source as well as weekly roundups of awesome, freebie software. If you befriend him on World of Warcraft, you'll learn his real name.
More like this
13
Comments
Comments are closed on this article
ifailatliving
July 15, 2010 at 2:18pm
it will be worth it because of all the new features they add to games every year to make them even better and more realistic. i hear the new ones are going to be AMAZING! graphics, sound, career mode, co-op, etc, etc, plus much much more. WOW!
my franchise is going to pwn noobs omg.
Fecal Face
July 15, 2010 at 12:07pm
I think this would actually be interesting to try on games being sold now, except it would be applied to brand new games as well.
For example, Far Cry 2 (not new, but whatever). You could pay $30 for the game brand new (brand new as in on release date), and you would get the singleplayer campaign. For an extra $5, you can buy the multiplayer part of the game. For another extra $5, you could buy the map editor.
Of course you would still have the option to pay full $ for the full game (in this case it would be $40), and you would get everything as you normally would.
This could save people some money, if you didn't want multiplayer, you could save yourself $5. If you didn't want multiplayer or the map editor, you'd save $10.
Not really sure how it would benefit the companies selling the games though. Heheheh
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
|Intel Corei7 920|BFG Tech GTX295|ASUS 9600GT|Corsair XMS3 6GB RAM|Caviar Black 1TB|Lexa Blackline Red|Razer Mamba + Carcharias + Moray + Destructor|Logitech G15 + X-540|
Zune HD = Happiness
SemisolidSnake
July 15, 2010 at 9:01am
Regarding games, I'm not sure how I would feel about this model, since I don't play many recent games. The previous commenters have had some cool ideas, though, such as only paying for multiplayer or singleplayer if that's all you want. I could go for that since I usually just stick with singleplayer.
As for shareware, though, I'd love to have this option. Recently, my boss came to me with an Outlook inbox so bloated and SNAFUed it would freeze his computer whenever he opened it. I backed up his computer and reinstalled Windows because it was about time for that anyways, then set myself to the task of spiltting his multigigabyte PST files into smaller ones organized by contact. Unfortunately, though, the biggest one was corrupt and scanpst.exe failed to fix it, and that's when I found out that there aren't any free or open source PST repair programs. I ran one which did find all his messages, but I would have had to buy the entire software for a couple hundred dollars to actually recover the messages. I'm probably never going to need this program again. I'd love the opportunity to drop them a reasonable one-time-use fee, then uninstall it.
On a more macro scale, this would be great for some of the more expensive software packages. What if you only need Photoshop for a week, not forever? And in the realm of superexpensive software like my engineering simulators, it'd be nice to not have to drop $15k on a year's license for a program I only need for a month.
I don't think this would increase pirating significantly. Many of these programs are already pirated as some very easy searching will show. If anything, it might negate the all-or-nothing dilemma that spurs pirating. I think it's an idea worth serious consideration.
FuriousDre
July 15, 2010 at 8:21am
The moment I got to "But when I fired up the title on my trusty Xbox 360, I nearly threw up." I knew EXACTLY what he was gonna say, the online key :P We had an article about them chargign for MP for sports games on consoles a long while ago :O
DICE semi-did the same thing with VIP keys.
Can't have consumers getting our games for cheaper, now can we? - Console Game Devs
Bucket_Monster
July 15, 2010 at 7:54am
I really don't understand any backlash against this really. PC gamers have been doing this for years now. You DO NOT have to pay for a code unless you buy the game used. If you buy it brand new, it has the code already. What's the problem with that?
At least you have the option of getting a new code. If a PC game's code is already used, you're SOL.You could argue the old PC games had a CD key not tied to an account, but most PC games have long ago switched to being account based. Unless you hand over your game plus the account to another person, it can never be used by anybody else. And often, that's a violation of terms of use, and if it's discovered, the account is banned. And in the case of Steam, you'd have to give someone your entire account and all the games with it.
TheMurph
July 15, 2010 at 8:24am
For me, the point is that -- I purchased a game. I want to be able to play the full game, regardless of where I got it from, without having to buy "special access" to features I should already have just because I didn't chug down to Best Buy and purchase the guy brand-new.
Though I agree with your point -- PC titles really do need to be account-based nowadays since, well, there's no real measure in place to "get another key" for PC titles unless you buy another game / run miles with customer support / etc
aviaggio
July 15, 2010 at 10:37am
I can only see options like this being a good idea if you give the product away for free or a very low fee and then ask people to pay to unlock the features they want. The problem with games is that they aren't doing this. They are specifically trying to devalue an item you paid full price for on the used game market. This ain't right. If I bought it I have the right to sell it in the exact same form and function as I received it. It would be like buying a used car and finding out you had to pay a few thousand dollars to buy a code from the manufacturer that unlocks the windows, trunk, or radio. It's retarded. And it all smells a bit illegal to me. To purposefully cripple an item to prevent its resale is clearly illegal.
The flip side they seem to have conveniently forgotten is that many people only pay full price for a game knowing they can sell it in a month or so after they've finished it. Remove the resell option and I think a lot of people are going to think twice about buying it. So now those who would have bought it used won't, and many of those who would have bought it new won't. And then there are people like me that won't buy it just on principle. So golly, seems like a whole lot of people not buying their game. And when the final sales figures are in and it's clear their new model is an utter failure they'll just blame piracy.
Bucket_Monster
July 15, 2010 at 10:27am
I see where you're coming from. But that's why I shop on places like amazon.com where you can get new games at a substantial discount, assuming you're willing to play the waiting game (new, as in not used, not new release). For instance, I've been wanting to get Legend of Zelda: Spirit Tracks on my DS. Amazon now has it for 55% off for now. If it's a game you have to have right away, yes you'll need to fork over the full price. But really, if you have to have it on day one, you'd be paying that regardless and wouldn't be buying it used anyhow.
Basically, I'm just saying you can buy unopened new games at a large discount if you're willing to look around and not rush down to Best Buy or Gamestop.
aviaggio
July 15, 2010 at 10:39am
Or wait a year or two, which by then chances are you don't care anymore.
igoka
July 15, 2010 at 7:51am
Just think for a second how many times You wanted a game just because of some certain future ? I mean let's say Battelfield Bad Company 2 , what if You would pay for multiplayer and not singleplayer ( which is sucks anyway ) ? Or Call Of Duty MW2 ? Or vice versa. You get the game , free with let's say time limitations and if You like certain future You pay for it . Here is one more example - " Crysis " how many of You were sick to play second part of the game , which is basic arcade ? I was recently was playing " Splinter Cell Conviction " . I was playing and thinking " God damned I payed 45 bucks for it ? really ? " What if I could have an option to buy " Full " or " Levels " . Usually singlplayer has something like 8 to 9 levels . Even if You would pay for every level 5 bucks 9 * 5 = 45 bucks in case You like the game and You buy the whole pack . What if You buy first level and You don't like it ? You spend just 5 bucks instead of 45 .
Zallomallo
July 15, 2010 at 6:27am
Hey they're not making us buy the product, I don't care what they do.
xs0u1x
July 15, 2010 at 5:12am
I think this is a bad Idea on all levels. and will only up the pirating rate. But, history suggests this would be welcome with open arms by sheeple users who's rebuttal to this would be "don't like it, code you're own", that would be the cousin of the already patented arguement "don't like it, don't buy it" then it will resort to where there are no free alternatives, we, the end user's will still be nickle and dimed to death in some other form.
seriously? paying for certain features of a program? so would I still have to do a full install of the program, yet can't user all features installed? because you know, I don't want anything taking up unnecessary space.
sure microtransactions on useless apps like farmville and stuff like that may be cool, who knows I sure don't play them. but full application suites? no thanks. because as much as we dream about an ideal pricing model for it, say paying for just word, excel, and access for a office suite, we all know good and well we'll end up having to pay for the entire suite, and then paying micro transactions to unlock more "features" that were originally included in the original price tag during the "non" micro-transaction era. the office situation was just a rough example. but if this is what normal everyday pc usage is headed toward, it's truely frightening. we already get siphoned for internet services(i'm paying $50 for a 1mb connection every month from comcast with no alternative services in my area....and no I can't just "not buy it", I require a broadband connection for my line of work) which hold virtual monopolies, it really makes me sick to think that someone would even defend a microtransaction model.
festiva_man
July 15, 2010 at 1:43am
Wouldn't be a bad idea. I will always go the shareware route but for people like my parents, grandparents, friends, etc. it would actually save a lot of money.
I would friend you on WOW but am currently enjoying my free to play mmo DDO. :P
Connect with MaximumPC
Featured Content
The gang discusses the GTX 690, Trinity, Ivy Bridge, Amazon, big-box stores, MMOs,...
This month's issue
Feature
Build a PC On Any Budget
Feature
Cloud Services Showdown
How-To
Encrypt Your External Drive
Build It
Upgrade an X58 Rig
Most Commented Articles
Latest Max PC Tweets
- maximumpc: Fraps 3.5.2 fixes lots of bugs, so if your motto, like @PCGamer's, is "always be frapsing," you should pick it up http://t.co/3DW3WUI02 hours 22 min ago
- maximumpc: Google Chrome Becomes World's Most-Used Web Browser, Kinda http://t.co/Xqgscmrp20 hours 16 min ago
- maximumpc: Don't call 'em Kepler: Nvidia's GeForce GT 610, 620 and 630 are rebadged Fermi parts. http://t.co/OjQvoLgk21 hours 56 min ago
