EA isn't the only one at fault here, though. Infogrames (now Atari--also affiliated with Hasbro) has killed its share of great developers in its time. Microprose anyone?
The problem with the gaming industry isn't EA in particular, it's big publishers in general. In all the comments on this entire article, everyone keeps lamenting the death of [insert developers] at the hands of [insert publisher], yet no one seems to entirely grok the fact the real problem is the publishers.
Think about it. What do publishers do? Fund, advertise, and distribute. The internet makes their hand in distribution mostly a moot point nowadays, since if a developer had a truly great game, they could sell it online. The publisher only advertises in an effort to make money themselves, not to help out the developers, and contracts don't even usually include a promise for any amount of advertising. So the key point comes to funding. Basically, publishers are--in a nutshell--venture capitalists. They give the developer money up-front to fund the development (pay the creators and whatnot) and in return garner the vast majority of the profits.
The problem lies in how much control these speculative investors demand in their contracts. The publisher ends up with the right to control nearly everything in return for the starting capital and an expectation (sometimes not even followed through) to advertise and garner sales. The publisher can back out at any time and leave the developer in a lurch just because some MBA in a suit didn't think the game being developed had enough "mass appeal," and sometimes even come away with the rights to the name of the game being developed despite never following through. Since they provide all the money, most of the time a game is released too soon with lots of bugs, it's because of the publisher, not the developer. No developer dares piss the publisher off by taking too long and finding their baby scrapped when almost complete.
A developer with the ability to fund themselves from the start could make far more long-term profit even with a moderate number of online sales at a budget price than developers of hit top-retailing games ever see. Most of the time, royalties barely amount to double digit percentages (even for a proven developer), and the funding provided during development is an advance on those royalties, so the developer doesn't see a penny after the game launches until the half million units move...if that ever happens. Meanwhile, the publisher breaks even at 50k units and rakes in the dough past that. A publisher with the smallest amount of advertising moxie can guarantee that amount of sales of even a buggy bomb of a title, as anyone who's ever microwaved a game CD can attest.
Granted, nothing is likely to change anytime soon, since developers don't have a couple mill sitting around to develop a game on their own. But if you ever see a game selling online for a nice price directly from a developer, keep in mind almost your entire dollar is going straight to them, instead of $15 to the retailer, $10 to a box and manual you might flip through once, $15 to a publisher like EA...and $5 also to the publisher to pay off the developer's advance.
An M rating doesn't mean he won't let his kids play it, it means he needs to evaluate it first, then make a decision.
Unfortunately when it comes to any type of digital media, it's almost impossible to "evaluate" without knowing someone who already owns it, since if you make a purchase and it doesn't make the cut, most stores won't allow you to return it, calling you a software pirate if you try.
You have a nice point about up-front vs. "hidden" fees, but my point was really focused more on whether this is really an expense at all. If it will cost more for these devices than it saves in reduced fraud, why are we even considering their use? If they're saving money, then charging for them is doubly rediculous since zero liability policies mean the party saving the money isn't even the party expected to spend money to help save it. It's analogous to an employer making a new employee pay out of their own pockets (or deducting the cost from their first paycheck) for their building access/ID card. The card is there to protect the employer and its assets, not the employee.
Bottom line, if the feature is optional with a fee, I'll sit it out (at the bank's expense if my account is hacked, no less). If it's required to open/maintain an account and incurs a fee to obtain, I'll take my business elsewhere. A smart bank will distribute these for free to members who wish to use them, since they should--if they are a valid technology at all--save the bank more money than they cost.
I'm willing to admit up-front that being the victim of a security breach or some kind of fraud is distressing to the customer, but given the fact most banks (and certainly any bank I would do business with) have zero liability fraud policies nowadays, the only party for whom such a device would be saving money is the bank.
Therefore, why are customers expected to pay $10 for these? Certainly, banks will recoup the costs somehow (through higher fees in general), but isn't the net effect of this type of technology supposed to be a savings? Isn't it the bank's responsibility (and liability) to make sure their customers' accounts are secure (assuming a reasonable amount of due diligence by said customers)? Isn't the savings in reduced fraud and security breaches supposed to outweigh the cost of the security devices? If not, why does the technology exist?
It sounds great and all, but unless offered as a free service, I'll sit this one out.
I find the random insertion by/. of a large Doom 3 ad (consisting of a closeup of a demonic figure) right after the text of this article an amusing irony. Just what DO we expect to find down there?
NASA's site as originally linked says 1.57GT of impact energy. Granted, not incredibly severe. Unless it hits your home town. (~4km diameter crater + 7.8 magnitude quake.)
Slashdot Mirror
The problem with the gaming industry isn't EA in particular, it's big publishers in general. In all the comments on this entire article, everyone keeps lamenting the death of [insert developers] at the hands of [insert publisher], yet no one seems to entirely grok the fact the real problem is the publishers.
Think about it. What do publishers do? Fund, advertise, and distribute. The internet makes their hand in distribution mostly a moot point nowadays, since if a developer had a truly great game, they could sell it online. The publisher only advertises in an effort to make money themselves, not to help out the developers, and contracts don't even usually include a promise for any amount of advertising. So the key point comes to funding. Basically, publishers are--in a nutshell--venture capitalists. They give the developer money up-front to fund the development (pay the creators and whatnot) and in return garner the vast majority of the profits.
The problem lies in how much control these speculative investors demand in their contracts. The publisher ends up with the right to control nearly everything in return for the starting capital and an expectation (sometimes not even followed through) to advertise and garner sales. The publisher can back out at any time and leave the developer in a lurch just because some MBA in a suit didn't think the game being developed had enough "mass appeal," and sometimes even come away with the rights to the name of the game being developed despite never following through. Since they provide all the money, most of the time a game is released too soon with lots of bugs, it's because of the publisher, not the developer. No developer dares piss the publisher off by taking too long and finding their baby scrapped when almost complete.
A developer with the ability to fund themselves from the start could make far more long-term profit even with a moderate number of online sales at a budget price than developers of hit top-retailing games ever see. Most of the time, royalties barely amount to double digit percentages (even for a proven developer), and the funding provided during development is an advance on those royalties, so the developer doesn't see a penny after the game launches until the half million units move...if that ever happens. Meanwhile, the publisher breaks even at 50k units and rakes in the dough past that. A publisher with the smallest amount of advertising moxie can guarantee that amount of sales of even a buggy bomb of a title, as anyone who's ever microwaved a game CD can attest.
Granted, nothing is likely to change anytime soon, since developers don't have a couple mill sitting around to develop a game on their own. But if you ever see a game selling online for a nice price directly from a developer, keep in mind almost your entire dollar is going straight to them, instead of $15 to the retailer, $10 to a box and manual you might flip through once, $15 to a publisher like EA...and $5 also to the publisher to pay off the developer's advance.
Unfortunately when it comes to any type of digital media, it's almost impossible to "evaluate" without knowing someone who already owns it, since if you make a purchase and it doesn't make the cut, most stores won't allow you to return it, calling you a software pirate if you try.
I invented these years ago, but the patent office didn't see the prototype in the envelope and rejected my claim.
Bottom line, if the feature is optional with a fee, I'll sit it out (at the bank's expense if my account is hacked, no less). If it's required to open/maintain an account and incurs a fee to obtain, I'll take my business elsewhere. A smart bank will distribute these for free to members who wish to use them, since they should--if they are a valid technology at all--save the bank more money than they cost.
Therefore, why are customers expected to pay $10 for these? Certainly, banks will recoup the costs somehow (through higher fees in general), but isn't the net effect of this type of technology supposed to be a savings? Isn't it the bank's responsibility (and liability) to make sure their customers' accounts are secure (assuming a reasonable amount of due diligence by said customers)? Isn't the savings in reduced fraud and security breaches supposed to outweigh the cost of the security devices? If not, why does the technology exist?
It sounds great and all, but unless offered as a free service, I'll sit this one out.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/24/technology/24onl ine.html?ex=1261544400&en=7cc80182b7687ad9&ei=5090 &partner=rssuserland
(Link created by the NY Times Link Generator: http://nytimes.blogspace.com/genlink )
I find the random insertion by /. of a large Doom 3 ad (consisting of a closeup of a demonic figure) right after the text of this article an amusing irony. Just what DO we expect to find down there?
NASA's site as originally linked says 1.57GT of impact energy. Granted, not incredibly severe. Unless it hits your home town. (~4km diameter crater + 7.8 magnitude quake.)