It begins: EA charging for Spore "demo"?
Monday, April 21st, 2008 - 11:29am
So you can download a free version of the creature editor, or you can pay for the full version... of what I feel more or less amounts to a demo. Unless buying the "full version" gives you a discount on the actual game (mail in rebate?) I can't see this is anything other than EA's typical shotgun approach.
Can't wait to see what kind of crap they try with Sims 3.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Yeah, there's no way I'd consider paying for the creature editor at all unless this were the case, and even then I'd feel a little weird about it.
Podunk wrote:
I'm not really catching the part that's bad.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
I'm going with the big guy here. If you want the full version, wait for retail, it will be there too. If you have to start making creatures early, you don't get all the bells and whistles. If you absolutely want the full version of the creature maker, you pay something for it. There's an option there for everyone.
Xbox Live | Steam | Last.fm
Because everything EA does is inherently evil and they hate gamers. Didn't you get the memo?
Unfettered Blather - Daily updated nonsense
X-Box Live Gamertag - CrazedJava
Less chatter more splatter!
That.
But the bad part is that for games like The Sims and The Movies and other things starting with The, this kind of thing (and more) was released absolutely free. So here we are again, with EA charging for things that used to be free. I don't have any problem with it if the net cost is zero, if this is essentially the equivalent of a pre-order, but paying extra to receive a demo early?
Yeah, I know, if I don't want it I shouldn't buy it, but we all know that if this becomes a trend it'll be yet another aspect of gaming that's grown a new price tag.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
I think it kinda sucks. I mean, they're charging for a demo. It's all well and good to say "then don't buy it," and I certainly won't. But it's still aggravating that they are trying. I mean, it's like McDonalds deciding to start charging for the smiles, you know? It's unreasonable, and even though I'll never be sucked into their net, it annoys me that they're casting it at all.
I understand that calling this a "demo" is a slight misnomer, but the creature editor by itself is totally without use, though it may be fun to fiddle. That, to me, seems to be about a demo's worth of value.
"PEACE ON EARTH. GOOD WILL TO MEN. PUBLIC SHELTER. ADMISSION 50¢"
Right, but you can get a 25% feature rich demo for free. It only costs money if you want all of the features. How many "demos" have every feature enabled in them? It's usually a single level, restricted weapons, limited characters, etc...
Xbox Live | Steam | Last.fm
Ok, here's the problem.
We seem to be stuck on the idea of a "demo" but the creature editor never sounded like a demo to begin with but a stand-alone application that you could also use for the final game.
As such, it doesn't seem like a big deal to me because if you just want to see what the creature editing features are going to be like, then the free version will likely be sufficient. Otherwise, if you're just so a twitter over Spore that you can't wait to start making creatures even though the game is not out yet, then you can go ahead and pony up the dough for the full version. That or maybe you just like making creatures so much you want the full version.
These programs, though often given for free, are not free to develop. They take away time and resources from the final product. In a way it's not unlike investing in advertising, except the end result is something you get to play with. On the other hand, when I think "demo" I think of something that shows me actual gameplay and tries to convince me that it's worthwhile to purchase the final product. Is that the intent of the creature editor? Doesn't sound like it.
This really doesn't sound so bad. It's not a demo version of Spore, they're not charging you for a "Try before you buy" or anything like that. They are maybe trying to recoup some of their costs, and considering how long Spore has been in development I can kind of understand it.
I understand being leery of EA with past history and all that, but I think there is a general assumption of malfeasance around anything they do. I can think of some other companies that might pull this and we'd be thanking them because of the brand.
Unfettered Blather - Daily updated nonsense
X-Box Live Gamertag - CrazedJava
Less chatter more splatter!
I'm not seeing the issue here. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've been under the impression that the Spore editor was a huge part of the game. It's one of the main features that Will Wright has been showing in all of his tech demos, and one of the major selling points. The entire point of the game is the creature creation, whether through gameplay, or through the creator.
This isn't a demo. Demo's are supposed to showcase as much of the game as possible. This is one, very small(but very important in the view of a lot of people) part of the game. GT5: Prologue is a demo. And Sony charged for that, remember?
Plus, and this is something that people constantly forget, you don't have to buy it.
WoW-Dark Iron: Cuberen(80 Druid), Spacecube(70 Shaman), Deathcube(60 Deathknight)
This makes perfect sense to me. This isn't a case of charging for a demo. The trial version of the creature editor is a perfectly fine demo, the premium version is being treated as a standalone product. You'll be able to share creatures, upload or download them to and from Sporepedia, and that's 90% of the social game part of Spore. The creature editor is arguably the most interesting part of the game, and releasing the full thing for free could significantly cut into sales.
Don't be surprised to see the creature editor released standalone on other platforms or devices, either.
I think there'd be a lot more room to be annoyed if there was no free option, or if there was something you had to pay additional for in the full version, but without those two conditions met I'd say EA is exploring some smart ways to add revenue. Frankly, I'm fine with the pay-to-play beta, or pay-to-play feature rich demo (again, assuming there's a non-pay option). As long as they don't interfere with the feature list of the final produce (i.e: not paying now would hamper a full version creature builder) then I think this is a good way to fund a project.
"I think Elysium has the right of it" - Certis
Thanks for reminding me, I totally forgot.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
I am a little concerned. If this is 25% of the creature editor, does that mean that we can only create microbes of the earliest stage? Or does it mean, as the pictures imply, that this will be the actual editing of your creature?
And what does this mean about the vehicle and building designer?
The "feature" descriptor is misleading. Is the trial version fully featured but with 25% of the body parts that you can apply to your creature?
I'm not that upset if they charge for the full featured creature editor if it includes the vehicle, building and microbe designers. But I come from a professional 3d modeling background and the potential for this technology for film, games and visual fx is significant. I am surprised none of the companies like Pixar had tried to license it. There are many 3d tool development companies out there that could turn this into an invaluable work flow reducing production tool.
Being fangoriously devoured by a gelatinous monster.
What you just described makes it sound like there is even more reason to charge for it.
Unfettered Blather - Daily updated nonsense
X-Box Live Gamertag - CrazedJava
Less chatter more splatter!
Valid point, and one that I had forgotten about. Touche.
Podunk wrote:
I will start believing when I have the case in my hands.
Make mine a Manwich!
My question is if paying for the creature editor will give you more options than the creature editor included in the full game. I think the smartest thing to do was have the full create editor be free with a pre-order. I'm not a big fan of paying extra for a "preview", then paying again to get pieces I already paid for. Orange Box hurt a little, but at least I had someone to gift my old HL2 and Ep2 games, and the package itself was a great value.
I believe demos are exactly like advertising, but I'm not disagreeing with you. I was thinking about this same thing with Oblivion and Morrowind. I briefly played around with the Morrowind editor and didn't even look at the Oblivion one, but it must have taken some work to make these applications accessible to the end user. I doubt that Bethesda put that much polish into an editor for internal use only, but I may be wrong. Either way, I think the editor is a cool idea, but they were just wasting their time for most end users. What would happen if for Elder Scrolls 5 they decided to charge for the editor?
You guys have made some good points and maybe this isn't as evil as I thought it was at first blush... BUT... I still feel very strongly that if you purchase the editor you should be able to get your money back with purchase of the full product. I'm sure there are some people who will buy just the editor and be happy with it but it's kind of a ripoff for everyone else who just wants to wet their beak a little early.
NOTE: This is not a doodle bug.
Spore
Agreed.
Speaking from personal experience, a lot of the mod tools and such were probably conceived by a few of the engineers around a lunch table as a "good idea" to have to assist development of the game more than modders. Since programmers as a whole are quite possibly the laziest bastards in existence, they're willing to devote WAY too much effort on projects that makes life a bit easier. At a certain point, those internal tools are generally polished to the point where it'll take just a *bit* more to make it ready for general release(like branding on the menus, slight workflow tweaks, etc.).
Worldbuilders, especially for games with fairly massive content(like Oblivion and Morrowind) are great examples of this, because of the massive amount of art that's needed. A drag-and-drop interface for world manipulation can save a LOT of development time and money even without selling it.
WoW-Dark Iron: Cuberen(80 Druid), Spacecube(70 Shaman), Deathcube(60 Deathknight)
As a programmer myself I am seeing from the other direction. I have several half baked interfaces and tools that the internal team uses that require some training to use, but they do the job. If I wanted to let end users use these tools we'd have to go through a much heavier process of testing and maintenance. It would be so much work that the benefits of the tools to end users would be outwieghed by the amount of time it would take to polish, test and maintain them.
It's a little disturbing to me that so many people on this thread don't even blink at a company trying to charge them twice for something.
Unless I misunderstand, EA is getting a concrete benefit out of the early release of the creature editor, too--that being a whole lot of user-created creatures with which to populate the persistent universe part of the game.
Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crud.
Funny, the game publisers tell me the exact opposite, they always are reminding me why it is I have to buy their product.
"Also, I have four legs and am covered in wool. Baa!" *Legion* reveals his inner furry.
And what aspect would that be? The virtually non-existent "releasing full standalone chunks of an upcoming game" aspect?
For some people - particularly those more interested in machinima than Spore gameplay - the Creator Creator will be a standalone product. It's not really analogous to a beta or demo.
In fact, I think the idea here is to get this in the hands of that machinima community - what with the Creator Creator's built-in one-click YouTube uploading and all - and let them raise the profile of Spore with what they create.
It also only exists because someone wants it.
Gaming / PC Tech Blog: www.blastprocessing.net
Xbox Live: Legion SB / PSN: Legion_SB / Steam: legion028 / Twitter: legion
If I'm going to be an ass, I might as well be a hot female sportscaster's ass.
Non-existent, eh?
I would think the first rule of PR is to ignore forum people, because they vacillate between crazy and liar. - Elysium
Did you miss the part where one version costs money? On the internet anything that you pay for is evil.
I dunno, seems to me that the Sins "paper doll" fans will only play that version of the game any way. It gives them a chance to try the full tool set, and maybe get away without buying the whole hog.
I think the smartest thing they could do is hurry the hell up and finish the damn game so I can play it so much that I die of starvation at the computer.
XBL Gamertag: Effin Bear | PSN Name: Effin Bear | Steam ID: MechaSlinky | Wii Console Code: 5185 2886 9649 1657 | Spore: MechaSlinky
I wonder what they will put in the game now, the 25% creature editor or the 100% editor. I can see them putting in that 25% editor in the game, saying that if you want all the cool youtube thingies you will have to pay for the 100% editor.
Sounds like a good plan from a business perspective, not so much from mine.
I don't watch, I interact!
I really don't get this logic. The monster creator has very little there to play with. As far as i can tell from things i've read, it's like the ship creation part of Gal Civ 2. I can't even imagine a retail price point for this.... $5?
Or possibly paying for content that is already on the disc more than once - like certain unlockables etc?
Not to mention that if you buy the game you basically have a portion of the game twice...
I'm not sure that the machinima features are that powerful - from what i've read it sounds like only one creature at a time in the 'testing arena' and you can only make it do a limited number of animations etc.
A blog: by me!
EGGmen - A European gaming blog *Podcast episode 2 now live*
So here's the problem. I lot is being made about being charged twice or being charged for a demo. Also, there is a ton of speculation.
I think the safe assumption is that the 100% Creature Editor will be in the game. I don't see Will Wright exactly going for anything less, he's still got a reputation to ruin, er, maintain.
This doesn't sound like a demo. The 25% editor maybe, but not the 100%.
If you just can't wait or maybe don't even want the full game, then you can pay for the 100% editor. Granted, you may be paying for content twice but if you know it's in the game then that's your call as a consumer. That is good business actually, it's not malevolence or profiteering. I have always said that I am not allergic to anyone's money and if someone wants to pay me twice for the same piece of software then I am not going to stop them.
On the other hand, this is not a "demo". I kind of recall the people who wanted to see some Quake game released for free. Was it Team Arena? I don't remember know, but there was a big on-line petition. Keeping in mind that no matter how you felt about iD then or EA now, the people who work for them like to get paid and would like to have a job tomorrow. They can't give away all of their efforts for free. There is a certain sense of entitlement going on here and it's kind of ugly. Honestly, it sounds like people are pissed that EA is not going to give away something for free that they've spent a lot of time and money on.
That's like me working in a soup kitchen and then getting mad at me because I won't give away my watch. There's got to be a line drawn somewhere in regards to doing something for nothing.
Unfettered Blather - Daily updated nonsense
X-Box Live Gamertag - CrazedJava
Less chatter more splatter!