The Game OverThinker Overbytes - A La Carte

Why is this not happening or already implemented? I am thinking logistics. In order for them to make games like you propose, from the conceptual stage they would need to make every aspect of the game compartmentalized, so that it can run with, and without, the other portions. In theory, that shouldn't be hard to implement. But across multiple platforms, unilaterally implemented, it could require significant staff and money to make sure it is done in such a way there is no major bugs or other issues. WHen weighing that cost against potential profits (and projecting how many sales they'll have of the "basic" version vs full game) likely doesn't prove cost effective in the short. And I am sure they'r generally looking at initial 1st year sales when considering all this.

Plus the design is counter intuitive to their shift to multiplayer/online aspects that also become secondary revenue streams. If they release Call of Duty 5 as either single player only or multiplay deluxe edition, will the single player experience alone warrant a buy or will it get reviewed as "5 hours of dull predictably crap" and so no one bothers to get it. At the same time, how many people who aren't as into the multiplay going to buy the basic edition and ignore the more expensive one (and so also never be exposed to the secondary revenue stream of dlc and experience/upgrades/etc)?

it becomes sort of a competition with ones self. Would the basic edition cut into the sales of the deluxe? Would it sell enough to turn greater profit?

Think of it with games that are not as Multiplayer heavy, like say Uncharted 3 or Mass Effect 3 where there is a significant single player campaign. I suspect the biggest reason they invested time and effort into the online MP is the revenue streams (and allowing the game to remain relevant and popular longer). If you had split uncharted 3 when it launched, would everyone just buy the basic edition and skip the multiplayer aspect, since they had never really tried or wanted it? That would mean all the time and money invested in the MP would likely prove wasted, or snubbed by this arrangement.

By having only 1 product, they force everyone to buy that 1 product. departments doing development for the game are all given a fair shake at getting their projects implemented in the game design so there is no corporate butt hurt, and then EA would know if an aspect was a failure because of development and not because players just 'meh, skippin it'. As well having the multiplayer already in game(or social networking software, or whatever) gives you a "try before you buy" aspect where you can opt to check it out and be curious, possibly like it and hit the ground running. if they had it as a side aspect, most likely it would be generally ignored except for hardcore fans that really wanted it. When splitting profits for a full game vs basic edition with addon bought afterwards, i think the numbers just don't make it worth it.

Plus would you not also have to make sure subsequent DLC is compatible with every possible iteration of the game itself? Will it work with base game, multiplayer portion, social networking, local co op, etc etc? That is another cost to add on.

This does rather speak to the ignorance of the non-techies to assume that the 'bells and whistles' of a game CAN be segregated in such a manner as he's suggesting. More likely than not, in order to make sure such a model is stable for play (to say nothing of certification testing), they'd have to provide ALL the content in one download and then restrict access to the modes you didn't pay for. Now you have a situation where hard disk space is being taken up with data you don't want or can't afford. Either way, the same argument of "I paid for this content, I should have access to it!" will get propped up and the fact that you actually DIDN'T pay for it and the only reason it's there is for tech reasons will be completely ignored/glossed over.

you lost weight bob?

4:20 - Because, luckily for us, developers/distributors havn't yet thought of it as a way to further screw us all over. The idea is fine in practice but you can bet that unscrupulous parties (i.e. most of them) would start selling each part at ridiculously over-inflated prices and, in time, remove the 'whole game' package altogether. It's just the idea behind DLC being twisted even further away from it's original intention into money-gouging, and whatever benign intentions the idea has, it can and, more importantly, *would* be perverted in this way. We all know it would. As a side note, is it me or is Bob talking much slower in this episode? Perhaps after hearing him at an accelerated pace in so many other videos has made his ordinary speech sound slow?

I think this is a good idea, but what if the functions of the those "al a carte" parts are necessary to run said "main game"? To remove this may take extra time and money and cause numerous delays. I'm not saying that it's not impossible. I'm just saying that you need to think about what I call "The Other Side Of The Counter." Without taking the pieces apart to be independent of one another, you'd have to download the whole entire game but be blocked off from certain portions of it ... Like On-Disc DLC. And I know that can even happen with downloaded titles because it happened with Mega Man 10.

I honestly would buy just the MP for COD if I could download it for $15-20. I think it would be an amazing idea.

Sorry Bob, but we're living in the age of the greedy CEO and his name is MO MONEY.

If anything, they would've used your idea as a way to break each of the single/multiplayer aspects into their own separate game and charge full $60 each, re-packaging the leftovers as $50 DLC. Which gets to my point, nothing in gaming will ever get better. NOTHING. Not as long as the MO MONEY' of the gaming world love twisting the screws for a quick buck.