Source: Fortune
Electronic Arts CEO John Riccitiello recently talked with Fortune about the need to re-evaluate the current pricing system of video games. The growth of online distribution is fast becoming the prime motivator for the change. He also talked about that in China games are being released for free now to inspire market interest. Hong Kong here I come! If Mr Riccitiello’s thoughts are to be believed, the $59ish price tag associated with many games could be a trend that will be in decline in the coming years.
Free games in the future? Find out what else he said after the jump!
Riccitiello went on to say: “People who benefit from the current model will need to embrace a new revenue model…” EA is apparently going to be testing a variety of pricing models in the coming years. While he never expressly stated that a price drop was coming, as the need for hard copy products lowers, so will the cost of games. Paving the way for in-game advertising. Picture Crysis’ Nomad drinking a coke or Mass Effect’s David Anderson sporting some Nike’s.
The rise of in-game advertising actually makes a lot of sense to me. Who knows long we have before loading screens start looking like Prime Time TV commercials? Anyone who has played Rainbow Six Vegas has already had a taste of things to come. Done with a little finesse, in game advertising may not be all that bad. If it meant my games came at a lower price, I’d gladly watch a few choice adds here and there.
Bigger titles need bigger budgets. I don’t think anyone can deny that, but are we looking at the publishing kingpin preparing for a drop in game prices mixed with an increase in online/in-game advertising to fatten EA coffers? Or is he simply taking a needed step to ensure we get the best games for the most reasonable price? Oh Mr. Enigma…how little I understand you.
![[Post to Twitter]](http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/wp-content/plugins/tweet-this/tweet-this-small.png)
Tweet This| Related Posts:
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
10 responses so far ↓
1 AriesDog // Nov 8, 2007 at 9:22 am
That was the same argument that theater owners said when they introduced non-movie commercials to theaters 15 years ago. “Advertising will lower the cost of movies” Here I am, years later, paying $11 to see 15 minutes of singing underwear apples before my movie. Bah!
2 Bacontastic // Nov 8, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Ubisoft recently made Far Cry totally free, with the addition of advertising on the loading screens (”Taste the rich life, dollar menunaire!”). This is exactly what I like seeing the industry. I really hope more developers can follow suit.
3 SugarFree // Nov 8, 2007 at 12:34 pm
Granted, people only bought Crackdown for the Halo 3 Beta. but the in-game advertising wasn’t too invasive. There were billboards in the game, so it was natural to put some kind of advertisement there. Something like that, an ad that makes sense, doesn’t bother me. what scares me however is what a game entirely supported by in game ads would look like. They’d probably force loading screens on the game just to hit an advertising quota.
4 Bono Hit My Car // Nov 8, 2007 at 3:17 pm
I would rather pay $60-$70 a game to not see advertising in my games. Take any other new media approach and leave video games out of the picture.
5 Babbage Man // Nov 8, 2007 at 9:14 pm
I agree that publishers should try new and innovating cost-custing methods. Video games are a business, so obiviously the bottom-line is tantamount to EA big-wigs. But whether or not those cost-cuts are passed on to the cosumer is simply the choice of the publisher. He or she decides who dserves that extra dollar more to be used, the publisher or the consumer. I don’t think the ads are bad or too annoying if done right, but whether the savings is passed on is beyond the casual gamer.
6 dvldog // Nov 9, 2007 at 8:55 am
I wish I could believe in the altruism of large businesses, but I am a bit to realistic for that. If they thought for a second that they could cut costs to make their product more profitable, I really really doubt it that they would pass the savings on to the consumer.
I mean, can you picture the boardroom? “We are able to bring in X amount of new revenue with these in-game ads. Should we lower the price of the game (the same price that they have been willing to pay over and over) or should we line our bottomless pockets?”
Sorry to be so cynical, but I have no faith left. Of course it could just be the hellish commute I just had too.
7 Tyler Miller // Dec 14, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I think we should spend as much on games as we have to. if they are good games.
8 Aron // Dec 17, 2007 at 8:59 pm
.kjiujbiubiujbiujbiubiubiubiubiubi
9 Heel // Dec 17, 2007 at 11:00 pm
.kjiujbiubiujbiujbiubiubiubiubiubi
10 elsie // Mar 16, 2008 at 5:24 pm
i dont get it
Leave a Comment