If all they want to sell is a standalone single-player product, then so be it. They successfully produced a minimum seller that will be off the shelves altogether shortly and past its useful lifespan. If their development costs were low enough (I would assume we're talking about a couple guys in their basement somewhere) then they'll be financially successful. If they actually spent the 1-2 million of a serious B title, then they've lost money.
Going forward, if they want to continue to draw revenue under either additional sales, or as a subscription based model, they'll need to meet the requirements of either model. Continued shelf space will require a heavy mod community (nope), active and sizeable online community (nope, i started at position #1400 before my first game), or regular significant updates to generate fresh interest (occasional map isn't enough). Failing to meet those, this departs the retail space soon. Ok then, how about as a subscription based online model? There you need enough population to generate word-of-mouth sales which you're not going to get with policies like I have just described, where after actually BUYING the product in the store (effectively paying the maximum entry cost), now I'm getting only partial access to the product capabilities. Think you're going to generate good feedback and word-of-mouth there? Think again.
I'm not giving this input out of a fear of paying money for games. Clearly, I've already purchased the game at its maximum cost (retail). I love games, and I want to see more survive. But this arrangement does not benefit MA's long term success, and as such should be rethought.
|