I know that this is kind of a weird subject to start a blog with, but I wanted to do something other than the "Hi, my name is..." sort of thing. That may come later if people actually read this.

So here goes, a couple days ago, EA announced it was planning to start offering Premium DLC (PDLC from here on in to save my fingers from having to type a bunch of random junk). Now this PDLC, according to this IGN article would essentially be a long game demo, about the length of Battlefield 1943 (DICE sure is busy, now that I think about it), be sold for 10-15 bucks on PSN and XBL.

A little while later, the full game would be released (for full price). Ideally, according to Michael Patcher (so take this with grain of salt), if issues should come up in the PDLC, they would be noted and could be ironed out of the final product. Ideally, for EA, this strategy would begin in April of this year. Of course, people went into an uproar about all of this, claiming EA wanted to start charging for demos, obviously a good way to ruin the credibility the company seems to have built up with gamers lately. Now, EA has come out and said that they aren't going to charge people for "traditional" game demos.

So, what's up with all this? Well, note the word "traditional." This implies to me, that demos like the Bad Company 2 Demo, which was generally regarded to be incredibly pimpin', would still be free. So what would we be looking at in this PDLC? Well, according to the article, it could be anything from a really long demo, to something with considerably more value, like a tiny prequel, or side story. Since EA didn't call Patcher on that, we'll go ahead and assume he was right.

My take? This could be either very good or very bad. I generally don't pick up DLC for games (the Halo series being the exception, and with DA:O), until some ingenious person with much more programming knowledge than me figures out if it's on disc. If it is, I don't pay for it. End of story. I don't support that. But a tiny prequel game as a kind of taste test? Now, that doesn't sound all that bad. Spend a bit of money if you're on the fence, see if you like it. Better than spending $60. That would've saved me some money (I'm looking at you PDZ, CoD4, and Phantasy Star Online, among others). because, let's face it, we've all bought games we regret purchasing. 'Course you could still rent, so there may be no point at all.

And if it makes the end product better, it seems like even the people who don't pony up their cash would benefit from the people that did. This seems like a win-win to me. Of course, it could be really bad. REALLY bad. Suppose they start cutting content out of the final product to make this PDLC? Then nobody wins. The publisher loses respect, which costs it sales, and people lose their jobs. Gamers also get unfinished games. And with the way things are going nowadays, this seems possible. Activision would certainly do that, and maybe Capcom as well, should this catch on. And who's to say EA won't revert to their old ways, now that they see Activision sitting pretty on their old throne?

Remember this, guys. EA is hurting really badly. REALLY badly. And yet, I think they have some of the best solutions to DLC that's out now. The new Battlefield maps? All free, so far. Large chunks of ME2 are free as well, provided you buy the game new. And should this thing catch on, maybe they'll give away the PDLC after the main release. Seems like the natural evolution of EA's current pratice.

Some people, who think DLC is the work of ol' Beelzebub down in the 9th Circle, however, will argue that this will be bad, no matter what. Maybe. I could very well be wrong. God knows we've all become disenfranchised with game publishers before. But making video games is expensive, now. Mostly because of gamer expectations. And it is getting harder to keep up as a smaller developer. We complain an awful lot about the fact that we aren't getting to many new/innovative IP's nowadays, but we're part of the problem. HD games are expensive. Developers have to meet increasingly high standards, and so publishers are more likely to bet on games that WILL sell, like Call of Duty. What does that mean? It means less variety, and less innovation. And after seeing how many great studios went under last year, I don't know if I blame them (R.I.P Ensemble and Factor 5).

So what we have here is potentially a way to make both gamers and publisher happy, or gamers really, really pissed. We are notoriously hard to please, after all. ;)

Now then, off of that unhappy subject. I've been watching my roommate and friend of close to 9 years (I think, I lost track. A long freaking time, anyway) get caught up into the new Pokemon. Now, I stopped playing after Ruby and Sapphire, because they were pretty awful compared to the majesty that was Gold/Silver. Now, I'm normally not into remakes, but after spending a pretty substantial amount of time helping him build a competitive team (yes, teh Pokemons can be competitive), I really want to play them. HeartGold and SoulSilver seem to be the perfect remakes. Games that straddle the line of being faithful to the originals, while introducing enough new content to keep people who played them interested.

Problem is, I don't have a DS (something I routinely kick myself for, you ALWAYS buy the Nintendo handheld). Getting my hands on one would be good, as it would allow me to catch up on Fire Emblem and Advance Wars as well, among others (that I'm sure I have no idea exist). Maybe I'll steal my mom's when I go home... :twisted: