Kind of reminds me of Magic the Gathering. What a money sink that was....

This isn't a new concept, giving away the game but selling upgrades for cash, but it's one of the first times a major game studio is doing it. It's mostly smaller studios nobody's ever heard of.

I've played plenty of games like this, and while you can enjoy the game for free, you will inevitably be crushed every once in a while by someone who has spent $50-$100 on upgrades for their character or army or whatever. I know people that have spent $300+ on games like this because it's so easy to gain the upper hand. You simply buy your way to the top.

But it sounds promising, I'll check it out when I get home today.

@unajuaner: That's exactly why I finally had to stop playing. 3 sets a year, every year, must be purchased to keep up with the current Type 2 game, and if you didn't go back and buy all the old cards, too, you had no chance of being competetive in Type 1 play.

VERY interesting. Seems like EA got absolutely crushed by a clue bat! Of all publishers, EA is the last I would have thought to do this. They've been teh suck since they change their name from ECA.

"...and won't put you in danger of landing in federal prison."

Too funny!

Is this a multi-player game?

I don't play those because I can't afford them and I don't have time to defend myself against people who play them constantly. One of my friends plays WoW and said I should try it, but I know I'll get killed inside of five minutes.

Like that episode of South Park.

Consumerist needs to be more back research, and not simply pump out PR for other companies.

Magic The Gathering Online allowed users to play online with guest accounts years ago, and you weren't restricted to only 32 cards.

@HogwartsAlum: Actually, WoW can be pretty n00b friendly. I tried the 30 day free subscription one time and it wasn't my cup of tea, but I didn't get constantly griefed by high level characters. You can choose whether or not to play against other people. I'm sure people that actually play WoW can expand on all the different options.

@unajuaner: Back in college, we swore that the cards were coated with heroin.

@YouInTheBack: I have to admit, I love this concept. All the world needs now is about 10,000 less "Mafia/Godfather" style games.

EA is also doing this with Battlefield: Heroes, which is in beta right now. The game is free, but you have to pay to get weapon and ability upgrades. This is not a new concept at all.

It's not a "free game" per se. More like a free trial. I downloaded it before yesterday, before reading this article. What you're given in the "Play 4 Free" version is not yours to keep. You receive loaner cards or units. If you purchase the retail pack ($30?) that's your initial buy in right there, before buying new units.

So it's more like a "Free Trial!"

@MosesKabob: ...or you could just not buy them.

I could be wrong. What I read in the game itself seems to contradict what I'm seeing in articles.

I just saw that the $30 retail kit has 64 cards + 3000 points (used to buy more cards).

@bloggerX: How many convicted felons are there for downloading games?

As a very casual Magic: The Gathering (hardly buy any new cards anymore) player and casual WoW player I was excited about this game. Gave the Beta a shot and it was just ok. If I wanted to spend as much as it cost to buy all the new MTG cards, I'd just play MTG. Not a bad concept, but too $$$$.

I'm pretty shocked that it's taken this long for video game publishers to start giving away the game to hook players for something else. I know there are costs to cover, but it always kind of shocks me that players fork over money for World of Warcraft every month yet still pay full price for the game and the expansion packs. You'd think they'd be cheap at least.

@unajuaner:
I gave up on MTG about the time Ice Age was released. Not so much because of the cost, but because of all the rules conflicts and intrepretations. It got to the point you needed a big print-out of rulings just to play the game. I still have all my cards and recently checked the values, some of them have appreciated nicely.

@takes_so_little: Did he say he did?

As far as I can tell this is just a test to see if they can make this distribution model just as or MORE successful than the $60/retail copy model that currently exists (it would also kill the re-sale/used games market).

EA's one of the few companies that has the scratch to take on such a research endeavor.

THere's no real penalty for getting killed in WoW. And, if you don't want to get killed, you just play on a PVE server, and stay out of harm's way until you are more accustomed to what your character can do.

If you are intimidated by starting something like this, WoW is a great place to start. However, it *is* a time sink.

The other thing is that the monthly subscription is often cheaper than the pay to play well systems such as this EA release.

@secret_curse:

Be sure to check out Dungeon Runners if you want a good free mmorpg to play. Again, you can pay 5 bucks a month for some minor upgrades but it is totally playable on the free version.

@highpitch_83: There's not so much research to it anymore, South Korea / Southeast Asia has been utilizing a model like this for years now and has been successfully transitioning it to the west for nearly as long. At this point, there's enough quality products on the market that the challenge facing a developer/publisher is making an experience compelling enough to become profitable with enough room for expansion to keep players engaged.

Especially with the 'pay as much as you like' model, you can develop a small dedicated following that essentially subsidizes the game for everyone unwilling/unable to contribute.

@unajuaner: Yeah, being a cheap MTG player sucks :) But it can still be fun... I still use the same ten-year-old decks when I play. They're not "legal" but still fun.

The reason it's recently been made free to play is NOBODY IS PLAYING IT. They charged what...50 bucks, and expect you to purchase "Card packs" to get new units? That's right, you have to pay for in game units. It isn't free, it's microtransaction based.

EA's Sims 3 launches next Tuesday for $50 U.S. At the same time they are launching the Sims 3 Store to buy extra content that was purposely left out of the base game which comes with minimal content. So besides the $50, they expect you to pay more XXX amount of dollars at game launch. And you're singing EA's praises?

@HogwartsAlum:

WoW is a very noob friendly game. Not a high learning curve, and no real penalty for death. You should give it a try if you have at least 15-20 hours a week of free time. I just weaned myself off of it over a year ago. In my hayday though, I probably put 30-50 hours a week into it (as a single bachelor).

Personally, I'm addicted to a free game on Facebook. It's got great graphics, instead of the 1000 Mob Wars clones that are all text-based with an image or two, this one is FLASH based with animations of the battles and some pretty in-depth game play. The game is called Battle Stations, and is an Airship Captain theme. If you try it, I think you'll like it, it's awesome and addictive...

If anyone is interested in giving it a try, you can use this link to create your Captain:

[apps.facebook.com]

And, no, I'm not related to the developers in any way, just an honest Battle Stations addict. And, yes, I do get a little bonus if you join with my link.

@unajuaner: Which is why I never touched it in the first place. Now Pokemon, on the other hand... Well, the only cards I have are limited-edition cards that I got for watching a couple of the movies. Still wrapped... I should see how much that would go on eBay.

@clyde55: Though never really having played either, it looks like Sims 3 is playing serious catch-up with Second Life, and seems doomed to failure.

*Yes I know that The Sims in general has been around much longer than SL.

It's based on microtransactions; basically there is no up front fee or monthly fee. Instead, you pay a small fee for something of added game value. While it seems like a good idea, those microtransactions can quickly add up to be more than the cost of a game or monthly fees. If you don't partake in the fee system, you will always be behind those that do--these games almost always have a competitive element, so there will be strong incentive to keep up with the "Joneses" in order to have fun. This is not a positive development for consumers.

@takes_so_little:
I don't pay. I enjoy the free game for free. What I'm saying is that some of your competitors WILL pay, and they will lay the beat down on you.

@karmaghost: When the deuce is Battlefield: Heroes going to be released anyways? Is it still in closed beta? I remember reading about it a year ago and getting somewhat excited about it, and then I just never heard from it again.

This is just like that crappy Korean game Navy Field.

@nakedscience: How could a genre you don't care for possibly bother you if you don't buy games in it? I don't care for country music, so I don't stop on that station on the dial. Shanina Twain doesn't come to my house and slash my tires or something.

@illtron: Twenty bucks for the full game and a month is pretty cheap.

You also probably don't play if you say that--yeah, full expansions are going to cost. but every major patch new dungeons and other cool things get released without any extra charge.

@HogwartsAlum: Really, the only thing you need to play WoW is time. You can play on servers where you don't have to worry about higher level characters, but you still have to spend lots of time getting your mining skill up so you can mine that ore so you can take it to your blacksmith friend who has their skill up high enough to use the ore and make it into something you can use or sell.

@OminousG: I found the slam against Indie games in the headline kind of insulting, too.

@takes_so_little:

Only so many games come out per year. If a large chunk of them are a genre you don't like, it can get annoying.

I don't particularly like FPS (with some high-quality exceptions). But a few years back, that's ALL that was getting made.

For people who don't like RTS, there was an annoying year or 2 for them too.

Now, it's open world, Godfather/Mafia/GTA games. Though the prevalence of these don't seem to compare to the monopoly that FPSs had, but that might just be bias.

@illtron: If you're paying for the basic WoW client, you're not looking hard enough. Most, if not all MMO games will let you download the base game client for free, because they want to hook you with the $10-$15/month fee.

The expansions are another story, as they typically have new areas, classes and content that people are willing to pay for, especially if they're started running out of content on the regular game.

@Ghede: That's the point: They're trying a new game model where the game program itself is free, but if you expect to be competitive at all, you're gonna have to pay for better units. But if you're just a casual player who doesn't care, you probably can get by with the free units, or maybe one or two purchased units.

Essentially the heavier users subsidize the game for the lighter users.

@unajuaner: Cheesus, you guys are nerds.

@shepd: I hope they don't have a raging clue...Ah South Park, how I love thee.

@Easton21: That's not the insult you apparently think it is. Not these days. :P

@takes_so_little: It's entirely possible that he played a couple of them before he determined that they were shite.

He just may be one of those rare gamers who doesn't take one poor example of a genre to mean the whole thing sucks and so was compelled to try another, and was unfortunately proven wrong. :P

@OminousG: Leaping Lizard Software isn't exactly a huge developer, now is it? Neither is Wizards of the Coast, for that matter.

See, the Consumerist didn't suggest that this game as the first of its kind in all of (digital) creation. A fact which the headline alone should have clued you in to. No, the Consumerist is simply expressing surprise that it comes courtesy of EA, a developer that doesn't have a reputation amongst gamers for being all that generous.

That said, it just seems more like EA's attempt to capitalize on a smart business model more than it is an altruistic move on the company's part. Give away the razor, and charge for the blades, or whatever.

@s73v3r: Which is a commentary on your frame of mind, I think. :P

You should have interpreted it as meaning that indie games are often free, rather than that indie games suck. :P

@Saboth:

You should give it a try if you have at least 15-20 hours a week of free time.

Scary.

This isn't free. It's an insult to customers. It's another step in the direction of doing away with buying games off the shelf, and instead having a market where you pay full retail price for just the framework for a game, and to actually play it you have to allow yourself to be constantly nickeled-and-dimed for the real game content.

@clyde55:
Don't forget the free user-created content, though. If The Sims is known for anything (other than the excessive expansion packs), it's the user-created content.