Yes, but they are obviously lying about that part. Don't you know? Bad companies always lie about the parts that make sense but tell the truth about the parts that are ebil :p
Seriously though, we really can't judge anything until we actually have some real examples.

Hmm, your argument is sound--which makes me think you must be lying. >.>

EA has already clarified that they aren't charging for traditional game demos. I can't wait until people stop listening to Michael Pachter...the guy's a fucking idiot.
What they're planning sounds a lot like Capcom's plan to release an optional prequel episode for Dead Rising 2 before DR 2 comes out.

"A full-blown packaged game would follow shortly after the release of the PDLC, bearing a full retail price," Pachter said.
Which part of that did I not understand, did you say?

First of all, you're quoting a non EA source.
Second of all I think the part you missed was this (an actual quote from an EA Rep):
""EA SPORTS, EA Games and EA Play are each experimenting with download strategies that deliver fresh game content in formats players want to experience," he writes. "To date, there is no set pricing strategy for the entire EA portfolio. And many of the proposals include free-to-play content on models similar to Madden Ultimate Team, Battlefield Heroes and Battlefield 1943."
"None of the proposals" Brown wrote, "call for charging consumers for traditionally free game demos.""

sounds like an interesting idea to me.
Sounds like kind of the reverse of the current system. Now it's game:90% + dlc10%. this would be dlc10% + game 90%.

But they also will be also selling even more DLC after release/Day 1.... so 10% Prequal type of game then 50-70% game and then another 20-40% DLC post release
I used to buy most DLC, but at this point I think I'll change to wait for the GOTY editions to come out with all the stuff bundled cheaper that way and I have enough games backlogged as it is that I could be occupied with already for the next 5 years............
Less money for them (at least from me), but eh,

Although that doesn't apply to EA right now because with Dragon Age, Rock Band 2 and Mass Effect 2 they offered tons of free DLC both right out of the box and via followup to people who bought retail copies.
Frankly, if you're not buying retail copies (i.e. if you're buying used copies) then you don't have any real right to talk about what publishers or developers do. (This isn't directed at you akwater, just the market in general).
Saving 5 bucks and seeing money flow out of the pockets of the artist is anathema to me.

I may be the weird one here but I honestly have no problem paying around 15USD for example to get early-access to games until release; of course I don't just do this with every game out there but would do it with a select few.
Also, there are companies that rely on a similar business model to actually release a game (pay up front and get access to working builds up until release as well as the actual final release or a smaller sum just for pre-release content and then another small one for the final game) and I don't have a problem with that as well.

They should pay me to beta test their crap. Hell Bad Company 2 still sucks and is buggier than the actual pre-release beta! Hell with EA, and that is my final statement.

Agreed.
In other FUCK YOU EA news, I patched my copy of Bad Company 2 (on Steam) and I loaded up my latest singleplayer checkpoint and it promptly crashed to desktop. I found out that as a result of the latest patch which removes the Securom DRM from Steam the savegames are incompatible.
What. The. Fuck.
So now I have to replay the whole Sangre Del Toro mission, the hardest mission so far, because of some shitty patch DICE/Steam fucked up?
Burn in hell, EA.

Can you give a clear definition of what a traditional demo is, as opposed to one you're supposed to pay money for?
No, EA are planning to reek in MORE cash for LESS effort here. It's. So. Obvious. Release a "demo" with about 1/4 of normal game content and charge 1/3 of normal game price for it. Then release a full game with 2/3 of normal content and charge full price for it.
In sum, you've done 91% of the effort of making a game, at a consumer cost of 133%.
Okay, very simple example thought up in 3.5 seconds, but the general idea is sound.

Michael Pachter?
I'm sorry but I don't trust fortune tellers . Especially ignorant fortune tellers. "No one has a PC that's faster than PS3". And people still call this guy an "expert".
Regarding the subject - as long as "normal" demos are still free and available I don't have a problem with this concept. If people want to pay for it it's their decision.

Paying for the demo to get the full game cheaper is fine....if they refund you when you don't like the demo. Oh, wait...

Dude, you have no credibility in this thread.
You posted a thread called "EA starts charging for demos," simply because someone reported that an analyst who doesn't even work for EA said so.
Aside from that, if there wasn't a notion of what a traditional demo is, then no one complaining about this would have a semiotic notion of what they're complaining about. Calling something a "traditional demo" especially as a means of clarifying irresponsible remarks by an analyst (and later by misinformed fans and forum posters) seems to be a ratification of the fan idea of what a demo traditionally is. To argue otherwise is nonsense and a very very vague and failing attempt to justify the irresponsible post to begin with.
The only thing obvious is that you cherry picked the one source that fit your preexisting notion of how EA works and are doing your very best to justify it even as new information comes out and nullifies it.
Then again, you're the same guy who created the anti Mass Effect 2 post when you hadn't even played it, so it's not as if your bias and irresponsible "journalism" hasn't been seen here before.
I'm too lazy to go back and see if your brand of sensationalism and pig pigheadedness is reserved for EA or if you just hope to rack up your rep and post count by creating threads devoted to smearing or complaining.
I know that the only two threads I've ever seen you start are basically just hyperbolic and exaggerated reposts of someone else's ideas that are then backed up with either no personal data, or followed up by ignoring any evidence that undermines your original thesis. That is, in no way, a sound idea.