Charging for maps?

http://games.kikizo.com/news/200704/026.asp

This bit of news got me thinking. Something you guys may have all come to a conclusion about already, but I' m still not decided...

My question is, should extra maps and content for games be free or charged for?

You can see where MS is coming from. Extra revenue from games will help the industry as a whole, and if consumers keep getting stuff for free the value of game content is reduced overall.

But Epic are a big developer too. Extra revenue wouldn' t do them any harm, and they still insist on the traditional model of extra content remaining free, adding value to the original product, thus allowing consumers to keep more faith in the devs overall, maybe for their next product.


I dunno really. I' d pay small amounts, not £15 for a map pack like with GRAW or anything. But then I still feel a map or two here or there should be free, since modders do the same stuff and they dont expect anything.

So... whadya reckon?

If all my friends list are playing it, I' ll buy. If I can get into games without, I' ll wait until it' s free. I don' t play Gears too much these days.

***flyingsaucersdisguisedasmushrooms***
***mushroomsinvadingfromouterspace***

I' m ok with paying for content created after the game has gone gold.

Obviously if it' s free then that' s even better but it' s not like you have to pay to get these maps. They will cost at first and then be made free later.

I was playing Annex with Quez last night and more people on my friends list are moving from CoD3 and GRAW2 back to Gears so i' ll pick the maps up along with the new Lost Planet maps and try to get my game up.

I suck at Gears...

Extra stuff should be free, I would never pay for something unless it was a huge expansion.

Change is inevitable. Except from a vending machine.

Viva La Revolution! erm, I mean Viva La Wii!

Umm, did you skip this part of the article?

" What we' ve agreed to do is to put these maps on sale at a reasonable price then make them free a few months later"

We can thank Microsoft for this. Epic wanted to give these out free, but no, M$ can' t keep their greedy paws out of the cookie jar. In a perfect world the developers should be able to decide if they want their content free or not. I guess, this simple idea is prohibited on a M$ platform, and decide exactely how much they cost not in increments of five dollars . I would understand if Sony did this because it' s not like we don' t already pay a subscription for Live. By the time the maps are free, no one will care.

Gears is one of the only games I haven' t traded in yet on 360, (I still suck at MP though too!) so I' ll be picking up the maps.

It' s a good compromise they' ve made, it keeps both sides happy. If you want it free you just have to wait.

But it was just the wider question that I was asking. Because I think it' s still up in the air really.

A lot of the PC community are used to mods being free, and the guys who do want money for their hard work find that the value of their stuff is diminished by all the free stuff.

Especially in the sim racing crowd at the moment, payware mods are getting more and more common. They' re marginally better quality than the rest of the mods, but some people are in uproar that modders should start charging money.

I think its fair as long as the price is right, but it' s difficult since it' s really all about perception of value. Like for iadumbros its who else is playing it, or for silent about how big the content is. But where' s the line for whats free or not?

With these (high profile) Gears maps we get to choose in a way. And the industry will take notice. Almost like a mass poll. On principle, I' ll probably end up paying Epic+MS, ' cause I believe they' ll give us something of quality. But then free things are always nice too!

It' s a good compromise they' ve made, it keeps both sides happy. If you want it free you just have to wait.

I dont mind waiting for maps as long as they dont do what they did with halo and make it where you cant play ranked games until you got them. That was really gay

Meh, i' ll take Eics own maps over user created maps any day of the week. The way i see it, Microsoft funded development of the game and Epic spent time and money to create this additional content. Now Epic may want to say that they initially wanted them to be completely free, and that may be 100% true, but they certainly aren' t going to turn their noses up at the revenue it' ll bring in, ...otherwise they' d be donating the money made to charity.

Free content is great but you knew what you were paying for when you bought the game. If you want these maps straight away then you' ll have to pay for them. If you don' t mind waiting then wait and pay nothing, you' ll get them for free in a few months time.

The first Gears maps were only free because of a Sponsor/Advertiser(Future Weapons)

I dont want to celebrate, I want to sell you hate.

Maps should be really cheap, & then free at a later date. I' m not paying 800 ms points ($10 bucks) for 4 extra maps. Not happening.

The first Gears maps were only free because of a Sponsor/Advertiser(Future Weapons)

No, they were free because no one in their right mind would have payed money for them

I reckon I' d pay a couple of quid for 4 maps to have them right away. You know, around 10% at the most of the original game price. That' d be (arbitrary but) fair.

How' s Annex mode anyway? Haven' t had a chance to play it yet...been working nights. [:' (]

How' s Annex mode anyway? Haven' t had a chance to play it yet...been working nights.

Its pretty cool, mainly because you can respawn instead of waiting but its ok

I can' t possibly endorse MS' s decision to go with charging for the content. That provides a slippery slope for developers and publishers to abuse their power for economic gain.

Imagine purchasing a title, playing through till the last chapter, and then having a message popup stating that $10 was needed to play the final level.

MMORPGs are going through a similar metamorphosis right now, where leveling up/new items/new dungeons are being charged via microtransactions. It' s screwing up fair play and rewarding fiscal means instead of skill or ability.

This is all bad for the game industry and nothing good. The greedy get richer and the fans get screwed. Nobody should support micro transactions. Epic had the intent to build a strong community with the release, and the overall product would be much better had MS allowed it to be free.

Imagine purchasing a title, playing through till the last chapter, and then having a message popup stating that $10 was needed to play the final level.

That' s not the same thing at all...

ORIGINAL: Majik

..content created after the game has gone gold.

No, not at all, developer X intended to make a game 12 chapters long with a huge plot twist and hook and then release a 13th chapter after the game had gone gold. It' s additional content after all.

In fact, we may see this out of Rockstar with GTA IV. PS3/PC users get left out in the cold whereas X360 users pay to see the " real" ending because of " content made after Gold" that Rockstar decided to implement after the release and not part of it.

That' s the slippery slope that micro-transactions bring.

No, what you' re talking about equates to the content being what' s essentially a " mission pack" or " expansion" like The Reckoning or Ground Zero for Quake II, ...or more recently Shivering Isles for Oblivion.

What we are talking about is the selling of the kind of content PC gamers have gotten for free for years. Not even user created maps, but additional maps put out by the games development team after the game had shipped.

Now i agree that these particular maps should be free, and any like them. But they could have bundled them with the new Annex game mode, a couple of new skins and some re-lit existing maps and charged $20 like Ubisoft did with Chapter 2.

What they are doing is what Bungie did with the Multiplayer Map Pack and charging initially and then making them free eventually. It' s not ideal, an yes Microsoft shouldn' t have interfered with Epics wishes but as far as i' m concerned the game shipped in November and they weren' t under any obligation to create any more content for it. Time, effort and money has gone into creating new content and i' m more than happy to pay for it.

Microsoft wouldn' t let Epic relaese the content for free because it' d piss companies like EA and Ubisoft off. It' s business.

What Microsoft need to do is enable user created content through Live.

No, not at all, developer X intended to make a game 12 chapters long with a huge plot twist and hook and then release a 13th chapter after the game had gone gold. It' s additional content after all.

Well thats about intent. I suppose if Epic chose to charge themselves many would assume the worst and think they ' held back' on maps to be released afterwards.

So you' d rather we didn' t get any DLC altogether to avoid ambiguity?

Even if the above was true, as long as we got a complete game experience from the original game we wouldn' t care.

I agree about the slippery slope, but as long as we ignore EA, we' re ok, heh. I actually see the industry climbing back up though slowly after ' the horse armour fiasco' . DLC from now on has to be substantial and not seen as critical to the original game. There are unwritten rules.

I don' t have any problem with paying for content that is created after the game has been released. You can' t expect people to work for free!

What I do have a problem with is holding content back from release and ' milking' it at a later date. Totally out of order.

500 MS points for 3 Guitar Hero tunes stinks of milking it for me.

ORIGINAL: SpaceJase

500 MS points for 3 Guitar Hero tunes stinks of milking it for me.

Agreed.

I can' t possibly endorse MS' s decision to go with charging for the content. That provides a slippery slope for developers and publishers to abuse their power for economic gain.

Is it really gonna hurt you to spend a few bucks on maps? Do you even have gears, a 360, and live? What if sony did it? would that mean they were abusing their power? No, it means they wont to make a little bit of money, its not like they force you to buy it. Besides its a few bucks, i could understand if they were asking like $15

Imagine purchasing a title, playing through till the last chapter, and then having a message popup stating that $10 was needed to play the final level.

How does that relate to buying multiplayer maps retard?

This is all bad for the game industry and nothing good. The greedy get richer and the fans get screwed. Nobody should support micro transactions. Epic had the intent to build a strong community with the release, and the overall product would be much better had MS allowed it to be free.

Like i said, its a few bucks, if its gonna put you in the poor house then chances are you shouldnt even have an xbox or live for that matter. Moral of todays lesson, the worlds not free.

Wasn' t the " Achievements makes prizes." Rumour a couple of months saying that if it came into play then if you made all the achievements in a certain game you could download additional content for free? That surely would be a better way to go, then if you aren' t an achievement whore you have to pay a nominal fee to download the same content, that way you aren' t alienating the true " Hardcore" fans of a specific game?

Is it really gonna hurt you to spend a few bucks on maps? Do you even have gears, a 360, and live? What if sony did it? would that mean they were abusing their power? No, it means they wont to make a little bit of money, its not like they force you to buy it. Besides its a few bucks, i could understand if they were asking like $15

GEOW has already made MS plenty of money and gave their product tons of exposure. Providing free, " content" would not be a burden on either party in the least.

How does that relate to buying multiplayer maps retard?

Because it' s a slippery slope. These micro transactions will lead us into an age of twinking via real world monies. We' re already seeing it happen on the mmorpg level. If this was an isolated incident, there may be no harm, but it' s going to get more and more popular as more people take the bait.

Like i said, its a few bucks, if its gonna put you in the poor house then chances are you shouldnt even have an xbox or live for that matter. Moral of todays lesson, the worlds not free.

Which is why I already paid for a game title. If content is to be charged then it should be substantial and it should not come at the detriment of the original product. Microtransactions are absolutely unacceptable.

Well thats about intent. I suppose if Epic chose to charge themselves many would assume the worst and think they ' held back' on maps to be released afterwards.

So you' d rather we didn' t get any DLC altogether to avoid ambiguity?

Even if the above was true, as long as we got a complete game experience from the original game we wouldn' t care.

Which is why I' m not opposed to real expansions. The problem is that microtransactions exist in a world where they could be superficial or important. This gives greed a voice in the gaming world that it' s never seen. It' s unlimited power.

On that topic, would you pay for a patch? The developers had to go through the time to make the necessary changes to the game, why wouldn' t you support the developers for the effort they put to fix their title?

Not every developer has ethics. As long as EA and SOE remain living companies we will see abuse and we will see abuse popularized. How long before EA/SOE turn Ubi/Square/Take Two (may have already happened)/Sega to their tactics?

I agree about the slippery slope, but as long as we ignore EA, we' re ok, heh. I actually see the industry climbing back up though slowly after ' the horse armour fiasco' . DLC from now on has to be substantial and not seen as critical to the original game. There are unwritten rules.

" We" won' t ignore EA. " We" buy their products in record numbers and we' ll buy their uniforms too.

Excellent points Billy. I share your concerns but you have to hope that the games playing public will be savvy enough to vote with their wallets against this kind of abuse where it becomes apparent.

As for the patch question - the problem I have with patches is that they may lead to lazyness on the part of the developer. The patch is both a blessing and a curse at the same time - great to be able to fix issues that crept under the radar but crap if devs cut down on testing and release shoddy software because they have the ability to patch later.

I can' t ever envisage a situation where any dev would have the nerve to charge for a patch though - would cause a massive outcry and blacken their name forever.

I certainly would have problems paying for a patch, I would have thought that publishers would have difficulty justifying it, as they could open themselves up to being sued for selling a product that was not fit for purpose.

As said above paying for a real expansion such as extra missions is fine, but paying for something they should have included in the original game but left out because of time constraints does get my back up.

A patch is not development or expansion, it is a bug fix, if when they create a patch they incorporate enhancements then that is upto the dev, however charging the game playing public for a patch would be commercial suicide. If a game has a widely known about bug which seriously affects the gameplay, then there is no way on god' s green earth a dev house would be able to get away with charging, to put it simply it would be illegal,certainly in the UK as it would be against the sale of goods act, which states that a product or service needs to be able to carry out it' s function for which it is paid for, in laymans terms if the game doesn' t run properly then the games dev has to by law,create a patch to make the game work properly which is included in the price, if they charge you for this, then you can take the games houses, devs, even the retailer to court under this act, I am not sure how it works in other countries (I would hazard a guess that US would have something similar as would the rest of Europe.) So Patching a game would not be charged for, no matter what you think the business ethics are of the company. I have not heard of any game where charges have been made for downloading a patch, certainly not in the BF series, the Mohaa series or CoD, NWN is the same.

Patching a product is not neccesarily down to shoddy programming or laziness, most of the time it is a pebkac issue.

How long before EA/SOE turn Ubi/Square/Take Two (may have already happened)/Sega to their tactics?

It doesn' t matter if Sega turns out downloadable content. Nobody buys the full titles in the first place.


OOOOOhhhhhh burn on Sega!!!

It doesn' t matter if Sega turns out downloadable content. Nobody buys the full titles in the first place.

Sega haven' t been Sega for a long time so might as well just change their name anyway.

Sega haven' t been Sega for a long time so might as well just change their name anyway.

They should change it to half baked, children only(Im not saying sonic in general is kiddie, im saying that most of the last games that have came out have been extremely kiddie) sonic games.

They should change it to half baked, children only(Im not saying sonic in general is kiddie, im saying that most of the last games that have came out have been extremely kiddie) sonic games.

I' m presuming that by ' kiddie' you mean stuff that doesn' t invlove an FPS bloodbath and has an appeal to a wider audience than *cough* " hardcore" *splutter* gamers?

Have to agree that the recent Sonic games have been crap though, in fact, haven' t all Sonic games been crap since the first one came out on the Megadrive?

Have to agree that the recent Sonic games have been crap though, in fact, haven' t all Sonic games been crap since the first one came out on the Megadrive?

No, Sonic games were of the highest quality in the Genesis days. They became mediocre on the Dreamcast, and evolved into terrible as a third party entity. The latest Wii game was actually okay, though.

No, Sonic games were of the highest quality in the Genesis days. They became mediocre on the Dreamcast, and evolved into terrible as a third party entity. The latest Wii game was actually okay, though.

That' s not the way I remember them. Every 3D Sonic game has been crap as far as I recall. Sonic Adventure on DC wasn' t mediocre, it was shit.

Haven' t played the most recent ones so will have to give them the benefit of the doubt.

I' m presuming that by ' kiddie' you mean stuff that doesn' t invlove an FPS bloodbath and has an appeal to a wider audience than *cough* " hardcore" *splutter* gamers?

No, i could care less about genre, i dont judge by genre, if i did i would say things like tekken, VF, DOA, and every other fighter sucked because i dont like fighters that much. I was refering to the recent sonic games. The last sonic i actually liked was Sonic Adventure. Pretty much every game after seems rather kiddie to me

Ah, okay, I see what you mean. To me Sonic just doesn' t work in 3D like it does in 2D. I thought SA was garbage - I downloaded the demo of the new one off XBL and was bored almost instantly.

500 MS points for 3 Guitar Hero tunes stinks of milking it for me.

Is it really that much? o.0

I probably should take a moment to sum up what I think of kiddie games. Not games tailored for a childs audience. They' re games tailored to a childs audience to prevent the scrutiny they' d get from releasing it to anything but five-year-olds.

Viva Pinata = Awesome

Sonic anything between the DC & the DS = Kiddie

Is it really that much? o.0

[link= http://loot-ninja.com/2007/04/11/guitar-hero-ii-track-packs-released/]Apparently so.[/link]