Some COD4 map pack details

[mugs]

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: holden j caufield
I too think it's stupid to be charging map packs like it's stupid for EA to charge a whole new game for basically updated rosters. It's why I don't support EA now, I mean 800 points isn't anything and if a lot of my friends get it I will too. I think it's a great business model. Charge ~$60 for a game, $60 a year for live, use the player's internet and machine as hosts, charge DLC etc. Sucks for consumers but it looks like this is going to be the wave. BTW I don't remember paying for cod2 map pack. Was that free or was it 800 points and then free after a month.

I believe CoD 2 has a map pack that is currently free, and a map pack that is still not free.

Do you think that game developers are charitable organizations? Why should they spend their time and money on new maps and give them away for free? You get free maps on the PC because individuals or groups of individuals do it in their spare time. It'd be nice if user-created content was available on consoles in the future, but c'est la vie. Servers aren't free either. When companies provide their own servers for games, it's time-limited. Beyond that you're playing on servers that are paid for by other gamers. If a company makes downloadable content that is worth what they're charging for it, then I have no problem paying for it. I love rewarding GOOD developers for their hard work.

And video games cost about the same now as they did on the SNES, while development costs have skyrocketed. I don't think we're getting screwed.

I agree with most of that.....but i thought the key to xbox live is that there are no 'servers' for each game....its hosted by the people playing it

Yeah, exactly. He's complaining that they charge "$60" per year for Live (proof right there that he has no idea what he's talking about, unless his profile and the American flag avatar are a ruse) yet they use the player's system and Internet connection to host the games. I was explaining the downside of the alternatives. Servers that are hosted by the developer/publisher are usually/always time limited - after a couple of years, they go away. You can play on servers hosted by individuals, but then SOMEONE is paying money to keep that server running.

It's like PC gamers think everything is created by magical fairies. New maps just appear, servers just exist. Someone puts the effort into creating those new maps. In this case it's the game developer, and you can be pretty sure that they'll be good quality maps. I don't fault them for charging.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: foghorn67
It's 10 frickin dollars. Cry me a river. Since CoD4 takes up 90% of my gaming time since it's release, I have no problem paying 10 bucks for more maps. That's a lot of mileage to me.
By the time Halo3 released their maps, I already started to hate the game...so I waited until it was free.

Keep being part of the problem.

They won't keep charging these ridiculous prices if people don't keep buying them.

DLC is really starting to get out of hand and annoy me. EA is the worst - they are coming out with a game that actually charges for WEAPONS. And they just released an update for March Madness 08 which includes a tournament bracket, some updated jerseys, and an arena for 400 points. Basically they are charging $5 for a meaningless patch. I don't even own the game but it annoyed me to see that.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: lupi
No wonder the can put out such shitty quality consoles and eat the cost if they get so many suckers to pay for this stuff.

What does this have to do with Microsoft?

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: ric1287

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: holden j caufield
I too think it's stupid to be charging map packs like it's stupid for EA to charge a whole new game for basically updated rosters. It's why I don't support EA now, I mean 800 points isn't anything and if a lot of my friends get it I will too. I think it's a great business model. Charge ~$60 for a game, $60 a year for live, use the player's internet and machine as hosts, charge DLC etc. Sucks for consumers but it looks like this is going to be the wave. BTW I don't remember paying for cod2 map pack. Was that free or was it 800 points and then free after a month.

I believe CoD 2 has a map pack that is currently free, and a map pack that is still not free.

Do you think that game developers are charitable organizations? Why should they spend their time and money on new maps and give them away for free? You get free maps on the PC because individuals or groups of individuals do it in their spare time. It'd be nice if user-created content was available on consoles in the future, but c'est la vie. Servers aren't free either. When companies provide their own servers for games, it's time-limited. Beyond that you're playing on servers that are paid for by other gamers. If a company makes downloadable content that is worth what they're charging for it, then I have no problem paying for it. I love rewarding GOOD developers for their hard work.

And video games cost about the same now as they did on the SNES, while development costs have skyrocketed. I don't think we're getting screwed.

I agree with most of that.....but i thought the key to xbox live is that there are no 'servers' for each game....its hosted by the people playing it

Yeah, exactly. He's complaining that they charge "$60" per year for Live (proof right there that he has no idea what he's talking about, unless his profile and the American flag avatar are a ruse) yet they use the player's system and Internet connection to host the games. I was explaining the downside of the alternatives. Servers that are hosted by the developer/publisher are usually/always time limited - after a couple of years, they go away. You can play on servers hosted by individuals, but then SOMEONE is paying money to keep that server running.

It's like PC gamers think everything is created by magical fairies. New maps just appear, servers just exist. Someone puts the effort into creating those new maps. In this case it's the game developer, and you can be pretty sure that they'll be good quality maps. I don't fault them for charging.

The TF2 makers created quality maps and didn't charge for the update. Why? Because updates to a game should be part of the whole product. What worries me is that it's obvious that game makers are starting to omit content from their games so that they can nickle and dime us later to download their updates. Look at Rock Band - I really think the game itself should have come with more songs, but they saved a bunch of them for DLC.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Kev
The TF2 makers created quality maps and didn't charge for the update. Why? Because updates to a game should be part of the whole product. What worries me is that it's obvious that game makers are starting to omit content from their games so that they can nickle and dime us later to download their updates. Look at Rock Band - I really think the game itself should have come with more songs, but they saved a bunch of them for DLC.

They can do that if they want, but to expect them to do it is absurd. You bought the game knowing what you're getting. TF2 only came with 6 maps to begin with. CoD 4 came with nearly 3 times that. I can't complain that I didn't get my money's worth when I bought CoD 4.

Why is it such a big deal that companies look for other sources of revenue after a game is released? Development costs for top games have gone up much faster than the price of the games.

 

[JoPh]

so should i pay for XP or Vista updates? seems the same to me.

 

[R Nilla]

Originally posted by: JoPh
so should i pay for XP or Vista updates? seems the same to me.

Vista and XP are not analogous to video games because they are operating systems. The PS3 XMB (or whatever the hell the interface is called) and Xbox 360 Dashboard updates are free, which are more like Vista and XP updates.

 

[foghorn67]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: foghorn67
It's 10 frickin dollars. Cry me a river. Since CoD4 takes up 90% of my gaming time since it's release, I have no problem paying 10 bucks for more maps. That's a lot of mileage to me.
By the time Halo3 released their maps, I already started to hate the game...so I waited until it was free.

Keep being part of the problem.

They won't keep charging these ridiculous prices if people don't keep buying them.

DLC is really starting to get out of hand and annoy me. EA is the worst - they are coming out with a game that actually charges for WEAPONS. And they just released an update for March Madness 08 which includes a tournament bracket, some updated jerseys, and an arena for 400 points. Basically they are charging $5 for a meaningless patch. I don't even own the game but it annoyed me to see that.

I'm not part of the problem. I don't see a problem with it. Like I said, I spend hours a week with CoD4, so my 60+10 bucks is well spent. If I took it more casually, I would probably wait the few months until they are free. Get off the moral high ground.

And we are not talking about EA here.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: foghorn67
It's 10 frickin dollars. Cry me a river. Since CoD4 takes up 90% of my gaming time since it's release, I have no problem paying 10 bucks for more maps. That's a lot of mileage to me.
By the time Halo3 released their maps, I already started to hate the game...so I waited until it was free.

Keep being part of the problem.

They won't keep charging these ridiculous prices if people don't keep buying them.

DLC is really starting to get out of hand and annoy me. EA is the worst - they are coming out with a game that actually charges for WEAPONS. And they just released an update for March Madness 08 which includes a tournament bracket, some updated jerseys, and an arena for 400 points. Basically they are charging $5 for a meaningless patch. I don't even own the game but it annoyed me to see that.

I'm not part of the problem. I don't see a problem with it. Like I said, I spend hours a week with CoD4, so my 60+10 bucks is well spent. If I took it more casually, I would probably wait the few months until they are free. Get off the moral high ground.

And we are not talking about EA here.

Rock on, brother. You're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution. More buyers = more content for sale = I get more mileage out of my games. I'll gladly pay $10 to get more enjoyment out of a top notch game like Call of Duty 4 or Halo 3.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: JoPh
so should i pay for XP or Vista updates? seems the same to me.

That is the fucking dumbest comparison I've heard all day.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: foghorn67
It's 10 frickin dollars. Cry me a river. Since CoD4 takes up 90% of my gaming time since it's release, I have no problem paying 10 bucks for more maps. That's a lot of mileage to me.
By the time Halo3 released their maps, I already started to hate the game...so I waited until it was free.

Keep being part of the problem.

They won't keep charging these ridiculous prices if people don't keep buying them.

DLC is really starting to get out of hand and annoy me. EA is the worst - they are coming out with a game that actually charges for WEAPONS. And they just released an update for March Madness 08 which includes a tournament bracket, some updated jerseys, and an arena for 400 points. Basically they are charging $5 for a meaningless patch. I don't even own the game but it annoyed me to see that.

I'm not part of the problem. I don't see a problem with it. Like I said, I spend hours a week with CoD4, so my 60+10 bucks is well spent. If I took it more casually, I would probably wait the few months until they are free. Get off the moral high ground.

And we are not talking about EA here.

Rock on, brother. You're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution. More buyers = more content for sale = I get more mileage out of my games. I'll gladly pay $10 to get more enjoyment out of a top notch game like Call of Duty 4 or Halo 3.

I haven't seen you play CoD4 lately. My fiancee is out of town until Sunday so I will be playing a lot. Look me up and we can pwn a few n00bs.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: foghorn67

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: foghorn67
It's 10 frickin dollars. Cry me a river. Since CoD4 takes up 90% of my gaming time since it's release, I have no problem paying 10 bucks for more maps. That's a lot of mileage to me.
By the time Halo3 released their maps, I already started to hate the game...so I waited until it was free.

Keep being part of the problem.

They won't keep charging these ridiculous prices if people don't keep buying them.

DLC is really starting to get out of hand and annoy me. EA is the worst - they are coming out with a game that actually charges for WEAPONS. And they just released an update for March Madness 08 which includes a tournament bracket, some updated jerseys, and an arena for 400 points. Basically they are charging $5 for a meaningless patch. I don't even own the game but it annoyed me to see that.

I'm not part of the problem. I don't see a problem with it. Like I said, I spend hours a week with CoD4, so my 60+10 bucks is well spent. If I took it more casually, I would probably wait the few months until they are free. Get off the moral high ground.

And we are not talking about EA here.

Rock on, brother. You're not part of the problem, you're part of the solution. More buyers = more content for sale = I get more mileage out of my games. I'll gladly pay $10 to get more enjoyment out of a top notch game like Call of Duty 4 or Halo 3.

I haven't seen you play CoD4 lately. My fiancee is out of town until Sunday so I will be playing a lot. Look me up and we can pwn a few n00bs.

My usage patterns depend a lot on who I'm playing with. Lately I haven't been playing as much if one of the guys I regularly play with isn't playing; and one of the guys I regularly play with prefers Halo 3, so I've been playing that more than CoD 4 lately. I go through phases. One of the other guys I regularly play with has been itching to play CoD 4 though, so I'm sure I'll be playing that some this weekend.

 

[oznerol]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Kev
The TF2 makers created quality maps and didn't charge for the update. Why? Because updates to a game should be part of the whole product. What worries me is that it's obvious that game makers are starting to omit content from their games so that they can nickle and dime us later to download their updates. Look at Rock Band - I really think the game itself should have come with more songs, but they saved a bunch of them for DLC.

They can do that if they want, but to expect them to do it is absurd. You bought the game knowing what you're getting. TF2 only came with 6 maps to begin with. CoD 4 came with nearly 3 times that. I can't complain that I didn't get my money's worth when I bought CoD 4.

Why is it such a big deal that companies look for other sources of revenue after a game is released? Development costs for top games have gone up much faster than the price of the games.

In the PC gaming world, these updates have historically been free. The consumer never got charged for "hosting costs" or "development costs" or any other cost aside from the initial purchase price - so I wouldn't necessarily call it absurd to expect them to remain free.

Development costs have gone up, I agree with you - however you are mistaken to associate the small rise in MSRP of the game with the bulk of extra revenue. Overall sales of games have grown exponentially - and profits are higher now than they ever have been.

Don't try to justify the cost of downloadable maps by claiming cost of development. There is only one reason why the consumer is being charged for these things - because they can be.

That is it.

The "value" is there, sure, I definitely agree. $10 is an acceptable price to pay for fresh content in a game you play often. But when you are used to paying nothing for the same content - it just doesn't sit well.

I'm trying to think of a parallel to this - the best I can think of is McDonalds charging for various dipping sauces for their chicken nuggets. Sure, 35 cents or whatever they charge is good if it gives me the ability to dunk in honey and/or sweet and sour sauce. But for the past 15 years, I've been getting them for free. This is not "inflation" or because "times are tough" or anything like that - it's simply because they can.

It's not exactly the same concept (particularly because people were taking advantage of the dipping sauces and taking them by the bag-full), but the idea is the same.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not making the "slippery slope" argument with companies eventually simply selling a shell of the game and charging for content on a per-use basis. But to be perfectly content with new fees and content "taxes" is dangerous territory.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: ducci

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Kev
The TF2 makers created quality maps and didn't charge for the update. Why? Because updates to a game should be part of the whole product. What worries me is that it's obvious that game makers are starting to omit content from their games so that they can nickle and dime us later to download their updates. Look at Rock Band - I really think the game itself should have come with more songs, but they saved a bunch of them for DLC.

They can do that if they want, but to expect them to do it is absurd. You bought the game knowing what you're getting. TF2 only came with 6 maps to begin with. CoD 4 came with nearly 3 times that. I can't complain that I didn't get my money's worth when I bought CoD 4.

Why is it such a big deal that companies look for other sources of revenue after a game is released? Development costs for top games have gone up much faster than the price of the games.

In the PC gaming world, these updates have historically been free. The consumer never got charged for "hosting costs" or "development costs" or any other cost aside from the initial purchase price - so I wouldn't necessarily call it absurd to expect them to remain free.

Development costs have gone up, I agree with you - however you are mistaken to associate the small rise in MSRP of the game with the bulk of extra revenue. Overall sales of games have grown exponentially - and profits are higher now than they ever have been.

Don't try to justify the cost of downloadable maps by claiming cost of development. There is only one reason why the consumer is being charged for these things - because they can be.

That is it.

The "value" is there, sure, I definitely agree. $10 is an acceptable price to pay for fresh content in a game you play often. But when you are used to paying nothing for the same content - it just doesn't sit well.

I'm trying to think of a parallel to this - the best I can think of is McDonalds charging for various dipping sauces for their chicken nuggets. Sure, 35 cents or whatever they charge is good if it gives me the ability to dunk in honey and/or sweet and sour sauce. But for the past 15 years, I've been getting them for free. This is not "inflation" or because "times are tough" or anything like that - it's simply because they can.

It's not exactly the same concept (particularly because people were taking advantage of the dipping sauces and taking them by the bag-full), but the idea is the same.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not making the "slippery slope" argument with companies eventually simply selling a shell of the game and charging for content on a per-use basis. But to be perfectly content with new fees and content "taxes" is dangerous territory.

Map packs and other DLC are just a variation of the expansion packs that originated on the PC. How often are those free? DLC on consoles just tends to be less content and less money.

Honestly - I wouldn't care if some company put out a shell of a game and charged a fee for each piece of content. If I didn't think it was worthwhile, I wouldn't pay for it. Companies can't force anything on us. We have the power - we have the money, and they want it. I understand that high school and college kids who don't have much money to spend on games would be bummed that they have to pay $10 for add-on content - but if you don't buy it, you've lost nothing. You can still play the game.

 

[oznerol]

I agree - expansion packs are a great DLC model. I am all for them. Oblivion and Crackdown are 2 examples of games that did them right.

Map packs are not expansion packs. They add nothing new to the game except for, well, maps. New maps have been free on the PC since before I can remember. The funny thing is, they are STILL free on the PC.

Its quite possible the only reason they have been free on the PC is because it is generally an open community - so any pay-to-use map could essentially be duplicated by a fan and distributed freely. The console market doesn't have such luxuries, so they have complete control over what content gets distributed for which games, and how much said content costs. I suppose this is also why Microsoft can get away with charging $40-$50 for a Live account (which I am not opposed to, by the way). But I am almost certain that once Sony creates a free network with the same or similar features (if it ever happens) - Live will go free. Unfortunately with map packs, it appears all console manufacturers prefer all downloaded content to have some monetary worth.

 

[Kev]

Originally posted by: ducci
I agree - expansion packs are a great DLC model. I am all for them. Oblivion and Crackdown are 2 examples of games that did them right.

Map packs are not expansion packs. They add nothing new to the game except for, well, maps. New maps have been free on the PC since before I can remember. The funny thing is, they are STILL free on the PC.

Its quite possible the only reason they have been free on the PC is because it is generally an open community - so any pay-to-use map could essentially be duplicated by a fan and distributed freely. The console market doesn't have such luxuries, so they have complete control over what content gets distributed for which games, and how much said content costs. I suppose this is also why Microsoft can get away with charging $40-$50 for a Live account (which I am not opposed to, by the way). But I am almost certain that once Sony creates a free network with the same or similar features (if it ever happens) - Live will go free. Unfortunately with map packs, it appears all console manufacturers prefer all downloaded content to have some monetary worth.

Exactly. Why should everyone who chooses to play on a console have to pay while PC users get them for free? What's the difference?

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Kev

Originally posted by: ducci
I agree - expansion packs are a great DLC model. I am all for them. Oblivion and Crackdown are 2 examples of games that did them right.

Map packs are not expansion packs. They add nothing new to the game except for, well, maps. New maps have been free on the PC since before I can remember. The funny thing is, they are STILL free on the PC.

Its quite possible the only reason they have been free on the PC is because it is generally an open community - so any pay-to-use map could essentially be duplicated by a fan and distributed freely. The console market doesn't have such luxuries, so they have complete control over what content gets distributed for which games, and how much said content costs. I suppose this is also why Microsoft can get away with charging $40-$50 for a Live account (which I am not opposed to, by the way). But I am almost certain that once Sony creates a free network with the same or similar features (if it ever happens) - Live will go free. Unfortunately with map packs, it appears all console manufacturers prefer all downloaded content to have some monetary worth.

Exactly. Why should everyone who chooses to play on a console have to pay while PC users get them for free? What's the difference?

Like ducci said - piracy is easier on PCs.