Epic creates content. Epic wants to release content for free.
Microsoft wants to charge for content.
It's simple. It's bullshit. You can knock it off with the apologizing Kewop. They are the devil for doing this.
The Right Thing To Do™ is let the developer decide how much they want to charge for things. Microsoft has created a false economy here - and they're clearly taking steps to protect it; this is done at the expense of the consumer. I XBL, but this is what happens when you put Microsoft at the heart of a closed system.
It should be stated also that Microsoft is not paying for new content to be developed for Gears. Epic is. Microsoft paid for the game to be made and they made an ass load of money off its sales too, but they did not fund the new content.
But they own the game itself, so whatever is added to it still has to go through them. Which begs the question of why didn't they just let Midway be the publisher for Gears? That's a whole another thread right there, but...
I'm arguing that them wanting to charge shouldn't deem them as the devil.
I think the amount of people who would pay for it is far larger than those who would not. I doubt people won't buy the next game because some extra content cost $5-10. I just find it silly to go bat shit crazy when MS let the first content pack be free.
But hell, I'd love everything to be free, but getting angry because someone wants to charge for an IP they own... i dunno.
Epic is adding content that Microsoft apparently had nothing to do with to a product they published. In a day where it seems like good will on the part of big companies makes the way in the minds of consumers, this is a fucking stupid move.
Yea, it's stupid because obviously people are going all "M$ lol" but I can understand why they'd do that. This reminds me of the whole Capcom/Marvel thing. I wouldn't be that surprised if the end result happens here. I don't think it can though seeing how they own the IP.
That's pretty fucked up. I wonder what will happen UT3's stuff...probably why Epic is bitching about it now. With all the Windows Live/360 Live stuff, I'm curious to see exactly how this will work, for both PC and console.
Midway is the publisher for UT3, so I don't think MS has a say in charging for such things
I think the amount of people who would pay for it is far larger than those who would not. I doubt people won't buy the next game because some extra content cost $5-10. I just find it silly to go bat shit crazy when MS let the first content pack be free.
Ah, but you're missing the bigger issue--which is Microsoft controlling content for Live. Midway doesn't control Live, Microsoft does, and per the agreement, has the final say so in pricing. So if Midway wanted to release it for free, and Epic wanted to release for free, Microsoft could potentially say "Nope. Charge for it." and "recommend" a price. That's why everyone's looking at this with the WTF eyebrow. It's not that Gears isn't awesome, it's the fact that all of a sudden, a developer doesn't have control of the content they want to give to their customers for free.
As a loose analogy, it's a like a store telling a razor maker not to include a free blade, because they want their customers to get used to paying for more blades, for no other reason that they control the distribution channel. Can you do it? Sure.
It sets an interesting precedent.
Ownage Jones on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
That's pretty fucked up. I wonder what will happen UT3's stuff...probably why Epic is bitching about it now. With all the Windows Live/360 Live stuff, I'm curious to see exactly how this will work, for both PC and console.
Midway is the publisher for UT3, so I don't think MS has a say in charging for such things
I think the amount of people who would pay for it is far larger than those who would not. I doubt people won't buy the next game because some extra content cost $5-10. I just find it silly to go bat shit crazy when MS let the first content pack be free.
Ah, but you're missing the bigger issue--which is Microsoft controlling content for Live. Midway doesn't control Live, Microsoft does, and per the agreement, has the final say so in pricing. So if Midway wanted to release it for free, and Epic wanted to release for free, Microsoft could potentially say "Nope. Charge for it." and "recommend" a price. That's why everyone's looking at this with the WTF eyebrow. It's not that Gears isn't awesome, it's the fact that all of a sudden, a developer doesn't have control of the content they want to give to their customers for free.
As a loose analogy, it's a like a store telling a razor maker not to include a free blade, because they want their customers to get used to paying for more blades, for no other reason that they control the distribution channel. Can you do it? Sure.
It sets an interesting precedent.
Right. If gears comes out on PC, PC gamers could get all the updates free if Epic release them for free. Microsoft control the only distribution channel to 360 gamers and by all accounts want people to pay for the privilege.
IIRC, this has already happened with a.. Ubisoft game? GRAW maybe? I'm not sure on this, I can't remember where I read it.
It should be stated also that Microsoft is not paying for new content to be developed for Gears. Epic is. Microsoft paid for the game to be made and they made an ass load of money off its sales too, but they did not fund the new content.
But they own the game itself, so whatever is added to it still has to go through them. Which begs the question of why didn't they just let Midway be the publisher for Gears? That's a whole another thread right there, but...
I'm arguing that them wanting to charge shouldn't deem them as the devil.
I think the amount of people who would pay for it is far larger than those who would not. I doubt people won't buy the next game because some extra content cost $5-10. I just find it silly to go bat shit crazy when MS let the first content pack be free.
But hell, I'd love everything to be free, but getting angry because someone wants to charge for an IP they own... i dunno.
EDIT - I am a little angered that this is causing it's release to be delayed though.
I could be completely wrong, but I was under the impression that Epic self-funded the development of their games. I know a lot of developers have to sign over most of the rights for their game and IP to a publisher to fund the development. But some companies (like Id, Blizzard, Bioware, and Epic) have been successful enough that they can break out of this cycle and have more control over what they do.
Does anyone have a source to back up the statement that Microsoft "owns" Gears of War? I mean obviously they signed a publishing and likely an exclusivity contract, but what are the details?
That's pretty fucked up. I wonder what will happen UT3's stuff...probably why Epic is bitching about it now. With all the Windows Live/360 Live stuff, I'm curious to see exactly how this will work, for both PC and console.
Midway is the publisher for UT3, so I don't think MS has a say in charging for such things
I think the amount of people who would pay for it is far larger than those who would not. I doubt people won't buy the next game because some extra content cost $5-10. I just find it silly to go bat shit crazy when MS let the first content pack be free.
Ah, but you're missing the bigger issue--which is Microsoft controlling content for Live. Midway doesn't control Live, Microsoft does, and per the agreement, has the final say so in pricing. So if Midway wanted to release it for free, and Epic wanted to release for free, Microsoft could potentially say "Nope. Charge for it." and "recommend" a price. That's why everyone's looking at this with the WTF eyebrow. It's not that Gears isn't awesome, it's the fact that all of a sudden, a developer doesn't have control of the content they want to give to their customers for free.
As a loose analogy, it's a like a store telling a razor maker not to include a free blade, because they want their customers to get used to paying for more blades, for no other reason that they control the distribution channel. Can you do it? Sure.
It sets an interesting precedent.
Right. If gears comes out on PC, PC gamers could get all the updates free if Epic release them for free. Microsoft control the only distribution channel to 360 gamers and by all accounts want people to pay for the privilege.
IIRC, this has already happened with a.. Ubisoft game? GRAW maybe? I'm not sure on this, I can't remember where I read it.
Can anyone pose a theory on how the Games for Windows/Windows Live thing fits into this? I'm willing to bet when Gears does hit the PC, it'll be under that umbrella.
Ownage Jones on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
That's pretty fucked up. I wonder what will happen UT3's stuff...probably why Epic is bitching about it now. With all the Windows Live/360 Live stuff, I'm curious to see exactly how this will work, for both PC and console.
Midway is the publisher for UT3, so I don't think MS has a say in charging for such things
I think the amount of people who would pay for it is far larger than those who would not. I doubt people won't buy the next game because some extra content cost $5-10. I just find it silly to go bat shit crazy when MS let the first content pack be free.
Ah, but you're missing the bigger issue--which is Microsoft controlling content for Live. Midway doesn't control Live, Microsoft does, and per the agreement, has the final say so in pricing. So if Midway wanted to release it for free, and Epic wanted to release for free, Microsoft could potentially say "Nope. Charge for it." and "recommend" a price. That's why everyone's looking at this with the WTF eyebrow. It's not that Gears isn't awesome, it's the fact that all of a sudden, a developer doesn't have control of the content they want to give to their customers for free.
As a loose analogy, it's a like a store telling a razor maker not to include a free blade, because they want their customers to get used to paying for more blades, for no other reason that they control the distribution channel. Can you do it? Sure.
It sets an interesting precedent.
They already gave you a free blade with two maps.
Want some more blades? Give me money!
EDIT - who pays for the bandwidth cost for these things? Because this will eat up a lot I would think.
Can anyone pose a theory on how the Games for Windows/Windows Live thing fits into this? I'm willing to bet when Gears does hit the PC, it'll be under that umbrella.
Last anyone heard, Microsoft were going to try to model it exactly along XBL lines; Silver and Gold, pay for the good stuff and online multiplayer by subscribing to a Gold account.
That's pretty fucked up. I wonder what will happen UT3's stuff...probably why Epic is bitching about it now. With all the Windows Live/360 Live stuff, I'm curious to see exactly how this will work, for both PC and console.
Midway is the publisher for UT3, so I don't think MS has a say in charging for such things
I think the amount of people who would pay for it is far larger than those who would not. I doubt people won't buy the next game because some extra content cost $5-10. I just find it silly to go bat shit crazy when MS let the first content pack be free.
Ah, but you're missing the bigger issue--which is Microsoft controlling content for Live. Midway doesn't control Live, Microsoft does, and per the agreement, has the final say so in pricing. So if Midway wanted to release it for free, and Epic wanted to release for free, Microsoft could potentially say "Nope. Charge for it." and "recommend" a price. That's why everyone's looking at this with the WTF eyebrow. It's not that Gears isn't awesome, it's the fact that all of a sudden, a developer doesn't have control of the content they want to give to their customers for free.
As a loose analogy, it's a like a store telling a razor maker not to include a free blade, because they want their customers to get used to paying for more blades, for no other reason that they control the distribution channel. Can you do it? Sure.
It sets an interesting precedent.
They already gave you a free blade with two maps.
Want some more blades? Give me money!
...:|
Never mind. You don't get it.
Last anyone heard, Microsoft were going to try to model it exactly along XBL lines; Silver and Gold, pay for the good stuff and online multiplayer by subscribing to a Gold account.
So, seeing as how UT3 is multiplatform, content that could be free on one version could cost on another, simply due to the platform philosophy. Interesting.
Ownage Jones on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
Except that Microsoft gave us shit, Kewop. Epic gave us the game, and are now trying to give us more shit for free, Microsoft only published it. It's well within Microsoft's "rights" to do this kind of thing, it just leaves a bad taste of shit in the mouths of gamers. It's almost like a weird form of extortion.
I've only ever paid points once, and I did that so I could buy a game on XBLA I wanted. I have no intention of buying any additional content, at all, anywhere, ever. It's not because I'm tight, or broke, or I don't want to support the developers. It's because of stories like this - Microsoft "recommending" a pricepoint, and not letting developers release their titles for free.
Team 17 intend to release extra content for Worms later this year, and they're pushing for the content to be free. I can't see Microsoft letting that happen.
Last anyone heard, Microsoft were going to try to model it exactly along XBL lines; Silver and Gold, pay for the good stuff and online multiplayer by subscribing to a Gold account.
So, seeing as how UT3 is multiplatform, content that could be free on one version could cost on another, simply due to the platform philosophy. Interesting.
No offense Ownage, but don't tell me you've convinced yourself that free content on th PS3 is going to be charged for on Xbox Live.
(lolol online play m i rite)
Anyway, about this. It's stupid and so is Microsoft.
The 360 is great and all, but fuck them.
Ranced on
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
edited March 2007
This was bottomed page and I was hoping someone had an answer for this.
Bandwidth is not that expensive. Especially when you are Microsoft and aren`t just running a T1 line you`re paying bell south for.
Forcing people to pay for new levels is just going to force those who pay for it to have far fewer people to play with. I`ve never once been charged to dl a new map on my computer. I sure as hell wouldn`t sign up for Windows live if they made that common place.
This is BS, but mostly because MS is offering free DLC for their own first party games (which mostly consists of Rare's). Halo 2's DLC is free now, even.
It seems shady and acting like a jerk when you allow your own developers to release for free but nobody else.
FyreWulff on
0
AxenMy avatar is Excalibur.Yes, the sword.Registered Userregular
So here is a question. I don't know the answer to this and I just want to enlighten myself.
Do Developers, or Publishers I guess, pay Microsoft for hosting on Xbox Live?
Bottom page one / top of page 2 dude
Two of us answered, this is according to what's been said in the press though. The cut Microsoft gets is likely to vary contract by contract.
That was a different question I asked. This just has to do with hosting. If you're a Developer and have multiplayer in your game do you or your Publisher have to pay Microsoft hosting fees?
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
This is BS, but mostly because MS is offering free DLC for their own first party games (which mostly consists of Rare's). Halo 2's DLC is free now, even.
It seems shady and acting like a jerk when you allow your own developers to release for free but nobody else.
Don't you have to pay for Viva Pinata stuff? I remember someone being pissed about then charging for every little thing like hats and crap.
Besides, is there even any free DLC that isn't small shit like a clothes or a doppleganger of another weapon
You know what the really bothersome thing about this is? This is old hat for Microsoft. The M$ moniker has existed for far, far longer than just the past two generation of console wars, and for good reason. Check out their late 80's dealings with competitors to the Office products like Novell, and even up to the 2000's monopoly charges. Hell, it was only just recently that Microsoft deigned to allow their servers to work with open source OS's.
This is BS, but mostly because MS is offering free DLC for their own first party games (which mostly consists of Rare's). Halo 2's DLC is free now, even.
It seems shady and acting like a jerk when you allow your own developers to release for free but nobody else.
Don't you have to pay for Viva Pinata stuff? I remember someone being pissed about then charging for every little thing like hats and crap.
Besides, is there even any free DLC that isn't small shit like a clothes or a doppleganger of another weapon
Dunno about the Xbox, but Epic is famous for releasing free shit all the time on the PC. For UT2004 they released enough stuff to make a boxed expansion, if they wanted, for free. It's why Epic has goodwill as a company from a lot of gamers.
That's the real issue here: Microsoft is damaging Epic's reputation. Epic has a reputation for maintaining their product through free bonus material, and Microsoft wants to squash that so they'll look good by comparison.
And Kewop, stop with the "Microsoft owns Gears" crap, it's getting old. Microsoft doesn't own everything that graces their console. Does Sony own Canis Canem Edit now? Just being a publisher doesn't mean you own all rights to the game either, or else EA would own Half-Life.
It should be stated also that Microsoft is not paying for new content to be developed for Gears. Epic is. Microsoft paid for the game to be made and they made an ass load of money off its sales too, but they did not fund the new content.
But they own the game itself, so whatever is added to it still has to go through them. Which begs the question of why didn't they just let Midway be the publisher for Gears? That's a whole another thread right there, but...
I'm arguing that them wanting to charge shouldn't deem them as the devil.
I think the amount of people who would pay for it is far larger than those who would not. I doubt people won't buy the next game because some extra content cost $5-10. I just find it silly to go bat shit crazy when MS let the first content pack be free.
But hell, I'd love everything to be free, but getting angry because someone wants to charge for an IP they own... i dunno.
EDIT - I am a little angered that this is causing it's release to be delayed though.
I could be completely wrong, but I was under the impression that Epic self-funded the development of their games. I know a lot of developers have to sign over most of the rights for their game and IP to a publisher to fund the development. But some companies (like Id, Blizzard, Bioware, and Epic) have been successful enough that they can break out of this cycle and have more control over what they do.
Does anyone have a source to back up the statement that Microsoft "owns" Gears of War? I mean obviously they signed a publishing and likely an exclusivity contract, but what are the details?
Epic owns the Gears of War IP. It's been mentioned numerous times on 1UP Yours that CliffyB made it perfectly clear that they own it. If they wanted to, they could release Gears of War 2 (or 3) on the PS3.
This is BS, but mostly because MS is offering free DLC for their own first party games (which mostly consists of Rare's). Halo 2's DLC is free now, even.
It seems shady and acting like a jerk when you allow your own developers to release for free but nobody else.
Don't you have to pay for Viva Pinata stuff? I remember someone being pissed about then charging for every little thing like hats and crap.
Besides, is there even any free DLC that isn't small shit like a clothes or a doppleganger of another weapon
You can download one of Perfect Dark's map packs for free, and from what I remember you can download an entire co-op mode for Kameo for free aswell
This is BS, but mostly because MS is offering free DLC for their own first party games (which mostly consists of Rare's). Halo 2's DLC is free now, even.
It seems shady and acting like a jerk when you allow your own developers to release for free but nobody else.
Don't you have to pay for Viva Pinata stuff? I remember someone being pissed about then charging for every little thing like hats and crap.
Besides, is there even any free DLC that isn't small shit like a clothes or a doppleganger of another weapon
You can download one of Perfect Dark's map packs for free, and from what I remember you can download an entire co-op mode for Kameo for free aswell
You can also download the first GoW mappack for free. And there's going to be some Kameo DLC coming that will cost money.
"there may be some situation or unusual case where there's content that's significant in nature and it would make other content look out of line, but I'm not aware of any case where we've told them that they couldn't offer it for free."
That is an outright lie. Bizarre wanted to release Geometry Wars for free but MS forced them to charge for it.
It's also the best DLC on XBOX Live, and it's a measly 5 dollars. Kind of makes me sad.
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
edited March 2007
I saw an article in GI this month about the same thing... I'm surprised that MS is doing this, but at the same time, I think of buying money in Godfather...
I don't know where I'm going with this. Seething anger rabble rabble...
I havent listened to the podcast but is there some sort of reliable source backing this information up?
All the podcast mentions is, on the topic of future exclusivities, they say how, it's not outside the realm of possibility that GoW 3 could be PS3 exclusive, and mentioned that Mark Rein and Co "weren't happy with the stuff happening at Epic" or something to that effect. Then another guy piped in "Where's the DLC? I've played it, it's awesome. We should be out telling people about this stuff, showing it off."
There wasn't any overt implications in the podcast itself.
Last anyone heard, Microsoft were going to try to model it exactly along XBL lines; Silver and Gold, pay for the good stuff and online multiplayer by subscribing to a Gold account.
So, seeing as how UT3 is multiplatform, content that could be free on one version could cost on another, simply due to the platform philosophy. Interesting.
No offense Ownage, but don't tell me you've convinced yourself that free content on th PS3 is going to be charged for on Xbox Live.
(lolol online play m i rite)
Anyway, about this. It's stupid and so is Microsoft.
The 360 is great and all, but fuck them.
Not outside the realm of possibility, but that's over the top, so rationally, no.
Nah. I fully expect Epic to win this particular fight, not that there should be one in the first place, and forthgoing, free stuff will be free unless they pick otherwise.
Ownage Jones on
[SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
Yeah this is pretty ridiculous. I think microsoft should only really come into the picture on pricing when they are trying to charge too much, not too little.
Also if they want to warm people up to the idea of DLC, they really need to take a look at Luminies. Here I am, thinking I bough the whole game when all of a sudden i find out I only bought base mode and there's like four-five other packs that have suddenly become avaliable that i need to buy as well if i want to play any modes other then the base pack. It would be nice if these things were displayed before purchase, because that really dosen't inspire confidence for their system in me.
This is BS, but mostly because MS is offering free DLC for their own first party games (which mostly consists of Rare's). Halo 2's DLC is free now, even.
It seems shady and acting like a jerk when you allow your own developers to release for free but nobody else.
Don't you have to pay for Viva Pinata stuff? I remember someone being pissed about then charging for every little thing like hats and crap.
Besides, is there even any free DLC that isn't small shit like a clothes or a doppleganger of another weapon
You can download one of Perfect Dark's map packs for free, and from what I remember you can download an entire co-op mode for Kameo for free aswell
You can also download the first GoW mappack for free.
OMG MICROSOFT IS TEARING MONEYS OUT OF OUR WALLETS.
Oh no wait, they're not.
First off, this is big time rumor, and while there's probably some truth to it, it is most likely not NEARLY on the scale that you people are thinking, and I can't believe this thread already has the wolves drooling.
What's probably happened here is a simple policy that has caused some confusion. Microsoft probably HAS suggest a price point, and epic still wants to make it free. I doubt MS is saying "dude, sell it, or don't push it," they're probably saying " are you SURE you want to give it away for free, because it'd probably sell?"
Big difference.
Same thing most likely happened with geometry wars. They inititially wanted to give it away, MS told them that they could probably sell it, they saw the light, and so it goes. It WOULD have been dumb to give Geometry wars away for free, because the shit sold like hot cakes.
Posts
Epic creates content. Epic wants to release content for free.
Microsoft wants to charge for content.
It's simple. It's bullshit. You can knock it off with the apologizing Kewop. They are the devil for doing this.
The Right Thing To Do™ is let the developer decide how much they want to charge for things. Microsoft has created a false economy here - and they're clearly taking steps to protect it; this is done at the expense of the consumer. I
Yea, it's stupid because obviously people are going all "M$ lol" but I can understand why they'd do that. This reminds me of the whole Capcom/Marvel thing. I wouldn't be that surprised if the end result happens here. I don't think it can though seeing how they own the IP.
lol, how? I don't even post here much anymore
not a big hurt on my wallet, of course i would love it to be free
Pokemon Diamond:3394 0249 9567
Ah, but you're missing the bigger issue--which is Microsoft controlling content for Live. Midway doesn't control Live, Microsoft does, and per the agreement, has the final say so in pricing. So if Midway wanted to release it for free, and Epic wanted to release for free, Microsoft could potentially say "Nope. Charge for it." and "recommend" a price. That's why everyone's looking at this with the WTF eyebrow. It's not that Gears isn't awesome, it's the fact that all of a sudden, a developer doesn't have control of the content they want to give to their customers for free.
As a loose analogy, it's a like a store telling a razor maker not to include a free blade, because they want their customers to get used to paying for more blades, for no other reason that they control the distribution channel. Can you do it? Sure.
It sets an interesting precedent.
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
too many rides on the cole train
That's what I'm thinking, but I think people are thinking it will being like 1200 or something. Wasn't that how much Ghost Recon's stuff was?
How can anyone (in this thread) possibly assign value without knowing?
Do Developers, or Publishers I guess, pay Microsoft for hosting on Xbox Live?
Right. If gears comes out on PC, PC gamers could get all the updates free if Epic release them for free. Microsoft control the only distribution channel to 360 gamers and by all accounts want people to pay for the privilege.
IIRC, this has already happened with a.. Ubisoft game? GRAW maybe? I'm not sure on this, I can't remember where I read it.
I could be completely wrong, but I was under the impression that Epic self-funded the development of their games. I know a lot of developers have to sign over most of the rights for their game and IP to a publisher to fund the development. But some companies (like Id, Blizzard, Bioware, and Epic) have been successful enough that they can break out of this cycle and have more control over what they do.
Does anyone have a source to back up the statement that Microsoft "owns" Gears of War? I mean obviously they signed a publishing and likely an exclusivity contract, but what are the details?
Can anyone pose a theory on how the Games for Windows/Windows Live thing fits into this? I'm willing to bet when Gears does hit the PC, it'll be under that umbrella.
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
They already gave you a free blade with two maps.
Want some more blades? Give me money!
EDIT - who pays for the bandwidth cost for these things? Because this will eat up a lot I would think.
Last anyone heard, Microsoft were going to try to model it exactly along XBL lines; Silver and Gold, pay for the good stuff and online multiplayer by subscribing to a Gold account.
...:|
Never mind. You don't get it.
So, seeing as how UT3 is multiplatform, content that could be free on one version could cost on another, simply due to the platform philosophy. Interesting.
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
Team 17 intend to release extra content for Worms later this year, and they're pushing for the content to be free. I can't see Microsoft letting that happen.
PortsCenter • Jump Leads • The Life Toyetic with Ben and Molly
No offense Ownage, but don't tell me you've convinced yourself that free content on th PS3 is going to be charged for on Xbox Live.
(lolol online play m i rite)
Anyway, about this. It's stupid and so is Microsoft.
The 360 is great and all, but fuck them.
Bottom page one / top of page 2 dude
Two of us answered, this is according to what's been said in the press though. The cut Microsoft gets is likely to vary contract by contract.
Forcing people to pay for new levels is just going to force those who pay for it to have far fewer people to play with. I`ve never once been charged to dl a new map on my computer. I sure as hell wouldn`t sign up for Windows live if they made that common place.
It seems shady and acting like a jerk when you allow your own developers to release for free but nobody else.
That was a different question I asked. This just has to do with hosting. If you're a Developer and have multiplayer in your game do you or your Publisher have to pay Microsoft hosting fees?
Don't you have to pay for Viva Pinata stuff? I remember someone being pissed about then charging for every little thing like hats and crap.
Besides, is there even any free DLC that isn't small shit like a clothes or a doppleganger of another weapon
Dunno about the Xbox, but Epic is famous for releasing free shit all the time on the PC. For UT2004 they released enough stuff to make a boxed expansion, if they wanted, for free. It's why Epic has goodwill as a company from a lot of gamers.
That's the real issue here: Microsoft is damaging Epic's reputation. Epic has a reputation for maintaining their product through free bonus material, and Microsoft wants to squash that so they'll look good by comparison.
And Kewop, stop with the "Microsoft owns Gears" crap, it's getting old. Microsoft doesn't own everything that graces their console. Does Sony own Canis Canem Edit now? Just being a publisher doesn't mean you own all rights to the game either, or else EA would own Half-Life.
Epic owns the Gears of War IP. It's been mentioned numerous times on 1UP Yours that CliffyB made it perfectly clear that they own it. If they wanted to, they could release Gears of War 2 (or 3) on the PS3.
You can download one of Perfect Dark's map packs for free, and from what I remember you can download an entire co-op mode for Kameo for free aswell
You can also download the first GoW mappack for free. And there's going to be some Kameo DLC coming that will cost money.
(I'm lying
It's also the best DLC on XBOX Live, and it's a measly 5 dollars. Kind of makes me sad.
I don't know where I'm going with this. Seething anger rabble rabble...
All the podcast mentions is, on the topic of future exclusivities, they say how, it's not outside the realm of possibility that GoW 3 could be PS3 exclusive, and mentioned that Mark Rein and Co "weren't happy with the stuff happening at Epic" or something to that effect. Then another guy piped in "Where's the DLC? I've played it, it's awesome. We should be out telling people about this stuff, showing it off."
There wasn't any overt implications in the podcast itself.
Not outside the realm of possibility, but that's over the top, so rationally, no.
Nah. I fully expect Epic to win this particular fight, not that there should be one in the first place, and forthgoing, free stuff will be free unless they pick otherwise.
Currently playing: Infamous, Resident Evil 5
Need to play: Shadow Complex, Uncharted 2, Ratchet and Clank: ACIT, MW2, Alpha Protocol
With all the buzz this is getting around the internet Microsoft needs to stand up and address the issue.
Also if they want to warm people up to the idea of DLC, they really need to take a look at Luminies. Here I am, thinking I bough the whole game when all of a sudden i find out I only bought base mode and there's like four-five other packs that have suddenly become avaliable that i need to buy as well if i want to play any modes other then the base pack. It would be nice if these things were displayed before purchase, because that really dosen't inspire confidence for their system in me.
OMG MICROSOFT IS TEARING MONEYS OUT OF OUR WALLETS.
Oh no wait, they're not.
First off, this is big time rumor, and while there's probably some truth to it, it is most likely not NEARLY on the scale that you people are thinking, and I can't believe this thread already has the wolves drooling.
What's probably happened here is a simple policy that has caused some confusion. Microsoft probably HAS suggest a price point, and epic still wants to make it free. I doubt MS is saying "dude, sell it, or don't push it," they're probably saying " are you SURE you want to give it away for free, because it'd probably sell?"
Big difference.
Same thing most likely happened with geometry wars. They inititially wanted to give it away, MS told them that they could probably sell it, they saw the light, and so it goes. It WOULD have been dumb to give Geometry wars away for free, because the shit sold like hot cakes.