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.
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.
No.
Microsoft told them they could not give it away for free, so they did not.
Big difference.
Kemal86 on
i used to test games now i sit on my couch and am lazy all day
PKMN White FC: 0046 2138 1298
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.
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.
No.
Microsoft told them they could not give it away for free, so they did not.
Big difference.
You're right. They totally did it just to be jerks.
Mind providing quotes where it was said that microsoft said "NO WAY YOU JERKS WE ARE GOING TO MAKE MONEY"?
EDIT:
I love it when people on this board use a singular "No" as if they're about to shatter your reality.
And then you go and find the quote that shows they're just full of shit and rumor mongering.
Here's the DIRECT quote on what happened with geometry wars:
Well we didn't really look at it as a way to make money or develop a new platform. Geometry Wars was really intended as a gift to hardcore gamers and we initially wanted to give the game away for free. When it became evident that we couldn't do this, we said to Microsoft "what's the absolute bare minimum we can charge". They said 400 points, so we went with that.
In terms of the risk, it was fairly low. Stephen Cakebread did the bulk of the work on his own, so costs weren't astronomical.
Read that shit. It DOESN'T imply that microsoft told them they have to charge for it. It seems quite obvious that they realized that the COST of making the game wasn't going to allow them to just make it for free, but that they could release it for cheap.
That sounds more like the studio heads said "wait a minute, this G wars stuff is taking up more time that you guys said it would, we gotta charge SOMETHING for it."
Here's the DIRECT quote on what happened with geometry wars:
Well we didn't really look at it as a way to make money or develop a new platform. Geometry Wars was really intended as a gift to hardcore gamers and we initially wanted to give the game away for free. When it became evident that we couldn't do this, we said to Microsoft "what's the absolute bare minimum we can charge". They said 400 points, so we went with that.
In terms of the risk, it was fairly low. Stephen Cakebread did the bulk of the work on his own, so costs weren't astronomical.
Read that shit. It DOESN'T imply that microsoft told them they have to charge for it. It seems quite obvious that they realized that the COST of making the game wasn't going to allow them to just make it for free, but that they could release it for cheap.
That sounds more like the studio heads said "wait a minute, this G wars stuff is taking up more time that you guys said it would, we gotta charge SOMETHING for it."
But it is way easier to demonize MS right?
Maybe its just me, but when I read that quote it sounded more like they told Microsoft they wanted it to be free, Microsoft said no, so then they asked what the bare minimum they could charge for it was.
If they decided to cover development cost, why did they consult with Microsoft? Wouldn't they have been able to say, "Okay it cost this much to make the game, so lets charge this much to cover the cost."
Note: I'm not saying thats what went down. Just saying thats not how I read that quote you used to prove otherwise.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
And, honestly, the quote doesn't actually prove anything. If you're using the word "implied," you should have enough sense to realize that you're operating off a hazy concept as well.
Here's the DIRECT quote on what happened with geometry wars:
Well we didn't really look at it as a way to make money or develop a new platform. Geometry Wars was really intended as a gift to hardcore gamers and we initially wanted to give the game away for free. When it became evident that we couldn't do this, we said to Microsoft "what's the absolute bare minimum we can charge". They said 400 points, so we went with that.
In terms of the risk, it was fairly low. Stephen Cakebread did the bulk of the work on his own, so costs weren't astronomical.
Read that shit. It DOESN'T imply that microsoft told them they have to charge for it. It seems quite obvious that they realized that the COST of making the game wasn't going to allow them to just make it for free, but that they could release it for cheap.
That sounds more like the studio heads said "wait a minute, this G wars stuff is taking up more time that you guys said it would, we gotta charge SOMETHING for it."
But it is way easier to demonize MS right?
Actually, that's exactly what it implies. If they were looking at it from a fiscal, make-back-invested-money standpoint, they wouldn't have charged the bare-minimum.
And when dealing with the corporate world (yes, even the gaming corporate world) you should always, always, always assume that it's more sinister/cynical/'corporate' than it sounds, because it always is, microsoft or anyone else.
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.
Epic? I think you mean Microsoft. If Mark Rein wasn't happy with something happening at Epic, he'd be firing some people. ;-)
Anyway, from the Bizarre quote, it completely sounds like Microsoft told Bizarre "no, you're not allowed to make it free". I can kind of understand Microsoft's logic (since it does cost money to host the content) but then, what's the XBL Gold subscription paying for then?
Here's the DIRECT quote on what happened with geometry wars:
Well we didn't really look at it as a way to make money or develop a new platform. Geometry Wars was really intended as a gift to hardcore gamers and we initially wanted to give the game away for free. When it became evident that we couldn't do this, we said to Microsoft "what's the absolute bare minimum we can charge". They said 400 points, so we went with that.
In terms of the risk, it was fairly low. Stephen Cakebread did the bulk of the work on his own, so costs weren't astronomical.
You're bolding the wrong parts.
Geometry Wars was really intended as a gift to hardcore gamers and we initially wanted to give the game away for free. When it became evident that we couldn't do this...
They wanted to give it away for nothing.
Stephen Cakebread did the bulk of the work on his own, so costs weren't astronomical.
They only had one programmer work on this. For the XNA contest they had some dude create a Geometry Wars style game in a single day. So even if this one dude spent two months on it it still would be a low cost game.
When it became evident that we couldn't do this, we said to Microsoft "what's the absolute bare minimum we can charge".
Again it wasn't development costs, it was microsoft imposing the cost.
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.
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.
No.
Microsoft told them they could not give it away for free, so they did not.
Big difference.
You're right. They totally did it just to be jerks.
Mind providing quotes where it was said that microsoft said "NO WAY YOU JERKS WE ARE GOING TO MAKE MONEY"?
EDIT:
I love it when people on this board use a singular "No" as if they're about to shatter your reality.
And then you go and find the quote that shows they're just full of shit and rumor mongering.
Here's the DIRECT quote on what happened with geometry wars:
Well we didn't really look at it as a way to make money or develop a new platform. Geometry Wars was really intended as a gift to hardcore gamers and we initially wanted to give the game away for free. When it became evident that we couldn't do this, we said to Microsoft "what's the absolute bare minimum we can charge". They said 400 points, so we went with that.
In terms of the risk, it was fairly low. Stephen Cakebread did the bulk of the work on his own, so costs weren't astronomical.
Read that shit. It DOESN'T imply that microsoft told them they have to charge for it. It seems quite obvious that they realized that the COST of making the game wasn't going to allow them to just make it for free, but that they could release it for cheap.
That sounds more like the studio heads said "wait a minute, this G wars stuff is taking up more time that you guys said it would, we gotta charge SOMETHING for it."
But it is way easier to demonize MS right?
It's not about "shattering your reality", its about you saying something I think is wrong, and letting you know it. As for being "full of shit" and "rumor mongering", I remember that exact quote, and it's where my "No." came from.
Myself (and a few other posters above me) just took a totally different meaning from it than you did.
In summary:
No.
Kemal86 on
i used to test games now i sit on my couch and am lazy all day
PKMN White FC: 0046 2138 1298
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.
Epic? I think you mean Microsoft. If Mark Rein wasn't happy with something happening at Epic, he'd be firing some people. ;-)
That's what the 1up guy said... He probably meant "between Epic and MS" but I left it as is to demonstrate just how little info there was.
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.
Epic? I think you mean Microsoft. If Mark Rein wasn't happy with something happening at Epic, he'd be firing some people. ;-)
That's what the 1up guy said... He probably meant "between Epic and MS" but I left it as is to demonstrate just how little info there was.
Did he really say that? I can't really remember exactly what he says, but yeah, I think it was kind of obvious that the troubles were between Epic and Microsoft rather than Mark Rein and Epic.
Oh and I thought it was hilarious when Luke was mocking CliffyB.
Microsoft does have the right to try and make money through its distribution service too. If you want to use that distribution service to give out your content then you need to pursuade them that giving it away for free is in both of your best interests.
Epic "Heres our new pack, we'd like to give it away for free"
Microsoft "but you gave away the last one for free, Gears is one of the most popular games on our service, we can both make a few bucks here"
Epic "Still, we think we should give it away for free, think of the good publicity, its good for both of us"
Microsoft "We're not running a charity, and people already have good feelings about GoW. It would be irresponsible of us not to try and make money for our shareholders."
Its not corruption. Epic will think it would make more positives to give it away for free, MS will think it will make more positives to sell it.
that's not the point. Sure, Microsoft is the publisher. They can decide whatever they want. But does it foster good games? PC gamers are used to having DLC for free. PC Games that try to pass off inconsequential changes are skewered in the marketplace. BF2142 for example.
There's an easier way to think about this. There will be downloadable content. User generated content. That's the future of console gaming as paved by the PC gaming world.
It's just maps. It's stuff that were half done that couldn't be included in the final product. A lot of times, these maps were SUPPOSED to be in there. Not only does it encourage ppl to buy new copies, it encourages online play which discourages piracy. It's a win, win, win.
It's like charging a dollar for each Wii Channel.
muikano on
What's wrong with killing ppl that are oppressing you?
Because making them your willing slaves is much more cost effective.
Microsoft does have the right to try and make money through its distribution service too. If you want to use that distribution service to give out your content then you need to pursuade them that giving it away for free is in both of your best interests.
Epic "Heres our new pack, we'd like to give it away for free"
Microsoft "but you gave away the last one for free, Gears is one of the most popular games on our service, we can both make a few bucks here"
Epic "Still, we think we should give it away for free, think of the good publicity, its good for both of us"
Microsoft "We're not running a charity, and people already have good feelings about GoW. It would be irresponsible of us not to try and make money for our shareholders."
Its not corruption. Epic will think it would make more positives to give it away for free, MS will think it will make more positives to sell it.
It's still bullshit, especially for consumers. If companies were allowed to give their content away for free, it would help set an example and others could hopefully follow suit (or receive backlash from the consumers). The lack of competition in the XBL Marketplace is ultimately bad for the consumer.
Besides, why would Microsoft in their right mind want to piss off Epic, the company that just made them millions? It's not exactly a smart business decision when Epic are the ones that own the Gears of War IP.
I wonder though, will Microsoft buckle if Epic releases free content for the PS3 version of UT3?
Microsoft does have the right to try and make money through its distribution service too. If you want to use that distribution service to give out your content then you need to pursuade them that giving it away for free is in both of your best interests.
Epic "Heres our new pack, we'd like to give it away for free"
Microsoft "but you gave away the last one for free, Gears is one of the most popular games on our service, we can both make a few bucks here"
Epic "Still, we think we should give it away for free, think of the good publicity, its good for both of us"
Microsoft "We're not running a charity, and people already have good feelings about GoW. It would be irresponsible of us not to try and make money for our shareholders."
Its not corruption. Epic will think it would make more positives to give it away for free, MS will think it will make more positives to sell it.
It's still bullshit, especially for consumers. If companies were allowed to give their content away for free, it would help set an example and others could hopefully follow suit (or receive backlash from the consumers). The lack of competition in the XBL Marketplace is ultimately bad for the consumer.
Besides, why would Microsoft in their right mind want to piss off Epic, the company that just made them millions? It's not exactly a smart business decision when Epic are the ones that own the Gears of War IP.
I wonder though, will Microsoft buckle if Epic releases free content for the PS3 version of UT3?
Of course, then Epic can come and say...
Epic "lets give this stuff away for free"
MS "Hmm, but people already like the games, lets sell it instead and make some money for the shareholders"
Epic "But PS3 lets us give it away for free, if we charge here its going to make you look bad."
MS "Well, OK then, now there are positives to giving it away for us too."
Remember that microsoft is effectively running a shop. Someone who wants to give their product away for free in the shop may well stop someone buying something else, since they already got the free thing. Who is going to pay the $3 for the new level of Stabman X, when the new level for Squid Racer is free to use? Microsoft is only going to let there be enough free stuff to encourage people in to buy other things.
tbloxham on
"That is cool" - Abraham Lincoln
0
ShadowfireVermont, in the middle of nowhereRegistered Userregular
Microsoft does have the right to try and make money through its distribution service too. If you want to use that distribution service to give out your content then you need to pursuade them that giving it away for free is in both of your best interests.
Epic "Heres our new pack, we'd like to give it away for free"
Microsoft "but you gave away the last one for free, Gears is one of the most popular games on our service, we can both make a few bucks here"
Epic "Still, we think we should give it away for free, think of the good publicity, its good for both of us"
Microsoft "We're not running a charity, and people already have good feelings about GoW. It would be irresponsible of us not to try and make money for our shareholders."
Its not corruption. Epic will think it would make more positives to give it away for free, MS will think it will make more positives to sell it.
It's still bullshit, especially for consumers. If companies were allowed to give their content away for free, it would help set an example and others could hopefully follow suit (or receive backlash from the consumers). The lack of competition in the XBL Marketplace is ultimately bad for the consumer.
Besides, why would Microsoft in their right mind want to piss off Epic, the company that just made them millions? It's not exactly a smart business decision when Epic are the ones that own the Gears of War IP.
I wonder though, will Microsoft buckle if Epic releases free content for the PS3 version of UT3?
Of course, then Epic can come and say...
Epic "lets give this stuff away for free"
MS "Hmm, but people already like the games, lets sell it instead and make some money for the shareholders"
Epic "But PS3 lets us give it away for free, if we charge here its going to make you look bad."
MS "Well, OK then, now there are positives to giving it away for us too."
Remember that microsoft is effectively running a shop. Someone who wants to give their product away for free in the shop may well stop someone buying something else, since they already got the free thing. Who is going to pay the $3 for the new level of Stabman X, when the new level for Squid Racer is free to use? Microsoft is only going to let there be enough free stuff to encourage people in to buy other things.
Who's going to buy Shivering Isles, when they can download tons and tons of user-created mods for free?
Yea, a lot of people are. It doesn't matter how much free content there is.. if the pay content is good, people will pay for it.
That's a game update (i.e. patch) not necassarily DLC though. There's likely a mappack or other considerably large bit of DLC that Epic and MS are arguing about. This just a patch that fixes some glitches, the vga issue and adds a new gamemode. Not something MS has been in the habit of charging for on XBL.
It’s the ‘Hidden Fronts’ map pack and it’s dropping this Thursday, May 3, at 9 a.m. GMT
The map pack is 800 points in which you’ll get four new multiplayer maps:
Bullet Marsh: In this Kryll-infested swamp, an old generator still powers the area lights. A few stray bullets could easily knock out the generator, leaving combatants to fend for themselves against the Kryll.
Garden: This overgrown and crumbling conservatory still has a working fertilization and pesticide system. This system can pose a serious hazard to anyone who ventures into the greenhouse without first venting the air.
Process: Teams must fight for control of this subterranean Imulsion processing plant, still active despite the cessation of the Pendulum wars.
Subway: Timgad's Central Subway station used to serve as a central hub for commuters. Now the tunnels are crawling with Locust.
You can grab the pack this Thursday for 800 points or wait until Sept. 3, 2007 when all four maps will be available for free.
Bullet Marsh: In this Kryll-infested swamp, an old generator still powers the area lights. A few stray bullets could easily knock out the generator, leaving combatants to fend for themselves against the Kryll.
Microsoft does have the right to try and make money through its distribution service too. If you want to use that distribution service to give out your content then you need to pursuade them that giving it away for free is in both of your best interests.
Epic "Heres our new pack, we'd like to give it away for free"
Microsoft "but you gave away the last one for free, Gears is one of the most popular games on our service, we can both make a few bucks here"
Epic "Still, we think we should give it away for free, think of the good publicity, its good for both of us"
Microsoft "We're not running a charity, and people already have good feelings about GoW. It would be irresponsible of us not to try and make money for our shareholders."
Its not corruption. Epic will think it would make more positives to give it away for free, MS will think it will make more positives to sell it.
It's still bullshit, especially for consumers.
I'm not advocating or defending anything in this thread, but I would like to point out that the consumer is always the one who gets fucked, because it's easier to screw a million guys out of $0.50 than it is to screw one organization out of $10.
Of course they're gonna be free come september. they need online players to stick with em because literally everyone on XBL is going to be playing Halo3 come nov7th
I think the main point of all this is Microsoft is a company that wants to make money.
stop whining.
mad props to epic though, this is pure fanservice and they go up a notch in my book for trying to push free content. maybe they didnt argue too strongly because lets face it, $$$, but certainly seems like they are all kinds of shit hot at the moment.
It seems like a lot of you guys are getting confused about one simple thing here. In pricing GoW content, Microsoft is acting as the publisher, not the proprietor or Xbox Live Marketplace.
They paid to publish Gears. As part of the standard contract, the publisher has the final say in deciding the price point of downloadable content. Epic's surprise that Microsoft wants to charge for content that people will willingly buy shows nothing but a lack of common sense - and possibly reading comprehension - on Epic's part.
Personally, I'd like to see the content be released for free as well because then the online player base isn't divided between those that did and did not pay for additional content. Especially since the game already cost $60 and to play in online it's another $50 for a year of Xbox Live. I'd like to see Gold members get more for their money than just the ability to play online, and free online-only content would be a great place to start, but if developers want to start setting prices, they're going to need to stipulate that with their publishers.
Kewop, what the fuck are you even arguing? You're saying that you don't care if it's free or not, but seem to be pushing for them to release it for money, and even attempting to justify it.
You're wrong in this case, in every possible way. Epic created content for their video game. They want to release this content for free. Microsoft isn't letting them, saying that they need to charge for it if they're going to release it. It's not right, it feeds into the RIAA-enforced conglomerate idea that publishers rule all content and the artists (or developers) come second. It's their fucking content, they created it, let them charge what they want for it.
I understand that you would pay if they released it for money, as would I. I want new Gears content just as much as the next guy. But I don't want them to release it for money, especially if it's an artificial charge that Microsoft is imposing just so they can make a buck. Newsflash, they don't need the money. It's not going to result in some sort of company-wide pay raise for all of their employees, nor is it going to charity, or back to the gamer in any form. It's just additional profits to one of the richest companies in the world.
I don't know how the thread continued on past this post, let alone for 3 additional pages. Thread over.
Sorry for resurrecting this thread, but from this point on the thread will be about playing the new DLC.
I bought the DLC as soon as it came out but I haven't felt like putting Gears in since then. I haven't played what I bought yet.
Is it any good? Are any of you guys up for some games this weekend? I kinda like the idea of shooting a light and having many players get eaten by krill.
mspencer on
MEMBER OF THE PARANOIA GM GUILD
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )
Posts
No.
Microsoft told them they could not give it away for free, so they did not.
Big difference.
PKMN White FC: 0046 2138 1298
You're right. They totally did it just to be jerks.
Mind providing quotes where it was said that microsoft said "NO WAY YOU JERKS WE ARE GOING TO MAKE MONEY"?
EDIT:
I love it when people on this board use a singular "No" as if they're about to shatter your reality.
And then you go and find the quote that shows they're just full of shit and rumor mongering.
Here's the DIRECT quote on what happened with geometry wars:
Read that shit. It DOESN'T imply that microsoft told them they have to charge for it. It seems quite obvious that they realized that the COST of making the game wasn't going to allow them to just make it for free, but that they could release it for cheap.
That sounds more like the studio heads said "wait a minute, this G wars stuff is taking up more time that you guys said it would, we gotta charge SOMETHING for it."
But it is way easier to demonize MS right?
______________________
battlerep on STEAM.
Maybe its just me, but when I read that quote it sounded more like they told Microsoft they wanted it to be free, Microsoft said no, so then they asked what the bare minimum they could charge for it was.
If they decided to cover development cost, why did they consult with Microsoft? Wouldn't they have been able to say, "Okay it cost this much to make the game, so lets charge this much to cover the cost."
Note: I'm not saying thats what went down. Just saying thats not how I read that quote you used to prove otherwise.
And when dealing with the corporate world (yes, even the gaming corporate world) you should always, always, always assume that it's more sinister/cynical/'corporate' than it sounds, because it always is, microsoft or anyone else.
Epic? I think you mean Microsoft. If Mark Rein wasn't happy with something happening at Epic, he'd be firing some people. ;-)
Anyway, from the Bizarre quote, it completely sounds like Microsoft told Bizarre "no, you're not allowed to make it free". I can kind of understand Microsoft's logic (since it does cost money to host the content) but then, what's the XBL Gold subscription paying for then?
You're bolding the wrong parts.
Geometry Wars was really intended as a gift to hardcore gamers and we initially wanted to give the game away for free. When it became evident that we couldn't do this...
They wanted to give it away for nothing.
Stephen Cakebread did the bulk of the work on his own, so costs weren't astronomical.
They only had one programmer work on this. For the XNA contest they had some dude create a Geometry Wars style game in a single day. So even if this one dude spent two months on it it still would be a low cost game.
When it became evident that we couldn't do this, we said to Microsoft "what's the absolute bare minimum we can charge".
Again it wasn't development costs, it was microsoft imposing the cost.
Satans..... hints.....
Don't be an asshole. That's insulting to mentally disabled people (and shit-monkeys).
It's not about "shattering your reality", its about you saying something I think is wrong, and letting you know it. As for being "full of shit" and "rumor mongering", I remember that exact quote, and it's where my "No." came from.
Myself (and a few other posters above me) just took a totally different meaning from it than you did.
In summary:
No.
PKMN White FC: 0046 2138 1298
Did he really say that? I can't really remember exactly what he says, but yeah, I think it was kind of obvious that the troubles were between Epic and Microsoft rather than Mark Rein and Epic.
Oh and I thought it was hilarious when Luke was mocking CliffyB.
Epic "Heres our new pack, we'd like to give it away for free"
Microsoft "but you gave away the last one for free, Gears is one of the most popular games on our service, we can both make a few bucks here"
Epic "Still, we think we should give it away for free, think of the good publicity, its good for both of us"
Microsoft "We're not running a charity, and people already have good feelings about GoW. It would be irresponsible of us not to try and make money for our shareholders."
Its not corruption. Epic will think it would make more positives to give it away for free, MS will think it will make more positives to sell it.
There's an easier way to think about this. There will be downloadable content. User generated content. That's the future of console gaming as paved by the PC gaming world.
It's just maps. It's stuff that were half done that couldn't be included in the final product. A lot of times, these maps were SUPPOSED to be in there. Not only does it encourage ppl to buy new copies, it encourages online play which discourages piracy. It's a win, win, win.
It's like charging a dollar for each Wii Channel.
Because making them your willing slaves is much more cost effective.
It was sponsored by Discovery.
Click me for Sin City Breakfast Tacos! | Come discuss CG with us!
It's still bullshit, especially for consumers. If companies were allowed to give their content away for free, it would help set an example and others could hopefully follow suit (or receive backlash from the consumers). The lack of competition in the XBL Marketplace is ultimately bad for the consumer.
Besides, why would Microsoft in their right mind want to piss off Epic, the company that just made them millions? It's not exactly a smart business decision when Epic are the ones that own the Gears of War IP.
I wonder though, will Microsoft buckle if Epic releases free content for the PS3 version of UT3?
It's a fine solution.
Steam | XBL
Of course, then Epic can come and say...
Epic "lets give this stuff away for free"
MS "Hmm, but people already like the games, lets sell it instead and make some money for the shareholders"
Epic "But PS3 lets us give it away for free, if we charge here its going to make you look bad."
MS "Well, OK then, now there are positives to giving it away for us too."
Remember that microsoft is effectively running a shop. Someone who wants to give their product away for free in the shop may well stop someone buying something else, since they already got the free thing. Who is going to pay the $3 for the new level of Stabman X, when the new level for Squid Racer is free to use? Microsoft is only going to let there be enough free stuff to encourage people in to buy other things.
Who's going to buy Shivering Isles, when they can download tons and tons of user-created mods for free?
Yea, a lot of people are. It doesn't matter how much free content there is.. if the pay content is good, people will pay for it.
heh
That's a game update (i.e. patch) not necassarily DLC though. There's likely a mappack or other considerably large bit of DLC that Epic and MS are arguing about. This just a patch that fixes some glitches, the vga issue and adds a new gamemode. Not something MS has been in the habit of charging for on XBL.
If Epic want the stuff to go out for free, it should be free. They are making it after all.
MS; irrespective of other DLC, should let it go.
Do I want Gears DLC for free? Yes.
Do I mind paying for Oblivion DLC when charged? No, different game. Want it all.
Will I hand my wallet over to Marketplace come Guitar Hero II next Friday? Hell yes.
fuckity fuckity fuckity woo
Compromise FTW.
wow....
I'm not advocating or defending anything in this thread, but I would like to point out that the consumer is always the one who gets fucked, because it's easier to screw a million guys out of $0.50 than it is to screw one organization out of $10.
BRAWL CODE: 3866-7685-8500
Seriously, they totally broke Roadie Run/Cover and you can't get achievements in the new gametype? Talk about shooting oneself in the foot.
PKMN White FC: 0046 2138 1298
stop whining.
mad props to epic though, this is pure fanservice and they go up a notch in my book for trying to push free content. maybe they didnt argue too strongly because lets face it, $$$, but certainly seems like they are all kinds of shit hot at the moment.
They paid to publish Gears. As part of the standard contract, the publisher has the final say in deciding the price point of downloadable content. Epic's surprise that Microsoft wants to charge for content that people will willingly buy shows nothing but a lack of common sense - and possibly reading comprehension - on Epic's part.
Personally, I'd like to see the content be released for free as well because then the online player base isn't divided between those that did and did not pay for additional content. Especially since the game already cost $60 and to play in online it's another $50 for a year of Xbox Live. I'd like to see Gold members get more for their money than just the ability to play online, and free online-only content would be a great place to start, but if developers want to start setting prices, they're going to need to stipulate that with their publishers.
I love both of you. Seriously Devolve, what ... the ... fuck.
I don't know how the thread continued on past this post, let alone for 3 additional pages. Thread over.
I bought the DLC as soon as it came out but I haven't felt like putting Gears in since then. I haven't played what I bought yet.
Is it any good? Are any of you guys up for some games this weekend? I kinda like the idea of shooting a light and having many players get eaten by krill.
XBL Michael Spencer || Wii 6007 6812 1605 7315 || PSN MichaelSpencerJr || Steam Michael_Spencer || Ham NOØK
QRZ || My last known GPS coordinates: FindU or APRS.fi (Car antenna feed line busted -- no ham radio for me X__X )