£10 for 5 MW2 Maps LOL
- Thread starter Doogle
- Start date
I'm aware that they push for devs to charge...but that's really beside the point. Some dev's may complain and say they have 'no choice' but to charge for DLC... they still go a head and release it though don't they. If they really felt that strongly they would only release their DLC on platforms where they can choose to distribute for free.
What I was getting at is that historically there has been no way for publishers or developers to effectively deliver paid for DLC on PC - but now they are able to do very easily. The move towards paid DLC may have been instigated by this console generation, in particular the Xbox Marketplace - but it's been pushed on and encouraged by the likes of Steam and GFWL who provided the tools and delivery platform for the PC. If you want to blame anything for the increase in paid DLC, blame the shift towards digital distribution.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 8,436
- Location
- Kent
They don't need an excuse. The idea that the PC gaming industry is supposed to be noble is a fallacy at best, or even a con
I'm not saying they're forced, I'm saying we shouldn't be surprised that they've decided to do this.
Google could certainly try, but I don't see them getting away with it. Do you?
Yes, there has. Only 'historically' it was called 'an expansion'. It saddens me that you seem to have forgotten this. Its true offering it to download wasn't really an option, but at least it meant when they released it, the difficulty of the distribution would mean they actually had to earn those sales.
Increased ease of distribution has just led to ****tier and ****tier releases with expansions been forgotten by most companies. Just look at Dragon Age: Origins. First you have The Stone Prisoner 'dlc', ie, the thing that wasn't quite done in time for release, which makes you wonder why they didn't just hold back release till it WAS finished. Then you had Wardens Keep, an interesting area but overall, not much. Then we have Return To Ostagar and the expansion. The DLC was pathetic quite frankly. The expansion for about 4x the price contains vastly more than 4x that content.
But you made a big effort in making some up for themThey don't need an excuse. The idea that the PC gaming industry is supposed to be noble is a fallacy at best, or even a con
In not surprised given that its activision & not because it was a number one game.
But they are number 1 & are breaking all previous & current internet search engine world records. They have just as much excuse as activision
What you see & what actually happens can be world apart.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 8,436
- Location
- Kent
I wasn't trying to make excuses for them, I'm just saying this was always going to happen. The biggest warning sign imo was when they said there would be no mods: after all, if the community can't make mods or changes or additions, then who does that leave? After that, it was just a matter of the game becoming popular enough (and it clearly was) and then that's all she wrote.
The only thing is there exist a number of free search engines which are nearly as good. People will end up voting with their wallets a lot more easily than in MW2's case
I see your analogy, but you have to admit MW2 is very unique in its position.
He hasn't forgotten it, he's just saying the 'expansions' of old don't have much in common with the tiny content that passes for DLC today.
That's exactly what he's saying. Getting away with making terrible or tiny releases and getting paid almost as much for it is only really possible thanks to DLC, and we have the advent of the xbox marketplace, Steam, and GFWL to thank for that. As much as I like Steam, it does have its bad points
Sorry but you were making excuse because there are many recent games that people have been complaining about the value of the DLC that are not & never were in the position of MW2 but still did what activision has done, so being number 1 in the entertainment is not a prerequisite for overcharging for DLC content & there was nothing to stop activision adding more to the content to make it seem like it was worth it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 8,436
- Location
- Kent
Being at number 1 isn't a pre-requisite, but it certainly helps
Devs or publishers?
Either way, why are people assuming that the gaming industry is staffed by noble people who will care for us and give us more things for less money?
killer seems to think that if there is an option then it must be taken & no one can be blamed for taking it..
Last edited:
Being at number 1 isn't a pre-requisite, but it certainly helps
Yes it helps but again is not the excuse like you were making out.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 8,436
- Location
- Kent
Oh I blame Activision. Maybe even Infinity Ward though last time I looked all their employees seem to have left so I'm kind of confused on that one.
I never tried to give them any excuses, mainly because I don't think what they're doing is "wrong". Its not against the law, its not against what people want (because people are clearly buying it) and its not even a con or some sort of deception, because they've said all along that they plan to do this and how much it would cost, and how little would be included.
Is it annoying? Yes.
Do I like it? No.
Is it working for them? Clearly.
Why? Because they're in a unique position of power where unlike all their predecessors (and by that I mean previous publishers and developers who have tried to release crap DLC at extreme prices) it looks like people are buying these. A lot of people.
We aren't, we're wondering why it seems to be staffed by people trying to give as little as possible for as much as possible. There a pretty big difference between making a profit and showing you actual care about your customers and making a profit by ****ing everyone over and Activision are clearly doing the latter.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 2,925
- Location
- West Midlands
This is IW for you. They are money grabbing ******** who give you call of duty 4.5
And the bold part is the truth of the matter as to why some people don't see eye to eye with your view because it is clear you see nothing wrong with it with all your posts with excuse to why they are doing it & not just coming out with the truth of not seeing anything wrong with it from the start.
Last edited:
I think it's Activision who are the money grabbers, especially given the recent controversy over the fact Activision allegedly haven't paid IW for the work yet and are instead doing god knows what with the money.
I think it's Activision who are the money grabbers, especially given the recent controversy over the fact Activision allegedly haven't paid IW for the work yet and are instead doing god knows what with the money.
Not the same Activision who published Dark Reign, clearly. Just as well it's been 7 years since I bought a game they had any involvement with
Nobody is giving them excuses.. some have just tried to explain why they are doing it. They want to make as much money as possible and get as many people buying their games and they have achieved both with MW2. This is only one approach but one that is clearly very successful. The price they charge is only set by the amount people are willing to pay, and in excess of 1 million people have sent a very clear message to the top dogs at Activision stating that $15 is an acceptable amount to pay for 5 DLC maps. This is only going to increase when it's released on PS3 and PC.
Clearly none of us here find this value for money which is why we aren't buying in to it - But I really don't get why your attacking people for pointing this out. Do you just not want to accept that a business would charge as much as people are willing to pay, or that there is a significant number of people prepared to pay so much for so 'little'?.
They are being greedy & its as simple as that, giving many possible reasons for them being greedy is irrelevant because at the end of the day they are just being greedy.
No! as i work for the top 6th company in the UK in our field out of thousands of others & we charge much less than most others.
I don't believe that all companies charge as much as people are willing to pay as then you would never see the word value for money mentioned by consumers because that means they are getting more than what they think they should be getting for what they paid which means that they would have paid more.
And your definition of attacking differers from mine.
Last edited: