Question of the Day, December 5, 2010

[DSK-]

I prefer free DLC or DLC that has a cost in relation to it's content. £15 pounds for 5 or so maps in MW2 is not worth it.

I sincerely miss the days of community made maps. Back in UT2004, a good percent of competitive maps were actually community made. Mapmakers would often take advice and critique over weapons, health and power up placement and the map would be tested a great deal. It was a great way to switch up play and also help improve the competitive community's map pool/experience.

Hell even a few of the modders/mappers in UT2004 got jobs at Epic - it'd help developers get a hold of particularly talented individuals who know their engines inside and out.

 

[icyneesan]

Too Expensive and I never feel like I'm getting enough bang for my buck.

(well, the Spy polycount set can be overkill, but only against a team who don't spycheck)

So 90% of teams out there herp derp

 

[JoshGod]

adding/improving a game after a launch is much easier for the developers, that doesn't mean we should pay for it.

 

[V8 Ninja]

I don't usually mind and I think it's not a bad idea, but some publishers are pricing DLC way too high. $15 for four maps that I can only play in multiplayer, which will probably die down in less than 3 months? I'm sorry, no thank you.

 

[deth2munkies]

They're great and signify a good dev commitment to a game after it comes out, which is always a good thing as so many games are released and are buggy and/or short and just abandoned there.

The above applies only if they're free, otherwise they're an unnecessary cash grab that pisses me off.

 

[Kris015]

Meh, they should be free or very cheap. BUT! If they made like new weapons or stuff like that, i would buy it.

 

[Irridium]

So long as they're priced correctly they're fine.

An example of how not to do it well is MW2. 3 new maps, and 2 remakes. Remakes that the developers said they would not put into the game due to balance reasons, now we hear they brought them over and only changed some graphical stuff? Yeah, not buying it.

 

[Pielikey]

As long as they're free or absurdly cheap they're good. Having only 3 new maps and two remakes and charging a quarter of what the game is worth is really stupid.

 

[Lacsapix]

its just a lame way to increase the prize of the game with 10$.

 

[Count Igor]

I don't really care. Either way, I'll be playing WoW in a few days
But anyway, take a note from valve and release it for free.
Or even better, include it in the main game, like you intended to, before your Money-Hounds sniffed out a better marketing scheme ¬.¬

 

[Shimrra]

I had this come up when i used to play COD:WAW.
when they released the first map pack, i thought it was cool, but I was unemployed so i couldent get it.
Now here is where it irks me. They put the DLC maps in the normal rotation! By the third map pack, half of the maps were DLC, and there was no way to avoid them, and it took longer to find a game to play on then I got to play! So i quit the game alltogether.

If they want DLC fine and dandy, but anyone who just bought the game, or cant afford the DLC, you just RUINED the online experience for them.

 

[WolfLordAndy]

Valve have it right. Give people free content, also let the community make up additional maps and weapons, which they can then later tweek to be fully balanced. But with a properly supported community running it's own servers and admins, the playbase itself chooses what is and isn't a good map or acceptable weapons.

I don't mind paying for expansion packs, where you get a whole new campaign, weapons and some maps, (the Dawn of War series had them about right, although a bit expencive) but the way NOT to do it is like Battlefield 2 (with Spec Ops, Euroforces, Armoured Fist, etc) where they just forced people into buying the packs if you wanted to play with people that had them, otherwise you couldn't load those maps, I shelled out for Spec Ops as it added quite a bit of extra gadgets and weapons, but the later expansions were basicly map packs and reskins

I will be buying BC2:Vietnam when it's out in a couple weeks, as at 9.99 I think its worth 5 maps with mostly new weapons and vehcles (gotta love Tuc-Tucs!).

 

[monkey_man]

If free, FCK YEAH
If not ; nope

 

[Dorian]

Main problem is here:

They're trying to justify pricing a handful of maps, half-assed or not, to that of the same that Point Lookout, Knights of the Nine, Broken Steel, and other terrific DLC Bethesda has made.

Tell me. Would anyone really ever think paying $30,000 for a Ferrari or $30,000 for this [http://watmough.tripod.com/host/040613_205gti.jpg]? Same difference. One has lots more work put into it than the other.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

I like the fact that they put in new maps even after the game is released. Be honest, delaying a game for 3 months just so you can work on making a couple of new maps is really lame and I can understand that a lot of developers wouldn't want to do that. But then again, holding back ideas just so you can charge more money later is pretty evil.

I'll have to put on my Valve fanboy hat once more and say that all developers need to do what they're doing. If you have ideas for a game after the game comes out, release them, but release them for free. I paid $20 for the Gears of War 2 map packs. I paid nothing for the Left 4 Dead and Team Fortress 2 updates and add ons.

 

[natster43]

I am fine with it if it was not around 800 Microsoft Points for 2 or 3 maps. I could get an entire game for the same price at times.

 

[Shimrra]

Also, Valve has declined to give TF2 updates because they cant do it for free on the Xbox.
And they tried to charge for the MW2 maps on PC and it flopped so bad that nVidia stepped up and footed the bill for everyone to make it free!

 

[Kron_the_mad wants to be deleted]

considering that most map packs are re-releases of old work and before developers stopped giving our level editors and other modding tools this shit used to be free it's all over priced.

 

[phantasmalWordsmith]

one thing i dont like about is how if you don't get them, you miss out a lot.