Are map packs still a good idea?

Games Other Halo
#1

If I were using the user count in the DLC playlist, and forum user general opinion, as a guide, I wouldn’t purchase the Crimson Map Pack. And I haven’t.

If I had purchased a War Games Pass, sure. But I haven’t done that either.

Surely, though, the idea of paying for map packs has a limited future. If there was a guarantee of a strong population of users, and a good experience with connection, then maybe, just maybe, I’d purchase.

But alternately, what effect on the user experience does a low-population, fragmented user base have, on said players, who’ve purchased the DLC? Or are committed to future DLC with the war games pass?

For example, friends or trusted players in your friends list, who don’t have the DLC, suddenly can’t join in on your games anymore

Low user population might result in longer wait times for connections, or poor connections to begin with

Is this happening? If so, is this type of fragmentation worth it, in the end?

P.S. I’m looking forward to the Majestic map pack. If it is well received, I might buy. Here’s hoping.

#2

i skipped out on crimson. Remember Reach? when the dlc playlists were removed? i wasted my money buying noble and defiant. even with anniversary 343 screwed over the people who only had the halo 1 remake disc by removing the btb playlist, more people bought halo anniversary than noble and defiant combined so why was it removed? 2000 players is not a low population .

there is no point in buying any of the map packs unless they restrict majority of the halo 4 playlists, if they do then it will increase map pack sales and population.

#3

I think it’s an outdated business model. They should switch to the free to play model and start charging for In game content like additional armor, guns, perks, and vehicles. They would make more money over the maps. Plus on how fast the consumer can access video on the maps they can make a rational decision on purchasing the content in less than a half hour if they really want it. Better to release it free and attach other more attractive digital gems.

#4

> If I were using the user count in the DLC playlist, and forum user general opinion, as a guide, I wouldn’t purchase the Crimson Map Pack. And I haven’t.
>
> If I had purchased a War Games Pass, sure. But I haven’t done that either.
>
> Surely, though, the idea of paying for map packs has a limited future. If there was a guarantee of a strong population of users, and a good experience with connection, then maybe, just maybe, I’d purchase.
>
> But alternately, what effect on the user experience does a low-population, fragmented user base have, on said players, who’ve purchased the DLC? Or are committed to future DLC with the war games pass?
>
> For example, friends or trusted players in your friends list, who don’t have the DLC, suddenly can’t join in on your games anymore
>
> Low user population might result in longer wait times for connections, or poor connections to begin with
>
> Is this happening? If so, is this type of fragmentation worth it, in the end?
>
> P.S. I’m looking forward to the Majestic map pack. If it is well received, I might buy. Here’s hoping.

Ultimately, you have to make an informed decision as to whether you want the map packs. If you feel that 343 hasn’t earned you money for the packs, dont get it. You should get it if you feel differently though.

For me, I bought the legendary version of Halo so that came with the war games pass, but some of my friends did not do that. When I play with them, it is only on the starting maps & honestly for me, I don’t care either way; Im playing for fun, & to shoot the poop with my friends. Generally speaking, I have longer wait times for game connections when I play with buddies who do not have the packs.

#5

> I think it’s an outdated business model. They should switch to the free to play model and start charging for In game content like additional armor, guns, perks, and vehicles. They would make more money over the maps. Plus on how fast the consumer can access video on the maps they can make a rational decision on purchasing the content in less than a half hour if they really want it. Better to release it free and attach other more attractive digital gems.

Funny you say this, because it is something I’d like to see, even if only trialed by 343.

Micro-transactions work well in other media, why not in something like Halo? I’d disagree in regards to perks, or gameplay affecting purchases (ones that provide advantages etc. This will only create a have and have-not situation). But visor packs, armor packs, weapon skin packs etc, sure.

I also think map packs may be an outdated business model. In my humble opinion, all they serve to do is fragment the user population. And if the maps are not interesting… well, at least the maps I personally don’t like in Halo 4, they’re free. But paying for maps, with no idea if they’ll be any fun, or cater to your tastes, just doesn’t seem like a business model which will last.

Of course, the financial benefits might say otherwise. Who knows?

#6

> i skipped out on crimson. Remember Reach? when the dlc playlists were removed? i wasted my money buying noble and defiant. even with anniversary <mark>343 screwed over the people who only had the halo 1 remake disc by removing the btb playlist, more people bought halo anniversary than noble and defiant combined so why was it removed? 2000 players is not a low population .</mark>
>
> there is no point in buying any of the map packs unless they restrict majority of the halo 4 playlists, if they do then it will increase map pack sales and population.

I loved the BTB Ann playlist, i was so angry when they removed it.

#7

I like them because they add new things to the game and its allways great to see what the deveolpers come up with. but what iv found is by the third or forth map pack less players buy them and you dont see those maps anymore really. SO then it feels like you really didnt get your moneys worth

#8

Map packs are fine, but they need to release them differently. I think they would do better if each pack was made for a specific gametype or at least size: BTB Map Pack, Slayer Map Pack, Objective Map Pack, etc. So far they usually drop 3 maps of various design and purpose…Most people ask themselves, “How much do I really want to spend for a couple maps that might not ever come up in a hopper I don’t even play just so I can have 1 map that will?”

#9

> Map packs are fine, but they need to release them differently. I think they would do better if each pack was made for a specific gametype or at least size: BTB Map Pack, Slayer Map Pack, Objective Map Pack, etc. So far they usually drop 3 maps of various design and purpose…Most people ask themselves, “How much do I really want to spend for a couple maps that might not ever come up in a hopper I don’t even play just so I can have 1 map that will?”

NIce idea there. That way the players get what they like the most without feeling like they wasted money

#10

Funny that you mention this, one of the reasons for Rotational playlists is so the population does not get fragmented, in 343’s vision it was to weed out the least popular playlists.
Well the Crimson dlc map pack averages about 200 players at a time, that is desperatly low, and utterly contradicts there premise about rotational playlists.

People now do their research more than before, if they hear that the maps are not that good they don’t purchase it, either way though 343 make money becasue the maps were made well in advanced, any money they can get for them at all is a profit.

Your idea about paying for other content is viable, but I don’t believe they sould include perks etc, just armor pieces and skins for different guns.

#11

> Map packs are fine, but they need to release them differently. <mark>I think they would do better if each pack was made for a specific gametype or at least size: BTB Map Pack, Slayer Map Pack, Objective Map Pack, etc</mark>. So far they usually drop 3 maps of various design and purpose…Most people ask themselves, “How much do I really want to spend for a couple maps that might not ever come up in a hopper I don’t even play just so I can have 1 map that will?”

Nice idea. Not sure if it’s been done before, in other games I mean. Perhaps, even, tailor 1 map for each type i.e. 1 x BTB, 1 x Slayer, 1 x Objective, with each map pack release, instead of the entire map pack favoring a specific game type

Still, on the issue of fragmentation - by having to pay for map packs, is this ruining the online experience? There will always be a percentage of the online gaming community, who will never pay for a map pack.

I’d like to see, in future Halo’s, a map pack model where the company can incorporate map packs for free. I get that gaming companies are a business, and need to make money. That’s fine. But beyond this, there must be another way to implement them, without fragmenting the online population.

Again, I’ll probably never purchase the Crimson Map Pack because of the opinions of a few who hate it, and the user population of the playlist points towards it not being worthwhile. Sure, I can purchase it to make up my own mind, but I don’t want to feel like the money was wasted.

On a broader scale, I’d like to see companies focus more on keeping the online population engaged, and playing, instead of fragmenting them for a profit. And I understand that, even if free, some people will still not download them, but surely, the number of people that do would greatly outnumber that who have purchased map packs before.

#12

I purchased War Games, and have barely played the new maps. I look forward to the nest two map packs though.

#13

> …the Crimson dlc map pack averages about 200 players at a time, that is desperatly low, and utterly contradicts there premise about rotational playlists.

Trust Me™, 343 has no qualm with removing DLC playlists. :slight_smile:

#14

> If I were using the user count in the DLC playlist, and forum user general opinion, as a guide…

Well you’re starting off on the wrong note.

#15

Don’t even bother, the crimson map pack is terrible. Even worse than the starting maps IMO. Harvest is good but I was forced to play on Wreckage (Dump) like 10 times in a row so I uninstalled it. That Yoink! is terrible.

#16

Three maps is really hard to get excited about, especially when a lot of Halo maps are so narrow in focus. I really hope 343 looks at ways to get more mileage out of their maps or ways to ramp up their map production.

The competition is doing 4 and 5 maps per pack, and all of those maps are used in every playlist. Buying those map packs really expands your online experience, no matter what your preferred playlist is.

Halo really divides the maps in their map packs. One hurdle has always been creating maps for 4v4 and 8v8 gametypes. They seem to have been mutually exclusive, and typical player behavior shows them confining themselves to either/or.

As a result, they’re effectively producing less maps and stretching them thinner.

That’s why I’d like to see 343 make use of Forge to release two versions of each map. If we had the full Forge palette in Longbow, for example, they could easily turn it into a smaller map that would work for 4v4 and play totally differently from the 8v8 version. If we had coliseum walls on Haven, we could block off one of the grassy sides, and then that map would play very well for 4v4.

As it is, with three maps stretched between some playlists I don’t like and don’t frequent, I’d much prefer it if map DLC was free. It would expand the game for everyone, and as a result, it would expand the life of the game and help it retain a higher value longer. MS would make more money off the retail sale of the full game.

The only alternative, IMO, is making the DLC more appealing by creating maps that are so flexible as to permeate every experience in matchmaking. What good is a BTB map that only plays well in CTF if I don’t like playing BTB CTF?

Cut a portion out of that map that plays well for 4v4, and now I’m interested.