halo 5 dlc

when the game comes close to being released i don’t want to hear that there is dlc ready or you are working on it. if it is already ready put it in the game on release. halo 4 had a lack of maps when it came out but they had already said that it had dlc ready.are you rely that money hungry. i hate most dlc map packs that cost 800 Microsoft points for 5 maps its not worth it at all. i hate to see that a map pack for halo 4 will cost the same amount as a burial at sea part for bio shock as burial at sea dlc clearly took more money and effort in making. the only reason i have all the maps for halo 4 is because i bought the special edition then to find out im not getting the bullseye dlc wtf that’s not fair. when its getting close to release i hate hearing that there is dlc being made when you could be spending that time fixing and tweaking it because almost every game is glitchy at the start.

halo is not the only game that does this but halo is the only game that i like that’s doing this.
take your time when it comes to dlc i don’t want to be bombarded with it.

I think they just need to put more maps at start or make the DLC free, I am one of those guys who didn’t buy any DLC and I have to say that I’m always angry when this happens. But seeing as how Microsoft owns 343, its a safe bet that this will still happen, most games do this anyways so its no exception to anyone or game…

> I think they just need to put more maps at start or make the DLC free, I am one of those guys who didn’t buy any DLC and I have to say that I’m always angry when this happens. But seeing as how Microsoft owns 343, its a safe bet that this will still happen, most games do this anyways so its no exception to anyone or game…

i completely agree its very sad that this happens with every company there all money whores.

> > I think they just need to put more maps at start or make the DLC free, I am one of those guys who didn’t buy any DLC and I have to say that I’m always angry when this happens. But seeing as how Microsoft owns 343, its a safe bet that this will still happen, most games do this anyways so its no exception to anyone or game…
>
> i completely agree its very sad that this happens with every company there all money whores.

Not every company. Yes its annoying that you have to pay but they need money after all it is a job. If anything the DLC crisis can be linked to the wall street crash where people arent buying any because there is nobody buying it causing a chain reaction.

Also what makes us so special that we should get everything for free?

> > > I think they just need to put more maps at start or make the DLC free, I am one of those guys who didn’t buy any DLC and I have to say that I’m always angry when this happens. But seeing as how Microsoft owns 343, its a safe bet that this will still happen, most games do this anyways so its no exception to anyone or game…
> >
> > i completely agree its very sad that this happens with every company there all money whores.
>
> Not every company. Yes its annoying that you have to pay but they need money after all it is a job. If anything the DLC crisis can be linked to the wall street crash where people arent buying any because there is nobody buying it causing a chain reaction.
>
> Also what makes us so special that we should get everything for free?

i dont think we should get it for free its just they shouldnt waste there time on it when it takes hardly any effort compared to other games dlc and costs more than other games dlc when its not worth it.

Can we just eradicate DLC?

Like put more maps in Halo 5 and raise the price of the game if necessary, but enough DLC. It’s not only an unethical practice, it also causes problems in getting maps to actually be played in-game.

And I do say unethical because most of the time it’s like this:
I sell pies.
Suddenly, I cut a pie in half, and start charging you extra for the other half.

> Not every company. Yes its annoying that you have to pay but they need money after all it is a job

There’s a difference between “needing money” and “trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of the frugal masses”.

And frankly companies like EA and Microsoft are probably fine from a financial standpoint.

They must make sure there are plenty of maps in the launch version.

Lack of maps is what killed Gears Judgment before it even really got started, coupled with the dearth of multiplayer characters - there were more available through pre-orders and money-earning promotions with external companies than there were in the actual game.

People on the Epic forums were not happy about it to put it politely.

> > > > I think they just need to put more maps at start or make the DLC free, I am one of those guys who didn’t buy any DLC and I have to say that I’m always angry when this happens. But seeing as how Microsoft owns 343, its a safe bet that this will still happen, most games do this anyways so its no exception to anyone or game…
> > >
> > > i completely agree its very sad that this happens with every company there all money whores.
> >
> > Not every company. Yes its annoying that you have to pay but they need money after all it is a job. If anything the DLC crisis can be linked to the wall street crash where people arent buying any because there is nobody buying it causing a chain reaction.
> >
> > Also what makes us so special that we should get everything for free?
>
> i dont think we should get it for free its just they shouldnt waste there time on it when it takes hardly any effort compared to other games dlc and costs more than other games dlc when its not worth it.

True, but it could always get worse. Just look at infinity ward with COD’s DLC prices.

If they do every DLC like the champions bundle Ill call that very fair, but they could add in a new map or two if they have no ideas for other parts of the DLC.

> > I think they just need to put more maps at start or make the DLC free, I am one of those guys who didn’t buy any DLC and I have to say that I’m always angry when this happens. But seeing as how Microsoft owns 343, its a safe bet that this will still happen, most games do this anyways so its no exception to anyone or game…
>
> i completely agree its very sad that this happens with every company there all money whores.

Have you forgotten what a company actually is?

Do I think we should have free DLC? Yes and No.

Yes, there are some DLC that should be free, IE single map DLC, certain Character based DLC should be free, Spartan Ops like Missions should be free. (Yes, Spartan Ops should be grouped as DLC.)

No, there are some situations and DLC that shouldn’t be free, IE large map packs, and large missions. The larger the download, the more the need to not be free. DLC on Xbox LIVE is very iffy, mostly because it costs to not only for the developer to put DLC up on Xbox LIVE, so Microsoft can check it and make sure it works right, and isn’t full of spyware, but they also have to help maintain their servers.

Money from games and DLC help keep the developers, not the publishers, so leave EA and Microsoft out of this. The money from game and DLC sells are used to maintain the servers, the developers computers, their furniture, their building, pay their employees, and pay for the marketing.

YES, I understand that a lot of you guys look at this as a money grab, and you’re right, it is, Publishers and Developers don’t make money from used games, and once they release the game, a small percentage from the sells actually return to them.
DLC is a good way to make spending a year or more developing games easier.

> Can we just eradicate DLC?

WHY!? Why eradicate DLC, that means no new maps, no new missions, no new content post launch. You’re grouping DLC as only maps and map packs. Halo 4 is the first Halo game on the Xbox that has DLC that’s more than just maps. We have Spartan Ops which is missions, we have this new DLC that’s armor and weapon skins. All of the Preorder stuff, that is DLC of sorts. You do away with DLC, what else are you going to bundle with preorders?

> Like put more maps in Halo 5 and raise the price of the game if necessary,

Raise the price? that’s a stupid move, no offence to anyone, but look what happens when you have a high priced game. People don’t buy it day one, they wait until the price drops, people pirate the game.

> It’s not only an unethical practice, it also causes problems in getting maps to actually be played in-game.

Unethical? How is it unethical? Because it costs money!? Oh no you have to fork out some money to buy an optional part of the game.

Unethical is Pay to Win, Unethical is making every single DLC free, and not giving developers a cent, Unethical is forcing people to spend money.

Ok, it causes problems in getting the maps to actually be played in-game, there are ways to FIX those problems other than removing DLC altogether. It’s called lowering the price after a few months, it’s called having a send alone playlist for DLC.

> And I do say unethical because most of the time it’s like this:
> I sell pies.
> Suddenly, I cut a pie in half, and start charging you extra for the other half.

If you cut the pie in half, charge the same as a whole pie, and then charge a person the same price for another half, is unethical.

You don’t go out and sell a person a slice of pie, and then if they ask for another slice, or the rest of the whole pie, you don’t give it to them for free.

When I walk into a store to buy an apple, I don’t expect to be charged 0.99$ for a whole basket of apples.

They way you’re talking, it sounds like to you, that developers make a whole game, and then break it up and sell the parts at a later date. Which that kind of action is slightly unethical, but that’s not what DLC in Halo is. Halo’s DLC is they develop the game, they release the whole game, and then after the game has gone gold, or has been officially released to the public, they then begin work on DLC, to be added to the game.

Lets go back to your pie selling, lets say you sell me a whole pie, are you telling me that that’s all the pie you’re going to sell me? I can’t come back and order a slice, or half of a pie?

> > Not every company. Yes its annoying that you have to pay but they need money after all it is a job
>
> There’s a difference between “needing money” and “trying to squeeze as much money as possible out of the frugal masses”.
>
> And frankly companies like EA and Microsoft are probably fine from a financial standpoint.

Those are PUBLISHERS. 343i is a DEVELOPER, know the difference.

A publisher publishes the games, and makes mass copies of the game and help out with marketing.

Developers are the ones who develop the games and work their butts off to release them.

Yes Microsoft is most likely getting a larger percentage than say EA, but that’s because you’re dealing with to parts of Microsoft, you got Microsoft the publishers, and Microsoft the Xbox LIVE. Xbox LIVE takes a cut from anything on their services, it helps maintain their servers, and help them with R&D, as well as other expense.

Im presuming halo 4’s DLC is what is being used as a bad argument in this case. Halo 4’s DLC had all good maps and the champions bundle was such a good deal half of it was basically free. And on top of that they had to work within hardware constraints which is very difficult to make something that is awesome with halo 4’s graphics getting in the way of amount of content.

Shatter is awesome
Wreckage is alright
Harvest is brilliant
Monilith is absolute brilliant (proving old map design works in DESIGNING new maps while Im on it)
Skyline is brilliant
Landfall is awesome
Perdition is awesome
Outcast is brilliant
Daybreak is aweful but many seem to love it so why not
Vertigo is very unique which means lots of effort
Pitfall shows dedication to showing how old maps can work with sprint

Also in the OP you mentioned how 800MSP is a rip of for 5 maps when that would be a bargin, since its usually 800 for 3 maps.

Also they never even had plans for the champions bundle hence why they didnt include it and never said you’d get the champions bundle as part of the map pass.

> Im presuming halo 4’s DLC is what is being used as a bad argument in this case. Halo 4’s DLC had all good maps and the champions bundle was such a good deal half of it was basically free. And on top of that they had to work within hardware constraints which is very difficult to make something that is awesome with halo 4’s graphics getting in the way of amount of content.

Hardware and Disc constraints is part of the problem with the number of maps.

You either get more campaign, and less MP, or you get more MP and less Campaign, or you get a health balance of both.

It’s very hard to get a health balance of both, mostly because you got two major voices for the game, you got Campaign, which is a main reason why a lot of us buy Halo, and why there’s so many Halo games. And then you got MP, which is very popular, and also is the cause to Halo games being very popular for large periods of time.

> Also in the OP you mentioned how 800MSP is a rip of for 5 maps when that would be a bargin, since its usually 800 for 3 maps.

Agreed, the map packs before Champions Bundle was was 3 or 4 maps for $10.
But Champions Bundle has the Bullseye pack which is 2 maps, which by it’s self is $6, but in champions bundle, it’s those two maps along with armor kinds, new armor, weapon skins, and poses. That’s a lot of content that costs money to make, and would cost more.

Good DLC pricing should be how Xbox LIVE’s gold membership is.
1 map = $3.00
2 maps = $4.50
3 maps = $5.25
4 maps = $6.00

That’s a good price, it’s ethical, because it’s still money to pay the developers and publishers, but the more you buy, the smaller the amount of money it costs.

> Also they never even had plans for the champions bundle hence why they didnt include it and never said you’d get the champions bundle as part of the map pass.

Unplanned DLC often tends to be good DLC.
Planned DLC means they’re planning on releasing DLC, this can be good and bad. So far in Halo, we’ve been lucky to mostly have MP maps.
Mass Effect 3 and it’s Day One DLC, that DLC was slightly sketchy because it was a major plot part. If Halo had the same issue that ME3 had with day one mission DLC, I’d be upset, but not so upset to the point to say it’s unethical.

A lot of people here don’t quite understand game development, and quite a few people in this thread alone make me question rather or not they know what goes on behind the scenes. To go back to the pier. When I walk into a pie shop, I order a pie, and that’s it, as far as I know, that pie was just made from a Star Trek replicator, and magically teleported into the box. That’s what it sounds like I hear from you guys.

You guys don’t think of what it took to make that pie, you guys don’t take time to think about why the price is the price, or where the money goes once it leaves your hands. Have you guys ever hired someone to do some repair for you? NO? Me neither, but I have been the guy who was hired to do the repair, and got a quick lesson in pricing.

5 hours on a roof spraying venting, $35 a hour, $15 a can. that’s around $400, most of that is labor, and then the rest of it is for the 17 cans of sealant.
Is it ethical for me to charge $35 an hour? No, it’s not, because as much as I’d love to get away with charging $7 an hour, getting up on top of a roof isn’t the safest job on earth, I could slip and fall of the roof, I could fall through the roof, I could even get hit by something falling on me.

We can sit here and argue the fine points of prices and where they come from, and what they’re for. But know this, DLC is a norm these days, it isn’t going away, the price may be questionable at times, and most times on Xbox LIVE, it’s Microsoft that’s picks the price.

> WHY!? Why eradicate DLC, that means no new maps, no new missions, no new content post launch.

Why should there be new content post launch to begin with?

Why can’t a game just launch with every skin, every map, every mission, etc? Why is that such a foreign concept to people these days?

At least then games might be worth the outrageous $60 that is commonly charged for them. Think about that, buying two modern games, even without DLC, is already over $100 spent.

> Raise the price? that’s a stupid move, no offence to anyone, but look what happens when you have a high priced game. People don’t buy it day one, they wait until the price drops, people pirate the game.

How is it a stupid move?

You can pay $70-80 for a game that comes with DLC.

Or you can pay $60 for the game, then pay $20-30 for DLC that will likely never show up in matchmaking.

I wouldn’t be happy about paying ten extra dollars, but some compromise has to be made.

> Ok, it causes problems in getting the maps to actually be played in-game, there are ways to FIX those problems other than removing DLC altogether. It’s called lowering the price after a few months, it’s called having a send alone playlist for DLC.

Hypocritical argument.

First your criticizing my suggestion because people “wouldn’t pay $70 on day one, they would wait for the game to go on sale”.

But if DLC eventually goes free, people will wait for the DLC to go free instead of buying it.

> Those are PUBLISHERS. 343i is a DEVELOPER, know the difference.

Companies and publishers are what we were discussing, is it not? What kind of strawman is this? I never even once mentioned developers, this whole time I’ve been talking about the people who sell the game itself.

> > WHY!? Why eradicate DLC, that means no new maps, no new missions, no new content post launch.
>
> <mark>Why should there be new content post launch to begin with?</mark>
>
> <mark>Why can’t a game just launch with every skin, every map, every mission, etc?</mark> Why is that such a foreign concept to people these days?
>
> At least then games might be worth the outrageous $60 that is commonly charged for them. Think about that, buying two modern games, even without DLC, is already over $100 spent.

Because DLC brings people back to the game, and it makes money.

Lets say for instance that Halo 4 was delayed 1 month and as a result, all the DLC we currently have would be on the disc.
Fair enough, but then new DLC would be made instead.

If 343 was about to release Halo 5, and in a press release stated that they aren’t going to be supporting it with any DLC what so ever, how would you feel?

We are living in the age of DLC, its not going away.

Yea the maps get old real quick, I even bought all dlc the day it was released (used pre-order bonus on the map pass). It’s even worse when all we get is 10 maps or so, and some of those are bad. So it feels more like 8, THEN we have the majority vote system, which usually gets rid of another 1-3 lesser played maps for various reasons. Now we end up with 5-7 maps lol.

Played 1785 games, highest dlc map was pitfall (part of the youngest dlc map pack lol) at 35 times. Also my numbers are a bit misleading…as I stopped playing team/infinity slayer after I hit 250 haven games. I remember at one point I had 250 haven and 2nd place was adrift at like 80 lol. I’ve played haven (mainly in the first 2 months) almost as much as I’ve played ALL dlc maps combined, which is funny considering dlc maps had dedicated playlists at various times.

haven - 264 14.8%
ragnarok - 195 10.9%
complex - 173 9.7%
adrift - 162 9.1%
ravine - 162 9.1%
exile - 142 8.0%
abandon - 123 6.9%
solace - 119 6.7%
impact - 76 4.3%
longbow - 75 4.2%
pitfall - 35 2.0%
harvest - 33 1.8%
perdition - 26 1.5%
forge island - 26 1.5%
daybreak - 22 1.2%
skyline - 20 1.1%
wreckage - 19 1.1%
shatter - 18 1.0%
outcast - 18 1.0%
meltdown - 17 1.0%
vortex - 15 0.8%
monolith - 13 0.7%
vertigo - 12 0.6%
landfall - 10 0.5%
erosion - 10 0.5%

1785 total

Will only pick up halo 5 dlc (assuming I even get it) if dlc system changes. As in, not everyone in the lobby has to have the maps. Only half or whatever number decided has to have the dlc maps for them to appear. Or if many more people actually stick with the game (more people, more chances that people I am matched with might have maps, population DOES matter when there’s only 20,000 people on and only a tiny fraction have the maps I want to play)

> If 343 was about to release Halo 5, and in a press release stated that they aren’t going to be supporting it with any DLC what so ever, how would you feel?

Overjoyed, if the game launched with a ton of content to begin with. It means I don’t have to pay extra for content that should not be charged extra.

> > If 343 was about to release Halo 5, and in a press release stated that they aren’t going to be supporting it with any DLC what so ever, how would you feel?
>
> Overjoyed, if the game launched with a ton of content to begin with. It means I don’t have to pay extra for content that should not be charged extra.

Or they release the game with the same amount of content as usual and you cant any more content. It would make no difference to the amount of content unless it was day 1 release. DLC

Hopefully what your suggesting becomes a reality in the future though.