Because either way you cut it, you screw somebody.
Require maps for most playlists ala H3? Then you’re removing large portions of the MP and forcing them to pay for them back. Don’t require the maps? Then you’re following Reach where your purchase of the maps was basically invalidated since nobody has them or you have to play a one playlist with a tiny population to see them.
Instead do what Epic did with it’s first two DLCs: Gameplay additions (Silverback Rockets/Command Posts), character skins and Story DLC.
If you can suffer paying $60 bucks for a game and $7 a month or $50 a year for Xbox LIVE, then paying a few bucks for downloadable content REALLY should not be any issue. If it is, then you probably shouldn’t be worried about video games.
> If you can suffer paying $60 bucks for a game and $7 a month or $50 a year for Xbox LIVE, then paying a few bucks for downloadable content REALLY should not be any issue. If it is, then you probably shouldn’t be worried about video games.
>
> Either way, map pack DLC isn’t going away.
I’d rather NOT spend forty odd dollars for content I never get to play. That’s just wasting your money.
So, we should just expect all of the Halo 4 launch maps to be spectacular?
All in all, Yes, it is most indeededly risky, implementing MP DLC.
But Halo 3 did it pretty well. Sure, you had to pay for the maps to keep playing online MP, (In some playlists, at least.) but you actually had a chance to play the DLC. And, as one said above: If You can continue to pay for The game and a yearly Xbox-Live subscription, one could infer that a few bones wouldn’t be too harsh on the coin.
Only the Horde Command Pack had maps on it. Maps which were later distrubed for free to the rest of the community alongside two more maps in the Versus Map Booster Pack.
RAAM’s Shadow had no maps.
> 2:Halo 4 will have dlc. Im 99.9% sure of it.
DLC is fine.
Just not map packs that I will either spend my $10 on and never get to see or a playlist setup that shoves me into a corner.
The issue isn’t cost. The issue is that I basically wasted my money buying the Noble and Defiant Maps. And while I had the money to spend, I don’t like throwing it away or burning it.
> > 1:Epic made their first two DLC with maps also
>
> No.
>
> Only the Horde Command Pack had maps on it. Maps which were later distrubed for free to the rest of the community alongside two more maps in the Versus Map Booster Pack.
>
> RAAM’s Shadow had no maps.
>
>
>
> > 2:Halo 4 will have dlc. Im 99.9% sure of it.
>
> DLC is fine.
>
> Just not map packs that I will either spend my $10 on and never get to see or a playlist setup that shoves me into a corner.
Okay, no MP maps for Raams shadow. As for map packs for Halo4, its inevitable.
> DLC is fine.
>
> Just not map packs that I will either spend my $10 on and never get to see or a playlist setup that shoves me into a corner.
While this may not entirely apply to Halo 4, downloadable content in this series has always meant new multiplayer maps. The only morsels we got of anything else were armor bits already coded into the game for ODST and Reach.
The way they implement the content into the multiplayer component (which I assume you’re complaining about) is a far different issue than having to pay for new, fresh content. The latter of which is quite pointless.
> While this may not entirely apply to Halo 4, downloadable content in this series has always meant new multiplayer maps. The only morsels we got of anything else were armor bits already coded into the game for ODST and Reach.
So do it like this because it’s tradition?
Sounds like a poor reason.
If anything it says to me that FPSers are stuck in the stone age while other games and genres offer more.
> The way they implement the content into the multiplayer component (which I assume you’re complaining about) is a far different issue than having to pay for new, fresh content. The latter of which is quite pointless.
I can see no way for them to implement map packs into the game without my purchase being somehow invalidated. If they flat out require them to play then they are giving those that either can’t or won’t pony up the shove off the bridge with cement shoes.
The reason I haven’t bought any maps for Reach is after the way Halo 3’s DLC maps were handled I assumed the DLC maps would largely be confined to one or two DLC playlists, I haven’t been proven wrong sadly.
Unless DLC is made free in the future there’s no point buying it. I’d buy DLC if it was timed to be free after a month or two, like back with Halo 2, otherwise there’s no point as the maps wouldn’t be circulated around every playlist. Can you imagine Terminal, Relic, Sanctuary and the other great Halo 2 DLC maps being only available in some “Squad DLC playlist”? Yeah, it sucks.
Besides, having free maps would be massive brownie points for MS in their ongoing battle for FPS supremacy.
Now you’re throwing words out there that make no sense. I’m purely going by trends in the Halo series. Sure, armor components could be a new possibility for the Reclaimer Trilogy. New campaign content, less likely so. But its a guarantee that we’ll always get multiple map packs.
People will continue to pay for new multiplayer content and that’s where publishers like Microsoft Studios, Activision, EA, etc. will continue putting money into. Because they’re corporations. Corporations like money. Its the corporation-y thing to do these days. Corporation.
And besides, the point of this argument seems to be more about developers negating their community by catering to either non-DLC or DLC-owning players. Not the fact that DLC exists. Calling me a Neanderthal for thinking like a businesswoman isn’t the way to go.
> If you can suffer paying $60 bucks for a game and $7 a month or $50 a year for Xbox LIVE, then paying a few bucks for downloadable content REALLY should not be any issue. If it is, then you probably shouldn’t be worried about video games.
>
> Either way, map pack DLC isn’t going away.
This is very true.
Adding new additions to a game, especially to the most popular part (multiplayer) not only increases the longevity of the game itself, but adds a new, refreshing experience. I look forward to, and will always encourage, added multiplayer DLC, especially maps.
> If you can suffer paying $60 bucks for a game and $7 a month or $50 a year for Xbox LIVE, then paying a few bucks for downloadable content REALLY should not be any issue. <mark>If it is, then you probably shouldn’t be worried about video games.</mark>
>
> Either way, map pack DLC isn’t going away.
That is one of the worst sweeping statements I’ve seen on these forums, and that’s saying something.
Look at it this way, you buy a game because you want it. When you buy a game you should be entitled to all the content but modern game developers have taken away features for multiplayer parts of games that leave them almost or completely useless to play offline. So to play the game you already paid for you have to fork out the $7 or $50 dollars you mentioned. You bought the game, you at least want to use it. Why then would you want to pay even more for optional add ons?
Now that I’ve said that I’ll point out something else. All the prices mentioned here are American. Think about gamers in other places. In Australia a new release will generally sell for $100 OR MORE! Then you throw in Xbox Live and you’ve just forked out a hell of a lot for one game. All because a) you wanted to play the game you love and b) we live in an era where many developers decide not to implement things like splitscreen OR limit it to two players and as such, without online you’ve basically lost a big chunk of the game.
Just because you’re a fan of the game, doesn’t mean you have to be willing to throw money into optional add ons.
> That is one of the worst sweeping statements I’ve seen on these forums, and that’s saying something.
>
> Why then would you want to pay even more for optional add ons?
I know that it was brash, but it applies to a great many things.
As for map packs, they’re the same for disc-based campaign/MMO expansion packs. They usually cost a good fraction ($10-$20 bucks) of the price of the game you bought which it requires, though they are typically (varies I’d imagne) an optional buy. Your experience in the game will be increased by buying this new additional product, but you don’t need it to have an exceptionally fun time.
Like it or not, whether it be video games, additional car parts, or a meal at a restaurant, charging you for extra bits you think should be there already at no extra cost will always be there whether you like it or not. Its just business, pure and simple.
> > Either way, map pack DLC isn’t going away.
>
> It should.
>
> The issue isn’t cost. The issue is that I basically wasted my money buying the Noble and Defiant Maps. And while I had the money to spend, I don’t like throwing it away or burning it.
no, it shouldn’t, it helps keep the reply up in a game for long periods of time, which is better than having games come out every year only to be the same damn thing, but with slight differences. If you feel like you’re wasting your money buying DLC, then don’t buy it, simple as that. I know half the time for Halo 3 I didn’t buy any of the map packs until they either became free, or cheaper.
What I think they should do is similar to what Gears of War 3 did. Offer the map pack along with something else, maybe its new armor or features or whatever, and within 2 months release the maps for free, but not the extra content. That way the community isn’t divided more and more with each new map pack that comes out.
I also think that every once in a while to release a single new map for free like Cold Storage was. Similarly maybe its something they should do with remade maps.
New dlc gives a fresh feel to a game, a couple of months into its life. Dlc is one of the factors that have made me come back to reach over and over again, after I had left to play other games.