I feel that DLC should not be required to play all Matchmaking playlists. Players without all of the map packs may have money for and spend money on a TV, Xbox, Internet, Halo: Reach, and LIVE, but that doesn’t automatically mean that they want to spend their money on the DLC.
In fact, plenty of long-time Reach players don’t want the new content. It’s not that their connections are too poor to download it; many of them don’t see the value in the content. For example, I, from what I’ve heard, don’t think that the Defiant Map Pack is all that special. The map layouts aren’t particularly unique; the Forge palettes are lacking; and there’s a bug that keeps “Certain Affinity” as the author if you try to Forge a Defiant map, making it impossible to prove your case if someone steals your map.
Point is, not all players want to buy the DLC and not all of them should have to. 343, don’t make the mistake of requiring it to enter Matchmaking.
If anyone agrees with me, sign here. If you disagree, sign the thread I’m responding to. When all is said and done, the post count will show which side is superior.
> I feel that DLC should not be required to play all Matchmaking playlists. Players without all of the map packs may have money for and spend money on a TV, Xbox, Internet, Halo: Reach, and LIVE, but that doesn’t automatically mean that they want to spend their money on the DLC.
>
> In fact, plenty of long-time Reach players don’t want the new content. It’s not that their connections are too poor to download it; many of them don’t see the value in the content. For example, I, from what I’ve heard, don’t think that the Defiant Map Pack is all that special. The map layouts aren’t particularly unique; the Forge palettes are lacking; and there’s a bug that keeps “Certain Affinity” as the author if you try to Forge a Defiant map, making it impossible to prove your case if someone steals your map.
>
> Point is, not all players want to buy the DLC and not all of them should have to. 343, don’t make the mistake of requiring it to enter Matchmaking.
>
> If anyone agrees with me, sign here. If you disagree, sign the thread I’m responding to. When all is said and done, the post count will show which side is superior.
Agreed, I have all the dlc maps and don’t play on them often but making ALL the playlists require them is “suicide” in a way for reach, it would completely kill off the already low population reach has. Now 1 or 2 playlists that require all of the dlc is understandable, but all of them require dlc… just, no.
With how maps are implemented in Reach I pretty much threw away my twenty dollars in buying the Noble and Defiant Map packs. Sure. I can play them whenever I want in the Premium Playlist but because of the low population matchmaking quality is going to be hit and miss. And the map portion of CEA is likely to be dead weight because of this.
The solution in my mind is to just escape this whole mutually exclusive situation to begin with and make DLC that isn’t just maps. I don’t know why most shooters are stuck in this mindset of DLC having to be maps. Gears 3 is breaking that mold with their DLC. New campaign content and three dozen different weapon skins. Even Crysis 2 spiced it up by adding new weapons to the game.
Prior Halo titles and Reach were locked out of those options due to how the map system was setup. 343 needs to design H4 so that new additions can be added to the game without much fuss. And then they need to support it.
> Prior Halo titles and Reach were locked out of those options due to how the map system was setup. 343 needs to design H4 so that new additions can be added to the game without much fuss. And then they need to support it.
I, too, would love to see them make the asset system extensible. It would solve a lot of problems and open up a lot of possibilities. Maybe they could even pull a Brink and make all of the weapons’ stats configurable from launch, rather than patching that in for one single weapon a year after release.
> Maybe they could even pull a Brink and make all of the weapons’ stats configurable from launch, rather than patching that in for one single weapon a year after release.
They edited weapon stats across the board in Brink?
I never noticed.
And I’m assuming that you’re referring to the Magnum for the Classic playlist right?
> > Maybe they could even pull a Brink and make all of the weapons’ stats configurable from launch, rather than patching that in for one single weapon a year after release.
>
> They edited weapon stats across the board in Brink?
>
> I never noticed.
>
> And I’m assuming that you’re referring to the Magnum for the Classic playlist right?
> I feel that DLC should not be required to play all Matchmaking playlists. Players without all of the map packs may have money for and spend money on a TV, Xbox, Internet, Halo: Reach, and LIVE, but that doesn’t automatically mean that they want to spend their money on the DLC.
>
> In fact, plenty of long-time Reach players don’t want the new content. It’s not that their connections are too poor to download it; many of them don’t see the value in the content. For example, I, from what I’ve heard, don’t think that the Defiant Map Pack is all that special. The map layouts aren’t particularly unique; the Forge palettes are lacking; and there’s a bug that keeps “Certain Affinity” as the author if you try to Forge a Defiant map, making it impossible to prove your case if someone steals your map.
>
> Point is, not all players want to buy the DLC and not all of them should have to. 343, don’t make the mistake of requiring it to enter Matchmaking.
>
> If anyone agrees with me, sign here. If you disagree, sign the thread I’m responding to. When all is said and done, the post count will show which side is superior.
what do you mean dlc is required to play all playlist thats not true you can play any playlist except map pack playlist
> Players without all of the map packs may have money for and spend money on a TV, Xbox, Internet, Halo: Reach, and LIVE, but that doesn’t automatically mean that they want to spend their money on the DLC.
I see it this way: If you count and list items you can use for other things besides playing Reach, the game is obviously important to you. And if it is, buy the DLC. It’s worth it.
> > Players without all of the map packs may have money for and spend money on a TV, Xbox, Internet, Halo: Reach, and LIVE, but that doesn’t automatically mean that they want to spend their money on the DLC.
>
> I see it this way: If you count and list items you can use for other things besides playing Reach, the game is obviously important to you. And if it is, buy the DLC. It’s worth it.
Which is all well and good except that the DLC isn’t worth it.
Maps don’t stand out any more than the defaults or the Forged ones do, in terms of general gameplay
Maps don’t have good or even decent Forge palettes
Maps don’t credit the creator when Forged
= Maps are useless
Other people may have their own criteria, but what it comes down to is that people should not have to buy some auxiliary side-product that they do not want in order to play Matchmaking.
Having to buy all DLC just to play Matchmaking would be like if you go to a fast food joint, order a hamburger, and the guy at the drivethrough whips out a plunger and a gallon of salad and forces it all down your throat before handing you the burger.
> > Is all DLC required for Halo 3?
>
> It is for 90% of the playlists.
Which, in my opinion, is how it should be with Reach.
I think I have played maybe 5 or 6 games total (if that) in MM on the new maps, without being in the DLC playlist. That’s pretty atrocious. You may not want to pay for the DLC, but there’s no reason I should be forced into a minute portion of MM to play something for which I payed extra.
> You may not want to pay for the DLC, but there’s no reason I should be forced into a minute portion of MM to play something for which I payed extra.
Well, if you’re not encountering DLC in most playlists, then clearly, you (the DLC-purchasers) are a minute portion of the population.
Majority of the population gets the majority of Matchmaking, and a minute portion of Matchmaking is set up for the dissatisfied minute portion of the population. Makes sense to me.
> > You may not want to pay for the DLC, but there’s no reason I should be forced into a minute portion of MM to play something for which I payed extra.
>
> Well, if you’re not encountering DLC in most playlists, then clearly, you (the DLC-purchasers) are a minute portion of the population.
>
> Majority of the population gets the majority of Matchmaking, and a minute portion of Matchmaking is set up for the dissatisfied minute portion of the population. Makes sense to me.
Incorrect.
If I am in BTB (8v8) all it takes is one person without the DLC to cause it to not come up. The population w/DLC vs w/o could be 60/40 and still yield the same results.
> Incorrect.
>
> If I am in BTB (8v8) all it takes is one person without the DLC to cause it to not come up. The population w/DLC vs w/o could be 60/40 and still yield the same results.
I’ll concede I may have oversimplified.
Even so, it would be entirely possible to appeal to DLC-purchasers without locking out those who don’t want the DLC, simply by allowing DLC owners to use a search option that makes it easier for them to get matched only with other DLC owners. Would this not be an infinitely better solution than shutting out everyone that doesn’t feel like wasting (even if that’s not how you see it, it’s how they/we see it) their money?