• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
  • The Politics forum has been nuked. Please do not bring political discussion to the rest of the site, or you will be removed. Thanks.

MS doesn’t want you to have cool DLC for free: Gears,Epic, & gamers get screwed

Baron Aloha

A Shining Example
Jun 10, 2004
8,442
0
1,655
GhaleonEB said:
Epic retained the IP for Gears. Microsoft has first publishing option to sequels, IIRC.

This is correct. Under the terms of the agreement Microsoft gets first dibs to publish any Gears of War titles. If they chose not to publish (unlikely) then it could show up on PS3.

We don't know exactly how the deal is structured. It could be for a certain number of sequels or it could be for a certain number of years. I've heard that it was for the first sequel (which could essentially tie the series up for the entire gen depending on how far away GOW2 is) but that may not be true. Only the MS and Epic execs know for sure.

Its also possible that when it expires MS and Epic can renegotiate and extend it even further. MS would probably have to pony up some serious dough in order to make it worthwhile it for Epic not to publish the game on multiple platforms though. By 2008/2009 the PS3 will have a good install base. They may even have a stripped down version of UE3 running on Wii by then. It will be interesting to see what happens.
 

Lagaff

Gub'mint Researcher
Apr 27, 2006
545
0
0
If xbox owner didnt bought the add-on it would be free.
If the xbox owner refused to pay for playing online it would be free.

The worst is people who defend this because their fanboyism take over, and they opened a door to microsoft.
Now Microsoft gonna continue to charge for Everything and make a lot of money from it.
The worst is nintendo and sony gonna resist for how long?
and imagine a compagny like microsoft leading videogames industry.

At least Pc player refused to pay for Live..
All that is bad, all microsoft want is to take everyhting who was free before and charge for it.
Peoples who support Microsoft need to think about it seriously
 

rage1973

Member
Apr 5, 2006
1,713
0
0
I guess PS3 getting all the bad news lately was bound to balance out eventually. I think all Microsoft has to do to beat PS3 is just keep what they are doing and don't **** up. But with all this about new higher price 360 coming out and now this, Microsoft is starting to screw up. This is why competition is good for consumers and the industry. As Sony has seen, if you screw over consumers they will quickly turn on you if they have a viable alternative choice. Microsoft cannot use similar tactics they used in Microsoft since Nintendo and Sony are right there as choices if they feel screwed over by Microsoft. I hope all 3 companies realize their mistakes and corrects their ship since I still believe this market is still for anyone's taking.
 

Baron Aloha

A Shining Example
Jun 10, 2004
8,442
0
1,655
steinmc said:
What do you mean with first publishing options?

First publish options is sort of like first dibs (see my post above). Basically, before Epic can ask any other companies if they want to publish the game they have to ask Microsoft if they want to first.
 
Jan 19, 2005
70,608
3
0
www.benjaminbirdie.com
Lagaff said:
If xbox owner didnt bought the add-on it would be free.
If the xbox owner refused to pay for playing online it would be free.

The worst is people who defend this because their fanboyism take over, and they opened a door to microsoft.
Now Microsoft gonna continue to charge for Everything and make a lot of money from it.
The worst is nintendo and sony gonna resist for how long?
and imagine a compagny like microsoft leading videogames industry.

At least Pc player refused to pay for Live..
All that is bad, all microsoft want is to take everyhting who was free before and charge for it.
Peoples who support Microsoft need to think about it seriously

That's a bit too much like blaming the man who bought the first hot dog for the practice of paying for food.
 

Spike

Member
Jun 7, 2004
6,477
1
1,495
okay, so people have proven that they are willing to spend more money to buy additions for a game they already ponied up the cash for, right? So, MS seeing this decides that they are going to charge for everything. Where's the problem? If you wanted it to be free, you shouldn't have purchased anything and sent the message to MS that they can't nickel and dime you for every little thing. But, now that they can, you better believe that they will.

And for the naysayers, just remember that you need Live Gold for demos of all things...
 

Grayman

Member
Feb 7, 2005
15,125
1
0
36
Surrey, BC
steinmc said:
What do you mean with first publishing options?
First option means that Epic has to say "MS will you publish Gears 2 and pay us x" if MS says no they can self publish or go to any publisher. If MS says yes they aren't allowed to shop around to another pub.

I don't know if they have the power to say "publish our game for ps3 as well"

lix2k3 said:
And how does a company protect itself from a hostile takeover? You saw what EA did to Ubisoft... As much as Epic thinks the ball is in their court due to the IP retention, I wouldn't play around with Microsoft's second most valuable first-party title (soon to be franchise). Although I think MS would prefer to pony up the cash and secure the franchise indefinitely in case there were issues, they would in no way sit back and watch Epic take Gears to a competing platform. How retarded of a business move would it be for MS to allow even the possibility of a first-party title on their platform moving to a rival's console.
Is epic even traded publicly? Isn't it just owned by the people who work in the building? It's a lot more difficult to take over a company when you can't just say x per share on wall street and own it in 10 minutes.
 

rage1973

Member
Apr 5, 2006
1,713
0
0
steinmc said:
What do you mean with first publishing options?
It means if Epic chooses to make any new games with the IP, Microsoft has the first rights to accept or turn down the publishing option. So unless Epic totally produces a bomb for the next Gears, there is no way Microsoft will turn down publishing rights. But it's still up to Epic to decide whether they decide to create a sequel and the direction of the sequel since they conrol the IP. In most other deals the publishers control the IP, for instance Ratchet and Clank is developed by Insomniac but Sony controls the IP. If Sony decided to, they can have another developer create the next Ratchet game since they are the ones to own the IP.
 
Jan 19, 2005
70,608
3
0
www.benjaminbirdie.com
Spike said:
And for the naysayers, just remember that you need Live Gold for demos of all things...

And to all those spoiled sports buying movie tickets and DVDs, you're the reason I have to wait so long for movies to come on NBC so I can watch them. Other wise I need to buy them.
 

rage1973

Member
Apr 5, 2006
1,713
0
0
Grayman said:
First option means that Epic has to say "MS will you publish Gears 2 and pay us x" if MS says no they can self publish or go to any publisher. If MS says yes they aren't allowed to shop around to another pub.

I don't know if they have the power to say "publish our game for ps3 as well"

Is epic even traded publicly? Isn't it just owned by the people who work in the building? It's a lot more difficult to take over a company when you can't just say x per share on wall street and own it in 10 minutes.
I am pretty sure Microsoft put in a decent exclusive clause in the contract since they have so much invested into Gears. They should have minimum of 3 exclusive deal with Epic which prevents the game from going else where.

Epic is a private owned company.
 

Grayman

Member
Feb 7, 2005
15,125
1
0
36
Surrey, BC
If this news or rumor is true it's really bad. Epic wants to give their customers more content so they are happy and will buy more Epic games(likely to get some nice content additions to them after they are successful) but MS wants to get their cut of 4.99*1,000,000 and won't let Epic be the nice guys that they want to be.
 

Lagaff

Gub'mint Researcher
Apr 27, 2006
545
0
0
Agent Icebeezy said:
This is bad form Microsoft.

Well microsoft make money from it.
and he will continue till the gamers make a stop to it, if that ever happen
 

OatmealMu

Member
Jan 27, 2006
5,347
1
0
oatmealmu.blogspot.com
Agent Icebeezy said:
This is bad form Microsoft.

 

thetrin

Hail, peons, for I have come as ambassador from the great and bountiful Blueberry Butt Explosion
Sep 14, 2005
43,284
1
0
38
Osaka, Japan
www.playism-games.com
Why is everyone surprised about this? IT'S ****ING MICROSOFT.

God, it's like you guys had never heard of the company before Xbox.
 

Synth_floyd

Banned
Jun 12, 2005
6,217
0
0
I remember the dev team who made Geometry Wars said they wanted it to be for free, as a "gift" to Xbox 360 users, but MS wouldn't let them. So they had to charge the minimum for an XBLA game which was 400 points.
 

Ninja Scooter

Member
Jun 7, 2004
123,697
7
0
there has to be another reason for this. I doubt MS would want to CHARGE for something that simply fixes bugs and glitches, they would just release it as an update like they do with a lot of games. this isn't really "downloadable content".
 

Fatghost

Gas Guzzler
Jun 22, 2004
9,149
2
0
Green Shinobi said:
These are the times when I wonder if a Microsoft controlled industry is a good thing. Hopefully they'll realize that Epic is too important to piss off, and that this makes them look really bad.


Of course a MS controlled industry would suck. Just like a Sony controlled industry would suck, or a Nintendo controlled industry would suck.

Strong competition = win for gamers.

Domination = gamers getting raped.
 
Oct 25, 2006
17,089
6
0
Synth_floyd said:
I remember the dev team who made Geometry Wars said they wanted it to be for free, as a "gift" to Xbox 360 users, but MS wouldn't let them. So they had to charge the minimum for an XBLA game which was 400 points.

This is 100% true. Maybe I should throw that in the opening post.

Ninja Scooter said:
there has to be another reason for this. I doubt MS would want to CHARGE for something that simply fixes bugs and glitches, they would just release it as an update like they do with a lot of games. this isn't really "downloadable content".

What the hell are you talking about?
 

Ninja Scooter

Member
Jun 7, 2004
123,697
7
0
a Master Ninja said:
What the hell are you talking about?

i was referring also to the previous Gears DLC thread where people were asking for bug fixes and everyone figured MS would charge for them. There's a difference between a patch that fixes shit (which, if MS had, i don't think they'd have any problem releasing) and actual downloadable content is all. I'd still love to see what these maps Garage Games cooked up are like. Hopefully Epic can still step in and get them out if they are up to snuff.
 

LJ11

Member
Jan 2, 2005
22,306
1
0
NYC
I understand why Microsoft wants to charge money for new DLC; they spent a nice chunk of change marketing the hell out of GoW, and they obviously want to get back as much as they can.

On the other hand, they should be thanking Epic at every turn for delivering one of the fastest selling IP's in years.

Just give me my DLC, preferably before a certain beta starts.
 

J-Rzez

Member
Oct 19, 2005
14,485
3
0
Dr_Cogent said:
Don't think Sony won't pull the same f'in shit though. I am confident they would.

People can give a little more slack to Sony because you're not paying for a full online service like you are with MS... I don't mind microtransactions on the PS3 because of this, and thus bought more stuff off it than XBL already...

It's terrible to see people wanting Sony to roll over and play dead... Are they in a hurry so MS starts charging to make an account, log on, and pay per match? MS has come a long way with the 360 to be more appealing to gamers, meaning, they have more great games... But their online procedures are BS... Paying for P2P... Make people pay for a gamercard pic or something instead... Sony ****ed up setting up a high price of entry (the console itself, though it's really a deal for what you get), but everything after that is gravy...

Gears isn't going anywhere, anytime soon, as I believe MS own's that IP IIRC... The worst case that could become of this? Epic doesn't make another Gears, but creates a new IP that's basically Gears with a different name, and it's on both consoles... Or worse, just on the PS3... MS will then probably put a different house on the Gears title, and it'll get worse...
 

Systems_id

Banned
Jul 13, 2005
4,360
0
0
Fatghost said:
Of course a MS controlled industry would suck. Just like a Sony controlled industry would suck, or a Nintendo controlled industry would suck.

Strong competition = win for gamers.

Domination = gamers getting raped.
Really? I think the PS2 throws that out the window. So far the competition has been the worst thing about this generation.
 

Fantasmo

Member
Nov 8, 2004
7,047
3
0
USA
:lol I wonder if this is true or not?

I read Masters of Doom years ago, and this news makes me applaud John Carmack for not signing with Microsoft all those years ago. I guess this is what happens when you give a good IP to a money hungry behemoth like Microsoft. Too bad they aren't making genre redefining games anymore!

Despite owning a 360, I'm glad Sony's committed to the PS3.
 

Beer Monkey

Member
Mar 3, 2005
23,925
5
1,225
Cincinnati
www.tehbias.com
This is total bullshit and it's also old news. Microsoft restricting the amount of free DLC per title has been well established before now. It's still bullshit though.

It's also bullshit that we paid money for a patch to Blast Factor to add offline co-op. Two wrongs don't make a right though, and Microsoft is the biggest offender. All the more reason to hope for a three-way split this generation.
 

MCD

Junior Member
Nov 9, 2006
15,372
1
0
I don't mind paying as long as the content is good.

i already payed 50 usd for live, i don't expect any free stuff here.
 

Mrbob

Member
Jun 7, 2004
63,747
6
0
LJ11 said:
I understand why Microsoft wants to charge money for new DLC; they spent a nice chunk of change marketing the hell out of GoW, and they obviously want to get back as much as they can.

I guess selling 2.2 million copies in the USA and over 3 million copies worldwide in 4 months isn't enough?
 

jaypah

Member
Nov 1, 2006
11,058
5
910
41
i haven't read the whole thread, just the OP but if this is in fact the deal then this is bullshit to the highest degree. MS can suck one as far as i'm concerned. it's understandable that they (Epic) want the whole of their online fan base to have access to this content for obvious reasons and there's a greedy roadblock in the way. for shame M$. this is one time that i feel the '$' really should be a part of Microsoft's abbreviation.
 

Norse

Member
Jun 7, 2004
3,096
442
1,570
perhaps MS just wants to keep this content for a slow month coming up...perhaps one of their games is slipping and they will need something big to put in its place. Ya never know.
 

Lagaff

Gub'mint Researcher
Apr 27, 2006
545
0
0
McDragon said:
I don't mind paying as long as the content is good.

i already payed 50 usd for live, i don't expect any free stuff here.

Here why microsoft wont stop :lol
 
J-Rzez said:
People can give a little more slack to Sony because you're not paying for a full online service like you are with MS... I don't mind microtransactions on the PS3 because of this, and thus bought more stuff off it than XBL already...

It's terrible to see people wanting Sony to roll over and play dead... Are they in a hurry so MS starts charging to make an account, log on, and pay per match? MS has come a long way with the 360 to be more appealing to gamers, meaning, they have more great games... But their online procedures are BS... Paying for P2P... Make people pay for a gamercard pic or something instead... Sony ****ed up setting up a high price of entry (the console itself, though it's really a deal for what you get), but everything after that is gravy...

Gears isn't going anywhere, anytime soon, as I believe MS own's that IP IIRC... The worst case that could become of this? Epic doesn't make another Gears, but creates a new IP that's basically Gears with a different name, and it's on both consoles... Or worse, just on the PS3... MS will then probably put a different house on the Gears title, and it'll get worse...

I like this post.

MS can get away with selling ****ing PICTURES online, because idiots keep buying them. Stop giving MS free money!
 

MCD

Junior Member
Nov 9, 2006
15,372
1
0
Lagaff said:
Here why microsoft wont stop :lol

Laugh all you want, but i don't see why would Microsoft stop doing this.

it's been 1 year already, don't expect Microsoft to give you everything for free.
 

Lagaff

Gub'mint Researcher
Apr 27, 2006
545
0
0
McDragon said:
Laugh all you want, but i don't see why would Microsoft stop doing this.

it's been 1 year already, don't expect Microsoft to give you everything for free.

-you pay for the online, you pay for the games it's not enough?
 
Sep 27, 2005
2,783
1
0
Lagaff said:
If xbox owner didnt bought the add-on it would be free.
If the xbox owner refused to pay for playing online it would be free.

And if Atari owners had refused to pay for their 2600's, all videogame consoles would be free.

True Story.
 

MCD

Junior Member
Nov 9, 2006
15,372
1
0
Lagaff said:
-you pay for the online, you pay for the games it's not enough?

It is enough.

but as i said, if i see something worth my money, i would pay for it, something other than horse armor of course.
 

Lagaff

Gub'mint Researcher
Apr 27, 2006
545
0
0
-ImaginaryInsider said:
If Atari fans had refused to pay for the 2600 all videogame consoles would be free.

True Story.
Atari 2600 is not the first system..
 
Oct 25, 2006
17,089
6
0
typo said:
If Epic wants to release free map packs (much like the old UT packs) while a publisher like EA wants to charge for cheats, then you begin to question the value of the Marketplace. I think this is probably why you won't see too many free things.

BINGO. You expressed this better than I did in my opening post. I might tweak that...