Support NeoGAF

[Gadeus]

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...

I agree with this point completely, and I had difficulty determining why at first. I own a Wii, a 360, and a PS3 (I justified the cost of the systems because I'm switching my focus to console gaming from PC gaming) and I find myself getting happier with the PS3 network as the firmware is updated, but angrier with Live as it progresses. When the Resistance map packs were announced, I didn't get as upset as I would have if a Gears content pack would be announced, and that definitely ties in with the fifty buck price tag for live. I'm expecting less from the PS3 network due to the lack of a yearly fee, yet I'm getting a better experience in some cases (referring to the dedicated servers, not the integrated XMB friends lists and such that the PS3 lacks.)

And of course, as mentioned before, I really resent the fact that the PC version of Shadowrun gets dedicated servers while the 360 is stuck with the peer to peer connections. Microsoft might make a killing on the transactions, but these factors will certainly effect decisions I make, such as whether or not I want to renew Live. Also, I really, really want dedicated servers more than any other feature on the 360 platform right now.

 

[fse]

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

what....

:lol

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

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.

I'm sure MS likes making money from DLC, but keeping the Marketplace from falling apart is probably the bigger issue.

 

[BuG]

:lol

 

[nubbe]

But MS says they aren't enforcing price structures... uh oh

It's a free market, as long as your wallet gets raped.

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

Atari 2600 is not the first system..

Nice way to dodge my point, Oh Ancient Keeper of Videogame Lore...

 

[MCD]

To a Master Ninja:

if i bought map packs for Gears of War or Lost Planet, am i supporting Microsoft or Epic/Capcom?

 

[Musashi Wins!]

*IF* true, this is complete bullshit. Not to overreact, but if this shit it true I would honestly sell my 360 and buy a Wii and PS3 and never ever look on MSFT favorably again.

If it's not true, whoever involved in perpetuating this story should be fired [Luke]

Really? Because I think this might be true.

 

[soco]

-you pay for the online, you pay for the games it's not enough?

except you don't have to pay for the online and some people aren't paying for the games already. plus someone has gotta pay for all that bandwidth. i'd prefer it all to be free, but until advertising comes along, i don't see much of that happening.

 

[InterMoniker]

I think Luke's avatar says it best.

 

[Safe Bet]

Microsoft being greedy?

I'm stunned....

 

[itsme]

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".

They call their bug fixes service packs, as if they're providing "service" to the users while they're cleaning up what they messed up at the first place.

 

[TheDarkKnight774]

One of MS's most successful cons was convincing people that paying $50 a year for P2P online play was justified. That somehow no company could ever stay afloat maintaining people's account, and friends list for free. Nevermind the fact the PC industry has been doing it for years.

Then with the X360 they just pushed it further with all the other things that SHOULD be free and are now a fee (icon pics, themes, DLC, etc). Again things that used to be free (xbox's free DLC for NG, SC, etc) and are expected to be free in the PC industry. And from the companies that still were making money like crazy (just look at Epic & blizzard)

I don't know why people preface things with "If this is true...". It IS true. GRAW gets DLC for free on the PC, but not on the X360? So somehow having it on a console suddenly makes it expensive? No, its because of MS. Several companies have grumbled about wanting to give free content like Themes, DLC, etc but MS is telling them no. I remember a 1up article talking about it, when they MS first started talking about consumables.

And i also grow tired of the people that try to justify this nonsense with "hey they gotta make money, nothing is for free, etc" blah blah blah. Being able to play a person online on a console SHOULD be free. Its been well established until MS came along(except MMORPGs). And its not the gamers fault, but companies like MS that are preying on the gamer's enthusiasm of the hobby. Hey, i'll admit it, as a fanbase we are weak willed. And its hard to turn down items if its on games you love. Games need a salary cap!!

Fortunately Sony & Nintendo although crappier online services at least give you the ability to play online games for free. Otherwise gamers that own all 3 would be looking at spending $150 a year just for the chance to play games online

 

[itsme]

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

For Gold members, it should be free for that regard. We're paying already, don't make us to pay even more. It's like double taxing.

 

[ZombieSupaStar]

To a Master Ninja:

if i bought map packs for Gears of War or Lost Planet, am i supporting Microsoft or Epic/Capcom?

both

 

[Musashi Wins!]

Well, gketter, I think you nail part of it too at the end, which is if their competitors could offer anything remotely comparable, it would be easier to pass on. I think PS3 is making a run at that soon. Nintendo doesn't seem to be trying.

 

[shpankey]

Really? Because I think this might be true.

the more i think about it, the more i realize this would be too tough, i love these games on the 360 too much right now.

but... I will be pissed off at msft and will absolutely lower my opinion of them as a gaming company dramatically.

Spoiler

i know, i'm weak

edit: but when PS3 and Wii's gaming library get up to speed, along with their online services. I'm outta here!

 

[CrapSandwich]

I don't know why MS is so out to lunch on this. I don't have a problem with their economic reasoning, but when you split the online players into two or three or more groups depending on who's got what, it obviously hurts the gaming experience: It creates smaller user-bases to matchmake with and it makes friends unable to play with friends. If you damage the community, you are damaging the game. It seems to me that MS lack an appreciation of how much the community contributes. If the community disappears, the multiplayer portion of the game is worthless.

If they want to charge for things, it should be limited to single player stuff or non-essential things in multi. Like cosmetic mods and such.

All that said, I do like the Marketplace. There's a lot of free stuff and a lot of good deals. There are great, cheap games, an amazing selection of demos, free videos, and a lot of free downloads. People get all worked up over the premium content, but I rarely see anyone mention how great the Marketplace often is.

 

[TheDarkKnight774]

Well, gketter, I think you nail part of it too at the end, which is if their competitors could offer anything remotely comparable, it would be easier to pass on. I think PS3 is making a run at that soon. Nintendo doesn't seem to be trying.

yea its my hope that things like Home and Sony getting its act together with online in general will start to force MS to change. If Sony doesn't get something that can compete but not have an annual fee, then MS will just keep charging away.

 

[Beer Monkey]

One of MS's most successful cons was convincing people that paying $50 a year for P2P online play was justified.

As somebody who played PC's online (including direct-dial internet, tcp/ip over modem, and broadband internet) for seven years before I ever touched Live, I never would have paid them three cents for nothing but peer-to-peer gaming. I pay for the community features and the comprehensive, standardized integration. I don't regret paying a cent. I'm always grabbing bargains and typically pay 3 bucks a month or less for tens of hours of entertainment, which is way less than what I pay for that latte I grab on the way to work on any given day of the week.

Maybe someday somebody will get off their lazy butt and offer the same kind of integration on another platform. I'm sure it would cost a hell of a lot less than HOME to implement. If I were Microsoft you bet your ass I'd be charging for my product that everybody fails to compete with.

Microsoft stifling free content = bullcrap. The usual whining about P2P = the same bullcrap. Microsoft doesn't get it, and neither do the whiners.

 

[a Master Ninja]

To a Master Ninja:

if i bought map packs for Gears of War or Lost Planet, am i supporting Microsoft or Epic/Capcom?

For the Lost Planet map packs, an undiscosed percent of it goes to Microsoft and the rest goes to Capcom. Same goes for other third party content, including gamerpics and themes.

For Gears, since Microsoft is the publisher, its hard to say how big of a cut Epic would get in the end. I think I'm safe in assuming Microsoft would get a major chunk of it, though.

 

[Piper Az]

What an idiotic strategy of MS. Screw 'em. If companies want to give free DLC, they should be able to.

Is MS justifying the charge by telling the companies, "but you're using LIVE to deliver that free DLC, which is OUR network."??? If so, what pricks.

 

[mrkgoo]

While I actually side with the argument of it all being free because it benefits me (i don't pay), and the publishers/developers (doesn't fragment user base AS MUCH - there will be those who never actually download stuff, even if it is free), I can definitely see the points on MS's side.

If some companies are free, and others aren't, then you will definitely, as a consumer argue why can't they do it for free? But why should they? Eventually, if they can't sell anything, they'd just as soon NOT do anything, rather than make it free. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

And Microsoft took a huge hit to get the XBox name to where it is - they wanted in on the video game market to make money, and was willing to take the losses required to do so. I don't see why they can't try and make money this time around. This gen was always going to be a lot more expensive - and not just for tech's sake, but because of the increased amount of manpower required to make certain games. Some games simply can't make as much money as they used to on the same pricing structure. They work harder and longer on games, yet there is no extra payback.

I for one would promote a varied price structure for games. Huge epic 75 hour quest? = US$70. Sudoku clone? US <$5. A Tiered pricing structure dependent on the cost of development make mroe sense to me. Relevance to topic at hand? It means the publishers can make money on fair basis from title-to-title, and not use other means to subsidise other work. MS are essentially making us pay now for what we didn't last gen - making up for profit lost last time around.

 

[USD]

All I have to say is that I better get free stuff, or I'm gonna be pissed.

 

[chinmonster]

It shouldn't be that difficult for MS to get companies to sponsor DLC for one of the biggest games of 06 / now one of MS' biggest franchises. If they want to make a little money off of it, why not just do that? Like a few others have been saying... I'm already paying $50/year for Live, why should I have to pay for stuff like maps, etc.?

 

[Son of Godzilla]

Isn't there some ruleset for what developers can charge for on Live? And isn't one of those rules that they can't charge for something released for free on other consoles? Games For Windows to save the day imo.

 

[nubbe]

Well, charging for shit which already is on the disc is an even worse scam than charging for "real" new content.
MS sucks either way. Here's hoping for Gears 2 to appear on PS3 for proper competition.

 

[kammy]

For a free service the PSN stuff is great. Ok there are issues with the interface in terms of friends lists and messaging etc but this half assed implimentation is more obvious with home on route.

Are MS going to dump the live fee? They surely cant expect live to ever go mainstream with that fee and then further fees on top?

There is no excuse to charge to access online play when companies have been doing it for free forever on the PC. Sony got it right, leave it to the publishers to decide.

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

****ing ridiculous.

 

[bumpkin]

New weapons and maps, you say? Well this begs the question: would you rather see a sequel to Gears or have the game continue via episodic mission downloads?

My initial stand is I'd be okay with a Gears sequel changing nothing in terms of core gameplay and just continuing the story, so in that respect, I'd vote for additional missions.

 

[Bloodwake]

I want free content.

The developer wants to give me free content.

Microsoft wants to make money.

I don't get free content.

Honestly, this just encourages people like EA who lock shit up that's on the disc and sell it to you.

 

[Yoboman]

MS could make millions off of DLC for Gears, of course they're gonna act like this

 

[Bloodwake]

MS could make millions off of DLC for Gears, of course they're gonna act like this

I'm not saying that it isn't a good idea business wise, but honestly, this sends messages to EA that Microsoft supports the company whenever they **** gamers up the ass.

 

[-ImaginaryInsider]

Is MS justifying the charge by telling the companies, "but you're using LIVE to deliver that free DLC, which is OUR network."??? If so, what pricks.

I imagine it has something to do with Epic (and the handful of devs) wanting to give great content away for free, and how it could look and/or affect other devs and the Live Marketplace. Free maps and weapons might be good for gamers, but in MS' view, it could throw off the value of similar Marketplace content that isn't free.

There has to be a better compromise than "No free Maps/Weapons" though...the bad PR from this will outdo the whole Horse-Armor thing if they aren't careful.

 

[JdFoX187]

Sony would do the same thing. I'm willing to pay for it if it's quality. I'd love for it to be free, but life isn't perfect.

 

[NinSoX]

I'm sure giving free media is not a black and white process. There are many circumstances surrounding this issue but the main one IMO is cost. With games costing ~20 million $ to make --> harder to break even --> less willing to open up the wallets to provide free content. Having said that, I'd love to get free stuff but you have to wonder how much extra it's costing these developers to make the extra content.

 

[soul creator]

slightly OT from the original post, but since the whole "lolz $50 for P2P" has come up again I figure I'd speak on it...and I'll probably be accused of being an xbox fanboy or whatever, so oh well...

just for the record, many companies in the past that took the Xbox Live "unified" approach to online gaming also charged monthly fees, and yes this was on PC. It's not like MS is the first to do this in gaming (see MPlayer, Heat.net, TEN.net, DWANGO, ImagiNation Network, etc.). Of course, in the PC world, most people ended up preferring the "every man for themselves" idea of online gaming with user-hosted dedicated servers, some publisher/developer ran servers, user-created mods, interfaces varying depending on what game your playing, etc..

Of course, when you play games on a PC, users generally accept that. Open-ended and free is part of the "PC Philosophy" so to speak, so even with the drawbacks of such an open-ended system, people don't mind. That changes when you play on a console. Consoles have always leaned towards the "easy to use" side of things, and generally speaking, people don't want to play a game with a huge server list of things like "###***CLAN L33T SPEAKEASY.NET PRACTICE SERVER***### running Q3Arena version 1.53234". And if they happen to play a different game, they tend to expect at least some sort of standardization between the different games on the console. That's what the $50 a year covers. Convenience. It's not perfect obviously, but it is something that no other platform really has at this point.

Of course, other platform holders have mostly emulated the "PC" approach to online gaming. Which is fine, but it has it's drawbacks of course, and judging by the amount of players who game online with Xbox systems vs. those with a PS3/Wii/DS, people apparently are willing to give up a little bit money for "convenience".

That said, I think MS should side with the developer on this decision on making the content free. I mean really, even their boss would agree:

 

[Lagaff]

I'm sure giving free media is not a black and white process. There are many circumstances surrounding this issue but the main one IMO is cost. With games costing ~20 million $ to make --> harder to break even --> less willing to open up the wallets to provide free content. Having said that, I'd love to get free stuff but you have to wonder how much extra it's costing these developers to make the extra content.

When the Dev itself want to give free content to thanks it's user why microsoft refuse..
I dont see why microsoft refuse they get money from the 50$ suscription already

 

[Brannon]

They should do the same thing Bungie did; offer the content for a price now, then later, offer it for free while at the same time releasing a cheap disk with all the downloaded content on it for those who'd rather have it that way.

Everybody wins!

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

They should do the same thing Bungie did; offer the content for a price now, then later, offer it for free while at the same time releasing a cheap disk with all the downloaded content on it for those who'd rather have it that way.

Everybody wins!

I thought about this as well.

 

[NinSoX]

When the Dev itself want to give free content to thanks it's user why microsoft refuse..
I dont see why microsoft refuse they get money from the 50$ suscription already

Because Microsoft is greedy? Is that what you wanted to read? It's a business strategy whether you agree with it or not.

Sony is providing free online now because they are still trying to establish their online infrastructure and community. Users want something reliable, effective and efficient before they pay. Once PSN establishes itself you can be sure Sony will be charging for the service.

 

[bigswords]

Once PSN establishes itself you can be sure Sony will be charging for the service.

I..I hope you are wrong in this aspect. Sony is the closest thing there is to pc multiplayer gaming (being free to play).

 

[JB1981]

Great job, MS. Way to reward the millions of people who bought this game and pay to play it online every day.

If you want to know how you reach out to gamers, take notes from Insomniac. The guys have updated/tweaked/improved and added content to Resistance numerous times since launch and it appears they will only continue to do so in the future.

 

[v1cious]

what....

:lol

did you forget who Microsoft is? you think they wouldn't try it again?

 

[itsme]

Once PSN establishes itself you can be sure Sony will be charging for the service.

Or, it seems like they'll nickel and dime us to death. I don't have a problem with company going yearly fees route or nickel and dime route(a.k.a. micro transaction). But, if they want both, that's when I start to believe I want NONE.

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

Great job, MS. Way to reward the millions of people who bought this game and pay to play it online every day.

If you want to know how you reach out to gamers, take notes from Insomniac. The guys have updated/tweaked/improved and added content to Resistance numerous times since launch and it appears they will only continue to do so in the future.

Uh, Bungie has been doing this for two years plus

 

[JB1981]

Uh, Bungie has been doing this for two years plus

That's nice. But your response doesn't address the current issue at hand, which was (if I recall correctly): why doesn't MS allow Epic to do the same?

 

[kammy]

Sony would do the same thing. I'm willing to pay for it if it's quality. I'd love for it to be free, but life isn't perfect.

Its people like you that create a situation like this.

Sony would love to do the same? Then why dont they? The PSN Store has an excellent mix of free addons and pay content. History will show that Sony had the better online strategy...although as the PS3 has launched a year early, its not fully implemented. Not charging a sub is a start.

 

[Lagaff]

Because Microsoft is greedy? Is that what you wanted to read? It's a business strategy whether you agree with it or not.

Sony is providing free online now because they are still trying to establish their online infrastructure and community. Users want something reliable, effective and efficient before they pay. Once PSN establishes itself you can be sure Sony will be charging for the service.

I dont understand peoples like you, what ever microsoft do they will find an excuse for them or drag another compagny who is doing it for free.
Put your fanboy glass off a moment if you can, and stop encourage the charge ms make in our best interest as gamers

 

[mood]

Is Microsoft paying Epic to make the DLC? If they are I can see why this would be a bigger issue to them.