Support NeoGAF

[Agent Icebeezy]

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?

I honestly don't know what the difference is, as they let Bungie do the same. There has to be something missing here.

 

[ToxicAdam]

How long have we (and other posters) been telling you guys that next gen is all about nickle and diming their userbase to death? That's the golden ticket to profitability now. Once they got you locked into a console, you are a slave to their bullshit.

You can't blame MS. They have one of the most spend-happy userbases in the history of gaming. Let the milking ensue.

 

[NinSoX]

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

I don't understand you either. How did you interpret my post into something like that?

 

[Agent Icebeezy]

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

Good question. Who is footing the bill for this?

 

[Buffy4ever]

I hope this is not true. If I were MS I would give the developer Epic anything they wanted
By the way I have seen free DLC on XBL

 

[Norse]

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.

MS gives you free demos of every XBLA game....PSN dowloadable games dont..so whats worse? You had to buy flow and hope it was good, etc, etc......bitching about ms charging for content and watching PSN and Nintendos old arcade games sell without demos is silly.

 

[shpankey]

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

i'm sorry, but wtf language is this shit in? :lol :lol this is near rierom speak levels. :lol

 

[contaygious]

this is not new to anyone in the industry. microsft gets the final say on content and what can and cannot be free and the funny thing is the features are free on ps3......so it just makes LIVE look STUPID.

Just watch........more games are coming with new original online features you will need a live account for that ps3 gamers will get totally free.

I like marble blast ultra as well!

 

[Karma Kramer]

Both the PSN and Xbox Live have problems.

Lets stop with the fanboy warz and just be thankful that Sony is actually competing in the online arena this generation. But lets also not get carried away and claim Xbox Live is a piece of shit.

 

[AmishNazi]

Both the PSN and Xbox Live have problems.

Lets stop with the fanboy warz and just be thankful that Sony is actually competing in the online arena this generation. But lets also not get carried away and claim Xbox Live is a piece of shit.

Yeah UT3 should be HILARIOUS. Epic will release free content and maps if you let them. Let's see if Sony is as evil as MS.

 

[bishoptl]

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.

Xbox was Microsoft's first console, and the initial attempt to establish their online infrastructure and community was based around Live. A service demonstrated to be reliable, effective and efficient.

Was it free? Refresh my memory.

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

It appears you're privy to information that developers are not. How *do* you do it?

 

[Raistlin]

These are the times when I wonder if a Microsoft controlled industry is a good thing.

It sure hasn't been a good thing in the PC industry.


That's why I can't understand the people hoping for Sony's 'death'.

 

[Raistlin]

Did Pat indicate there was a minimum price for the map pack that MS wanted to charge? Here's the problem in MS's mind.. For game content, they devote some of their resources to test and certify the product. Something that has some value. (peoples' time) Usually MS just makes a cut off whatever is charged, so obviously a nice big fat cut of zero is also zero.

That would be fine if XBL was free ... however, it ain't.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Xbox was Microsoft's first console, and the initial attempt to establish their online infrastructure and community was based around Live. A service demonstrated to be reliable, effective and efficient.

Was it free? Refresh my memory.

Was there a comparable substitute to Xbox Live on consoles when it was released?

Microsoft was the first company to really push online gaming and they are the first to actually get it right on consoles. They had no reason "not" to charge.

Now however as competition increases... there are less reasons for the $50 payment.

 

[Raistlin]

Forced? Word is they didn't even bother with MS.

IIRC, that is wrong.

They brought the concept to MS first, under the notion that the 360's online 'philosophy' matched what they had in mind the most ... ie. Velocity Girl.

MS lol'd, and they instead had talks with Sony ... where they instantly hit it off.

 

[bishoptl]

Microsoft was the first company to really push online gaming and they are the first to actually get it right on consoles. They had no reason "not" to charge.

Not according to NinSox, there.

 

[Karma Kramer]

IIRC, that is wrong.

They brought the concept to MS first, under the notion that the 360's online 'philosophy' matched what they had in mind the most ... ie. Velocity Girl.

MS lol'd, and they instead had talks with Sony ... where they instantly hit it off.

You are talking about Little Big Planet right?

if so... then that would have to be the stupidest decision Microsoft has ever made. What the hell were they thinking lol?

 

[Raistlin]

Gears on a PS platform is never going to happen. MS would probably pick up Epic in a hostile takeover before they let that happen. Let's be serious. That's almost as significant as Halo coming to PS3, Mario coming to XBOX, or Gran Tourismo going to Wii. In other words, aint gonna happen.

Except that it's a totally different situation seeing how MS doesn't own the IP nor the dev company.


I'm not saying it's going to happen, just that your analogy sucks.

 

[Karma Kramer]

Not according to NinSox, there.

Well NinSox doesn't know what he is talking about then.

 

[Raistlin]

You are talking about Little Big Planet right?

if so... then that would have to be the stupidest decision Microsoft has ever made. What the hell were they thinking lol?

Yep LBP.

Unless I'm going nuts, there was an interview with the devs at, or soon after GDC where this was discussed. I'm pretty sure either they or the interviewer brought up the 'Velocity Girl' concept, and it seems that is why they originally went to MS.

My understanding is that they either brought it in concept form, or some very low-level demo form - it obviously was not demonstrating the graphics/animation/physics it has now. Obviously if it did, MS would have grabbed.

But that seems to be MS's biggest problem. They do not seem to have a good eye for concepts, talent, etc. You wouldn't want them drafting for your football or hockey team :lol. Instead, they tend to purchase near finished IP's, or purchase devs that have already demonstrated titles they like.


Actually, iirc ... Rockstar originally brought Grand-Theft Auto to MS ...

... and they said no. :\

 

[Karma Kramer]

Yep LBP.

Unless I'm going nuts, there was an interview with the devs at, or soon after GDC where this was discussed. I'm pretty sure either they or the interviewer brought up the 'Velocity Girl' concept, and it seems that is why they originally went to MS.

My understanding is that they either brought it in concept form, or some very low-level demo form - it obviously was not demonstrating the graphics/animation/physics it has now. Obviously if it did, MS would have grabbed.

But that seems to be MS's biggest problem. They do not seem to have a good eye for concepts, talent, etc. You wouldn't want them drafting for your football or hockey team :lol. Instead, they tend to purchase near finished IP's, or purchase devs that have already demonstrated titles they like.


Actually, iirc ... Rockstar originally brought Grand-Theft Auto to MS ...

... and they said no. :\

hmmm interesting...

Who is usually incharge of these decisions? Shane Kim?

 

[thetrin]

All the more reason to hope for a three-way split this generation.

That would certainly be the most delicious outcome.

 

[Raistlin]

hmmm interesting...

Who is usually incharge of these decisions? Shane Kim?

I'm not familiar with MS's hierarchy for such matters.

 

[Ryudo]

It sure hasn't been a good thing in the PC industry.


That's why I can't understand the people hoping for Sony's 'death'.

That doesnt make any sense mate, microsoft havent done anything to hinder the pc industry in terms of gaming. Making the directx framework was a great move for everyone.

I dont think anyone seriously wants sony to die, but moreso have a failure so that they get their act into gear. Look at whats happening already, they are being pushed hard.

 

[Raistlin]

That doesnt make any sense mate, microsoft havent done anything to hinder the pc industry in terms of gaming.

You can't be that dense - who's talking about PC gaming? I'm talking about the implications of them having a monopoly.

MS has most certainly been bad for pricing ... and have most certainly hindered apps, etc. that have either competed with them, or didn't fit into their 'master plan'.

Do I really have to spell out how this DLC shit parallels their conduct in the PC SW industry ... or how them having a console monopoly would be bad given their history?

 

[Ryudo]

You can't be that dense - who's talking about PC gaming? I'm talking about the implications of them having a monopoly.

Err ... microsoft made directx for the pc industry ... you know those things called PC's ? You play games on them ? Yeah ? Thats just one facet of what they have provided for the industry. How can you possibly say that this wasnt a good thing for the industry ? Call me dense ? :lol

MS has most certainly been bad for pricing ... and have most certainly hindered apps, etc. that have either competed with them, or didn't fit into their 'master plan'.

Pricing ? How does that relate to the pc industry ? What competing operating systems or software isnt priced around the same figure ?

As for your second point, i dont really agree or disagree. Its their operating system, why would they give competitors a free pass to dominate ? Would sony do that if they were in the same position ? Its business and its dirty, but as a consumer i am not going to complain when i get ie and windows media player for free. **** paying for netscape, i am glad they are dead.

Do I really have to spell out how this DLC shit parallels their conduct in the PC SW industry ... or how them having a console monopoly would be bad given their history?

Sorry, i didnt know all DLC hasnt been free until now. My bad. Whats even worse is that i actually own a 360 and i dont know i am being shafted. Its crazy isnt it...

I dont think DLC not being free is right if it was intended that way. Do i need to spell that out to you ? You have a hard time actually understanding what i do say and what you think i say.

You have to wait and see what ms would do if they were the generation winner, i dont think its right to say "look at their history in the pc market and extrapolate that as to how they would lead the gaming market".

Its pretty clear you bleed for sony, so its not much point justifying my opinion.

 

[Raistlin]

blah blah blah

I don't even know where to begin.


Seriously ... holy shit ... just forget it.

 

[Tieno]

Someone at another forum posted this GameInformer article from a while ago that also talks about this.

"But is there something that Microsoft isn't telling us? Could there be significant free content available in the Market place that the company is withholding?

Game Informer spoke with multiple contacts within the industry about the process that publishers and developers have to go through to get their content on Xbox Live Marketplace. We also found out that there is free content that companies want to offer, but Microsoft's mandating that consumers pay for it.

When a publisher has goods it wants to put up for sale, those prices must first be
submitted to Microsoft. As part of an agreement with the company, publishers have signed a document that hands over final say to Microsoft regarding Market place pricing. From here, Microsoft takes a look at the marktet and prices items to maintain a balance among items of similiar value.

Game Informer talked to Aron Greenburg, Xbox Live/Xbox 360 group product manager who denied that Microsoft has final say over Market place pricing. "It's ultimitaly up to the publisher," he told us.

However, according to our sources, it's not up to publishers, and free content is being with held from consumers under the speculated motive of Microsoft wanting to make gamers accustomed to paying money for goods above and beyond wallpapers. Said one industry insider we talked to, "they want you in the store and they want you buying stuff that is at full price. "We've even been told that the rules of the game may vary depending on hoW much clout your company has with Microsoft.

Greenberg denied knowledge of any motive to restrict free content, but admitted that the company does indeed adjust download prices. "there may be some situation or unusual case where there's content that's significant in nature and it would make other content look out of line, but I'm not aware of any case where we've told them that they couldn't offer it for free."

 

[Ryudo]

I don't even know where to begin.


Seriously ... holy shit ... just forget it.

You think your opinion makes you somehow better than someone who doesnt agree with you ?

Seriously, answer me how directx was somehow a bad thing that microsoft did to the "industry" ?

 

[Mr. Pointy]

Stop ruining my good 360 buzz, Microsoft.

 

[a Master Ninja]

VERY interesting, Tieno.

 

[Karma Kramer]

THIS IS MADNESS!

MADNESS...? no... THIS IS MICRORAAAAAAAAAPE!

 

[MirageDwarf]

Who is usually incharge of these decisions? Shane Kim?

Yes. He is responsible for planning Microsoft's game portfolio.

 

[ElyrionX]

I think it is ridiculous that Microsoft is doing that to screw us over. I mean, at least make the content free for Gold users because we're actually paying for the damn service.


Incidentally, the devs of Team 17 said as much on their official forums, though that thread has already been deleted:

We are planning a lot of free content, but ultimately those controls are down to Microsoft because they have a lot of other companies serving downloadable content who wish to protect their 'value' (would be less so, if for example, all our stuff was free).

First pack of DLC will come soon.

 

[Mockingbird]

Thank the idiots that spend money on this stuff. Because they're willing to dish out money, Microsoft is willing to charge us! If everyone just refuses to dl it for a fee, then it would be free. Let's start boycotting this and stop this heinous rip off by Microsoft today!

 

[squicken]

Yes. He is responsible for planning Microsoft's game portfolio.

At the time, it was J Allard who passed on GTA III. Supposedly Shane Kim was one of the big backers of the Bungie aquisition. Of course success is the child of many fathers . . .

 

[DevelopmentArrested]

They need to release DLC asap.. interest is waning.

 

[Grayman]

You think your opinion makes you somehow better than someone who doesnt agree with you ?

Seriously, answer me how directx was somehow a bad thing that microsoft did to the "industry" ?

locking competing operating systems out of any portion of the market that wants their games to work.

Thank the idiots that spend money on this stuff. Because they're willing to dish out money, Microsoft is willing to charge us! If everyone just refuses to dl it for a fee, then it would be free. Let's start boycotting this and stop this heinous rip off by Microsoft today!

1 idiot buying something is worth more than 6 billion not buying it sadly.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

This is quite an interesting, and potentially 'dangerous' point for Microsoft. Great thread from OP.

I'll try and lay out my thoughts in an objective way.

Firstly, Marketplace is a service offered by Microsoft as part of Xbox Live Silver. There may be some downloads that are exclusive or time exclusive to Gold members, but the majority of downloads don't require the subscription fee to Live Gold.

Next, Microsoft, whilst obviously wanting to take a slice of microtransactions (which company wouldn't?), are stating that it's generally up to the publishers - see Tieno's post above -

"It's ultimitaly up to the publisher," he told us.

.

Taking another quote from above:-

"We've even been told that the rules of the game may vary depending on hoW much clout your company has with Microsoft.

Which publisher has most clout with Microsoft, other than themselves?

My answer: Electronic Arts.

Which publisher *currently* on Xbox Live is leading the microtransaction gouging?

My answer: Electronic Arts.

Let's just *speculate* that EA have asked Microsoft nicely to balance the content available on Marketplace to make their offerings not as much of a rip-off as they are.

To support this (Team 17 staff quote above):-

We are planning a lot of free content, but ultimately those controls are down to Microsoft because they have a lot of other companies serving downloadable content who wish to protect their 'value' (would be less so, if for example, all our stuff was free).

So how does Microsoft play this in general? Do they alienate EA? Do they alienate the
publishers or devs that want to release free content?

Remember, the original reason that EA took so long to go on Live, was that they wanted access to the customer - it may well be a stipulation in their agreement with MS to their continued participation on Live.

Whilst this speculation does not exonerate Microsoft, it certainly makes it clear to me that it is not simply as clear cut as we may think. However, I do think that Microsoft aren't entirely blameless, and they obviously side more with EA in not offering free content when they can charge for it.


Now, taking this into account, the Gears situation is even more interesting seeing that as Microsoft *is the publisher*, according to their own rules, they get the final say on pricing.

I'm not entirely sure what the publishing situation is for XBLA stuff like Geometry Wars and Marble Blast Ultra is, but if MS is the publisher, then they get the final say.

In summation, I think that Microsoft has to be more upfront with consumers as to who makes the decision on DLC pricing - if they really do have a policy that enforces price balancing on cross-publisher DLC to ensure that some publishers do not look bad, then they should state this very clearly.

 

[davepoobond]

 

[ElyrionX]

Thank the idiots that spend money on this stuff. Because they're willing to dish out money, Microsoft is willing to charge us! If everyone just refuses to dl it for a fee, then it would be free. Let's start boycotting this and stop this heinous rip off by Microsoft today!

QFT.

Unfortunately, people are still going to buy DLC for their favourite games and unless there is some magical way to convince everyone to just stop paying for DLC, MS will just continue to rip us a new one with every new game.

I think the GRAW DLC is one of the biggest ripoff on the Marketplace but apparently it sold really well.

 

[Yagharek]

Anyone who gets between me and more Marble Blast Ultra is not a very nice person.

This is disgusting (yet predictable) if true.

 

[Level 8 Boss]

Disgusting, Micro$oft need to consider their image. Compromise their relationship with developers and gamers? Or get a larger slice of the pie?

Most frustratingly is we as gamers, can do nothing to support Epic. I for one will veto premium dlc for Gears.

 

[Bowen_B]

I don't believe it personally.

As for Geometrey Wars, if that (one of the best and first games) was free it would set a bad precedent for the whole XBLA platform.
They allow Totem Ball to be free, they allowed Texas Hold 'em to be free for a short period.

As for Marble Blast Ultra, it was also one of the first few titles released and has sold extremely well. Why market/promote/enhance it so long after the point of sale? The majority of XBLA users probably already have it, to create more buzz for it during the worse periods of XBLA Wednesdays would greatly affect sales of other titles coming out at around the same time and not help anyone involved. We know MS likes to stagger their first party published games, on XBLA everything is first party published (if I understand correctly).

I'm sure Gears of War will get some more new FREE content sooner or later.

 

[Dina]

QFT.

Unfortunately, people are still going to buy DLC for their favourite games and unless there is some magical way to convince everyone to just stop paying for DLC, MS will just continue to rip us a new one with every new game.

I think the GRAW DLC is one of the biggest ripoff on the Marketplace but apparently it sold really well.

Oh yes. I was late to the 360/GRAW party but still bought it. I don't think I played the DLC part of GRAW at all. Sure as hell ain't be paying for any DLC from GoW this time around.

 

[Bearillusion]

Geometry Wars Evolved should have been free with PGR3 like the original and 400 points on XBLA for those that didn't want to buy PGR3. Pretty simple really and that way everyone should be happy.

The GOW of ccntent should follow the model Bungie used with Halo 2. Pay if you want now or wait a few months and get it free.

 

[open_mouth_]

If the DLC for Gears is just a few multiplayer maps, then Microsoft should release it free for gold users for a month (charge silver users a small fee for a limited time), especially if Epic insists.

If the DLC is more serious stuff, like expanded missions or whatever, then Microsoft should charge for that stuff as it takes extra $$$ to produce, but they should consider offering it free months later like with the Halo 2 stuff. Get the best of both worlds and keep all sides pretty happy.

At this point, EA still has lots of power, but they're not going to abandon the 360 userbase, so Microsoft needs to stand firm and support the wishes of their other publishers or their partners like Epic, or they risk alienating those guys.

I'm sure MS will end up with some compromise, but our voices have to be loud.

 

[Tron999]

Ah, greed. How you rule the world.

 

[gollumsluvslave]

At this point, EA still has lots of power, but they're not going to abandon the 360 userbase, so Microsoft needs to stand firm and support the wishes of their other publishers or their partners like Epic, or they risk alienating those guys.

QFT.

Of course, if Wii keeps up it's performance thus far, it's possible that EA could move focus to Wii, but considering the 360 software sales compared to Wii 3rd party sales so far that's very unlikely.

 

[open_mouth_]

I'm sure everything will turn out OK. This is just typical fanboy forum overreaction that happens for *everything*...