• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Multiplayer Map Packs should become free after a certain period.

I agree. Get the money out of people who can't wait, and eventually give the maps out for free so you don't lose a chunk of your community.

I'd say that's fair way to do this.
 
Sadly they can't make them free because people would just say they'll wait a few months to buy it because what's the point anyways if its going to be free. The only time we really see dlc launch free is when its ad sponsored.
 
I'm not sure if this pertains to map packs, but once games are sold from retail as versions that contain all DLC, then the DLC should become free and available for all previous owners
 
Lingitiz said:
Sadly they can't make them free because people would just say they'll wait a few months to buy it because what's the point anyways if its going to be free. The only time we really see dlc launch free is when its ad sponsored.
Click to expand...
A lot of map packs have gone on sale at half price after release, yet lots of people still buy them day 1. Also, a lot of games themselves get drastically reduced in price a few months down the line, yet people still pre-order them or buy them in the first week. With DLC, it depends on the time period before it becomes free.

There's plenty of DLC that's free that's not ad sponsored BTW.
 
Lingitiz said:
Sadly they can't make them free because people would just say they'll wait a few months to buy it because what's the point anyways if its going to be free.
Click to expand...
Sadly they can't sell games at $60 because people would just say they'll wait a few months to buy them because what's the point anyways if it's going to be $20.

...And yet every month, the top selling games are all ones that cost $50-60.

Games that sell buttloads of DLC will still sell buttloads of DLC. Games that sell very little DLC will still sell very little DLC, but less people will sell the game back with the prospect of more content being added. In both cases, their community will get a second wind it would never have otherwise recieved. If the game is kept relevant and in peoples' minds, that goodwill will likely spill over into tangible gains for that game's sequel.
 
The time trial map pack for Mirror's Edge was made free on PSN after about a year I think, so it's not without precedent for map packs to become free. If only it happened for more titles.

At least some games come out with DLC bundles!
 
badcrumble said:
I agree that it'd be much better for the long-term longevity of a given game's community.

But remember: Publishers don't WANT longevity. They want you to keep interested long enough to buy all the DLC, but not long enough that you won't buy their next game and immediately move on to that instead.
Click to expand...


This is exactly why they aren't free. Segregating the player base eventually works for them when the next game comes out and that is as far ahead as a publicly owned corporation cares to plan.

However this quick turn around from one game to the next also opens them up to the possibility that people just switch to another game instead of theirs. But that isn't an immediate enough of a reality for anyone to care about. Very few publicly owned companies care about anything that might happen more than 3 quarters into the future
 
BloodySinner said:
Free for PC. Pay for console.
Click to expand...

This quickly devolves into "Pay for console. Never released for PC.".

I'm all for the glorious PC master race, but every publisher except 2 basically treat the PC market as gravy. Serve up a port, never support.
 
_dementia said:
I agree, wasn't it that way with Gears of War 1?
Click to expand...

Both Halo 2 and Gears 1(first DLC was free) made it the standard to charge initially then free after a certain time. A month or 2 months later the content would be free to download.

Halo 3 started to do it then after COD4 wouldn't stop charging for DLC, it started to keep the price on theirs(2nd & 3rd DLC).

Sadly, this trend of charging initially and keeping the price thoughout will continue, although some had claimed the contrary(see below).

A quote from Epic's Mike Capps himself:

"We always take care of our customers, we always give them stuff for free, and we're going to keep doing that forever. That's how we do it. This is Epic."
 
Its how they kill the game.

Some people buy them, some people dont. it splits the community into 2. And then when another map pack comes out it splits it again.
 
Diablohead said:
If all map packs went free after a year or so a lot of people would just wait, sales would be low, not as much money will be made.

Keep map packs full price people will still buy them.

DLC 101.
Click to expand...
See, I think that I am in the minority with a lot of the other gamers here. I don't know if we have been at this thing we call gaming for awhile to kind of have an idea of whats going on or what but I never buy DLC. I used to buy PC expansion packs back in the day, but it seems like every day the DLC coming on consoles, and now over-running to the PC scene is super overpriced for what you were getting. Sure, these maps and such take effort, time and resources, but I cannot justify paying the usual $10 for 3 maps. A little bit of that is coming from the 90's PC gamer inside me having mods and maps just about always free. But also, it seems like companies are putting far too much work in these things to try and justify the price which still doesn't cut it for me.

The thing that I cannot wrap my head around is... why so expensive? Okay, so look at all these map packs that are selling for around $10 to at least 50,000 people... That is $500,000 in cash there that you made off of not doing much. And 50,000 people is a really low number, but I was just taking a less popular game and showing how much they will still make. Sure, not all of the 500k is profit, but I would bet that at least 1/2 or more is... This is where I start getting disgusted with the issue and hate DLC even more.
 
No publisher wants to risk losing the tipping point where people play because everyone is playing. Even a few people (and their friends, etc.) delaying because they now expect it to be free eventually could have much larger consequences than it seems.
 
I am also a long time gamer who almost never buys DLC. BFBC:Vietnam being the only exception. I'm not opposed to buying full expansions but what we have nowadays can almost never really be considered a true expansion. I guess the biggest reason i don't buy single player DLC it is because I have already finished the game once and anything added to the game after that just feels out of place. Multi player DLC is almost always overpriced and since I'm not a sucker i dont pay for it.
 
I <3 Memes said:
This is exactly why they aren't free. Segregating the player base eventually works for them when the next game comes out and that is as far ahead as a publicly owned corporation cares to plan.

However this quick turn around from one game to the next also opens them up to the possibility that people just switch to another game instead of theirs. But that isn't an immediate enough of a reality for anyone to care about. Very few publicly owned companies care about anything that might happen more than 3 quarters into the future
Click to expand...
I can see that thinking having merit in some cases. Call of Duty where releases are yearly, yeah, it'd be real easy for a lot of people to just ignore the new game when maps go free and it has a large enough active playerbase where that could be a significant number of lost sales.

But something like Transformers War for Cybertron, where the community is practically nonexistant half a year after release and a sequel is on the docket, but far away? It's not good for the health of the sequel for its predecessor to have fizzled out so quickly, it's not good for the viability of the sequel's DLC for the first game to have map packs people bought but couldn't even play because not enough people had them. Give it a shot in the arm, keep it relevant, try to lure new people in. Salvage a little goodwill and that will translate into more benefit for the sequel than the piddly sum they're getting for full-price DLC for a game on life support.
 
Only the companies who actually care about their customers have DLC go free eventually. See Valve, Epic, Bungie, etc...

The money hungry developers will continue to only care about the profit. Greed is a powerful thing. :-(
 
WickedCobra03 said:
The thing that I cannot wrap my head around is... why so expensive?
Click to expand...
Perhaps in part it's to offset the relatively cheaper prices of the actual games. I'm paying less for games now than I was a couple of generations ago, yet they cost way more to make. I was watching some old episodes of Gamesmaster from 1996 the other day and most of the games they reviewed for consoles were £40. I haven't paid £40 for a game (outside of special editions) at all this generation.

Also, thinking about it from their POV, people are clearly willing to pay those prices in large numbers, so why wouldn't they charge that much?
 
surly said:
Perhaps in part it's to offset the relatively cheaper prices of the actual games. I'm paying less for games now than I was a couple of generations ago, yet they cost way more to make. I was watching some old episodes of Gamesmaster from 1996 the other day and most of the games they reviewed for consoles were £40. I haven't paid £40 for a game (outside of special editions) at all this generation.

Also, thinking about it from their POV, people are clearly willing to pay those prices in large numbers, so why wouldn't they charge that much?
Click to expand...
Manufacturing costs have gone down though thanks to optical media. That has to be one of the reasons for lower prices.
 
Halo 2 maps went free because they were sponsored by Mountain Dew I believe. So maybe the publishers ask too much from advertisers nowadays for them to consider sponsoring map packs.
 
This is why I'll never play online multiplayer first person shooters on a console. The publishers and developers on consoles have no interest in fostering any kind of community around any one given game. They make a paltry amount of insubstantial post-release content, that they make you pay for, to string you along to the next yearly release, that's it. There's no empowering your community by providing them content creation tools to make mods or new maps. The amount of support that the PC version pf Team Fortress 2 received years after release will never happen in a console game. It would make all of the shit every other company tries to sell you as "DLC" look like what it truly is, a rip-off.
 
_dementia said:
Manufacturing costs have gone down though thanks to optical media. That has to be one of the reasons for lower prices.
Click to expand...
Some of the games reviewed on the Gamesmaster episodes I was watching were on Saturn and Playstation that used optical media. I would imagine that overall, putting a game out now would cost way more than it did in 1996. Lots of developers have gone under in the last couple of years, and even big companies like EA seem to be consistently posting losses (or at least they were - I've not seen the latest figures).
 
I do my part in ONLY buying DLC if it's on sale. I DO NOT buy DLC day one. My friend offered to pay for half of Black Ops DLC for me to buy it day one. I declined because in Activisions eyes I would have still bought it at $15.

If anyone on here is actually serious about being a voice to stop high DLC prices/DLC that never goes free then you have to put up or shut up. Vote with the one thing the companies care about, your wallet.
 
The current model is setup with the benefit for the developers / publishers in mind.

For me the biggest problem is the split userbase and in the case of Halo games, you only really get to play the DLC in these special playlists where you are usually playing the maps with wrong player counts in order to shoe-horn all 3 DLC maps into the same playlist.

So I guess the problem for me is two-fold, the split userbase but more importantly the implementation.
 
JesseZao said:
Halo 2 maps went free because they were sponsored by Mountain Dew I believe. So maybe the publishers ask too much from advertisers nowadays for them to consider sponsoring map packs.
Click to expand...
They had two maps sponsored by Mountain Dew.

http://halo.wikia.com/wiki/Bonus_Map_Pack (2 maps)

The Killtacular pack (2 maps) released the same time, 4/25/05, and was released for $4.99. So basically, we got four maps for $4.99...

The Maptacular pack, five maps, did not have Mountain Dew tied to it I believe, and it became free just under two months later.
 
The issue with paid map-packs is that it divides your community.

If the content is good enough to warrant the price then fine, but they should be timed. After 6 months or so release it for free. You will make money on the serious fans, and your community won't be divided forever.
 
Lyphen said:
Sweet, so I'll be able to buy Halo: Reach for 20$ used in November and get all the DLC free too?

I love it when developers don't get any of my money. Support, woo!
Click to expand...

Gaming is not a charity. I buy games to enjoy them, and if the industry can't support me perusing the bargain bin, then that's hardly my fault. By the time Halo Reach is at $20, they've already made their bank as it is.

Splitting a user base up between "People who bought just the game" vs. "People who bought the game and also ponied up an extra $15-$30+ in DLC" is absolutely ridiculous. That gets in the way of my enjoyment. There are Halo 3 maps I've never played on because I'm the only one in my group of friends who has all of the DLC (I own ODST, none of them do). Same for Gears of War 2. I could play public games, but I'd sooner take a swim in hydrochloric acid.

I'm not going to support a shitty marketplace out of some sort of misguided responsibility to put food on their tables.
 
I kinda agree.
At least, the map packs should be free, the moment the same company releases a cheaper-compilation that includes those maps.

Example: Gears of War 2
-If you bought the game at launch or close to it: $60
-Getting all DLC available for Gears 2, right now costs: $27
-A Game of the Year Edition was released that included everything, and the game for $40.
-Recently, a Triple Pack was released that includes all that and the first game with all extra content, for $30.​

I know developers/publishers are all for attracting new owners with those "special packages", but way to fuck over the fans that got your game early on. It has been nearly 3 years since 2, they recently released that Triple Pack, so why not put all content for free, now. Heck, the new game will be released in a few months. That will probably make people more excited about the upcoming game and is not like they are going to make millions in sales by leaving those map packs/expansions at full price.
 
Dear Bungie,
No, I will not pay $10 for three maps for Halo Reach, especially when I bought the game for $40. I did not find them worthy of my money on day one, and I won't find them worthy of my $10 on day 100. Spamming me with "BUY OUR MAPS ON THE MARKETPLACE" when you...
  • first turn on Halo
  • when you enter matchmaking
  • when you're in a matchmaking lobby and it's flashing non-stop that you don't have all the maps
  • or when you list them in the maps list and you happen to click on one to which the guide pops up ready for you to buy them
won't do shit, and quite frankly sours me on even considering purchasing anything from you guys in the future. Period.

So I will now wait for the inevitable "GAME OF THE YEAR EDITION" or whatever that comes with all of the DLC maps included, and then buy it used. Or if you guys happen to discount the Noble Map Pack to 400pts when the Defiant Map Pack is released, I would consider changing my stance.

Sincerely,
Me
 
Kenak said:
Dear Bungie,
No, I will not pay $10 for three maps for Halo Reach, especially when I bought the game for $40. I did not find them worthy of my money on day one, and I won't find them worthy of my $10 on day 100. Spamming me with "BUY OUR MAPS ON THE MARKETPLACE" when you...
  • first turn on Halo
  • when you enter matchmaking
  • when you're in a matchmaking lobby and it's flashing non-stop that you don't have all the maps
  • or when you list them in the maps list and you happen to click on one to which the guide pops up ready for you to buy them
won't do shit, and quite frankly sours me on even considering purchasing anything from you guys in the future. Period.

So I will now wait for the inevitable "GAME OF THE YEAR EDITION" or whatever that comes with all of the DLC maps included, and then buy it used. Or if you guys happen to discount the Noble Map Pack to 400pts when the Defiant Map Pack is released, I would consider changing my stance.

Sincerely,
Me
Click to expand...

You are angry at Microsoft, not Bungie.
 
Tunavi said:
You are angry at Microsoft, not Bungie.
Click to expand...
I'm actually more angry at the level of spam included in the game to egg you into buying the maps. If Microsoft forced Bungie to include all of those lovely reminders that you do not have the map pack, then fair enough.

I do not have a right to the content Bungie releases, but I think I do have a right to play their game in peace without being spammed with bullshit.
 
wwm0nkey said:
Halo 2 had the perfect system when it came to DLC.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but Valve is still reaping profits off off free continued support for their titles in DLC, and sustain themselves off a relationship with gamers that is deemed "not profitable enough" by other publishers. So yeah Valve is doing it right, and has developed a dedicated fanbase that will always buy their games. The Halo 2 system being the next up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Games set in the Bakumatsu period?
18
141
PlayofSparta replied
Crimson Desert : Map size calculation redone with official map
31
993
Bitmap Frogs replied
Halloween - Multiplayer Overview
Trailer 
3
229
IbizaPocholo replied
Forza Horizon 6 full map reveal
2
60
664
nikos replied
Marathon will become f2p in a few months
Opinion  2
60
855
Sybrix replied
Top Bottom