Kotaku
If you listened to last week's 1UP Yours podcast, you'd have heard Epic's Tim Sweeney and Mark Rein say some pretty average things about Games for Windows Live. Which was very interesting. Pity that was overshadowed by a ton of people howling and wailing over some comments they made about the cost of new Gears maps.
It boils down to the pair saying they'd wanted to release new Gears maps for a while (and have FOUR good to go), and had wanted to do so for free, but Microsoft had other plans, instead having them charge for them. Sucks, yeah, but we already knew that's how they roll.
Mark Rein hit the Gears forums yesterday to calm people:
Epic thinks the way to maximize the return on Gears of War is to give the maps away for free and Microsoft thinks the way to maximize the return on Gears of War is to sell the maps. So what we've agreed to do is to put these maps on sale at a reasonable price then make them free a few months later.
Sounds fair. You want to pay, you pay, you don't, you wait. Everyone wins. Why was this such a issue, again?
Microsoft won't let you release your maps for free? [Gears Forums]
Comments
Yay...go microsoft...
That's utter nonsense.
Multiplayer maps should be god damn free. Gamerpics or backgrounds don't matter, make us pay all you want on these, but keep new maps free...
Micro$oft the peoples champion.
o gad.
yay! MS makes more decisions for developers!
sheesh, GFW, XBL, where is gaming headed?
But I want an Oompa-Loompa N~O~W!
Because Microsoft is a power hungry madman?
Seriously getting sick and tired of these micro-transactions :(
@_sean_: MS is GoW's publisher did GoW marketing campaign and will host download. In your opinion this does not justify participating in decisions?
Yeah, I guess it is good they are giving them away for free later down the road but it sucks that they have to charge for them at all if they don't want to in the first place.
This a little off topic but _sean_ reminded me of it when it asked where gaming was headed. Has anyone seen the Virtua Fighter 5 commercial on TV where they talk about all of the good scores it received and everything? At the end of the commercial it says, "Only for the PS3 Computer Entertainment System" Have they always called it a computer in the commercials? It's the first time I noticed it. I thought all the big 3 said "Video Game Entertainment System" but maybe not.
I don't care. Regardless if I pay or get these maps for free, I'm getting them either way.
@Fabrice:
I agree! You bought the damn game in the first place didn't you?
Unless there's going to be new technology added that (better physics, AI etc) Then this should be free. (for all we know, this was already completed before and was made to be DLC).
Unless a map as a harem of sexy ninja sex slaves that are waiting to be sodomized. Hell all of it should be free!
Interesting thing here that the devs wanted to give it away while MS wanted a fee for it.
This is why I sometimes hate that consoles are going the PC route. Everything should be online!
Co-op split screen with a buddy in the same room??! HELL NO! Do it over the internet!
Game going gold being optimized, checked for bugs and polish?! HELL NO! Just patch this sucker up later and then make a profit out of it!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not just criticizing MS. But all three of 'em! And some devs too for pandering.
Ah what do I know?! I'm still a sucker for games...
"Why was this such a issue, again?" Luke Plunkett
Such AN issue.
--
We might have some healthy competition in this instance if Microsoft weren't positive that sony would sell each weapon/character/map and shading texture ala carte and you end up paying $90 for the entire game.
Sigh. Look,it is not free to use Xbox LIVE, period. They have to pay for bandwidth, storage, and other 'small' items, which, when coupled to what, 4 million accounts is....yeah, you do the math.
So. We can have sponsored items, like the last GoW maps, or we can pay for them. Oh, or we could not get sh** and play the same crap over and over and over and over and over...I don't mind paying for additional content, really. It is a paltry sum for those of use who purchased a $400 gaming machine, TV to play said machine on, sound system, games at $60 a pop. Tsk, tsk. And now people bemoan the fact that they will be "forced" to pay a few dollars (nothing compared to what you dropped on a luxury item) more? Get the F out. I just came back from Kenya where the avg. person makes around $20 a month. Learn to appreciate where you live and the great things we have and can do before you pitch a bitch about $6. Jesus Christ, stay away from Starbucks for one day and you have your maps.
For F's sake, can't people find anything better to bitch about in our hobby? How about the shit that keeps rolling out from each studio?
Free. I paid you F--k-rs $60 already, and another $50/yr for membership to Live. You owe me free maps. Atleast 4.
Well, atleast I'm not some sap that forks up 80-400 pts for some custom icon that is a joke.
Frankly I think this is the way that all online content should be done. Ie it becomes free after awhile. That was the casuals get to use without paying.
Oh and stop whining. You bought the game for what was on the disc. That is all the price includes. Anything afterwards is fair game. people still need to make the new content,test it, host it. Hell, we already got 2 free maps already (4 if your count the two that were added to the disc at the last minute). I think people really need to get over the idea that we should get everything for free. Nothing is free, it all costs someone somewhere.
So while I naturally would prefer not to pay for gears maps, and will likely wait until thy are free, I don't find it insulting or in any way inapropriate that we are expected to pay for additional content.
@Kosher
People are pitching a fit because micro-transactions are becoming the norm not the exception to the rule. People already see where this is going which is the world where you buy a game but in order to get everything for the game you have to keep buying texture packs, roster updates, new maps, new vehicles etc. When someone spends 60 dollars or whatever on a game, they should not be forced to run out and buy online the remaining part of the game they didn't recieve in the first place.
Yes, the extra maps are extra and everything but when Sony is floating the idea of GT Micro World and EA is looking at roster charges/cheat codes transactions. It is within the realm to think that a company is going to be willing to withhold content and sell it as extra. I know I am not going to be happy when I am forced to buy a game only to find out that multiplayer is extra or that the game ends in Act IV and pops a screen saying I can buy the real ending for 10 bucks and see Act V.
People are bemoaning the move by companies to nickel and dime you at every instance not to mention the propensity of more games (on consoles no less) to ship unfinished and bug ridden until they patch. Console games used to ship fairely finished and that was sort of an advantage it had over PC games. Now that advantage is gone and well some people are ticked off that we are moving down a path that could in theory lead to "Patches" being considered fair game for micro-transactions (God I hope it doesn't happen).
Console players are not used to the fact, that nearly all online services/features for PC games are free of extra charge. You have Gamespy, you have another matchmaking tool and another and some. And if i remember correctly ... Battle.net was THE reason for the outstanding commercial success of Blizzard games.
But if you have enough money to throw it out of the window ... well, it's your money. You decide!
@Marasai: Oh and stop whining. You bought the game for what was on the disc. That is all the price includes. Anything afterwards is fair game.
So the flaws in Gears of War that they patched with updates....should they charge for those? I mean, the fixes weren't on the disk, that's for sure. I'm curious how much you think those should cost.
...and yes, I know what you were getting at.
No, you don't get it. Casuals do not buy extra maps, that's why they should be free, since you are limiting the payer base and it's not the way to go to keep a 6 months old game alive.
Sounds to me like Microsoft hired some of those recently released Sony PR folks.
@Kajetan: except the console's content pricing model is migrating to the PC so consumers are better off fighting it where it starts (here) rather than later on once its prevalent on pc and all other platforms too.
@adamcole:
Sony has always used computer entertainment system for the PS2 and PS3, and I know Nintendo has not used that label, ever. I'm not sure about Microsoft.
Well, you bought the game, that is all. You don't want to pay extra for extra content? Don't. No one is forcing you to do anything. What I think is going on here is not that consoles are effecting PCs, but I think the PC community has invaded the consoles and expect things to be the same here as they are there: cheating, modding, user-created crap. Yeah, please make my console more like the business model of the PC. Can't wait.
Oh, and for those who think that all this is a dangerous move whose effect will ripple forth like a great, digital tsunami:
http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives/slippery_slope....
Enjoy that illogical ride people. You have no 'proof' other than your own paranoia.
@Rajio:
Yes, sure ... and the best way to do that is not to buy this stuff. Even not to buy these games!
But sadly, the main target group is still young gamers, male gamers, who spend gladly every fuckin dollar they have on games. Well, i was young too. I had a part time job and spent everything i earned in games. My parents payed for the house, for my clothes, for my food, for my school. Why bother?
@Kosher
Well considering Sony was flirting with using micro-transactions on Gran Turismo and they are going to use them for Home. EA was considering or is considering using micro-transactions for roster updates in Madden. Oblivion charged for horse armor of all things. Its not a far leap from moving toward a more micro-transaction based system.
You are correct though that PC's have influenced consoles. The patch system and move toward more network related games on consoles are straight from PC style multiplayer games. The next step is MMO's imo, Its not a far idea that something like WoW could be ported to xbox360 considering FFVI was console also. So not only do you have to pay for xbox live but if you buy a MMO for console now you have a monthly fee.
@Marasai:
Way to miss the point 100%. Microsoft are the ones that demanded charging for the maps, NOT EPIC. How is it whining when the people that made the damn game and the content on the disc wanted to give us more stuff free, and the middleman says "Whoa whoa whoa, hold up. We're gonna have to set you guys straight. We are going to have to charge people for this free stuff you wanted to hand out whether you like it or not."
Sony isn't making you pay $50 for Home. Or for GT HD for that matter, last I checked.
This brought to you by the company c.e.o Dollar Bill Gate$
@Kosher Infidel:
Please. Your hatred clouds your logic worse than any PC enthusiast.
1. Quality doesn't magically go to shit when something is free.
2. Microsoft has done this before with other games (where they wanted it to be free or cheaper, and Microsoft said no), and they WILL do it again.
http://kotaku.com/gaming/bizarre/bizarre-geometry-wars-sho...
There is no slippery slope. More like tracks, and we're on the train.
@BlackDove
True but the fact they are playing around with micro-transactions is a fairly good indicator they are testing the waters to see if such strategies are viable.
This is what microsoft is planning, after xbox live on windows, they will make you pay for all online gaming activity. Also HL2 PC vs PC.
After this this they will ban all mods and user created content.
You could make your own maps, but for other to play it, they will have to pay microsoft.
This is the future of gaming, courtesy of microsoft.
PSHome and NintendoFriendCode should kill xbox live, so that PC gamers can play again for free, and that all online gaming is free again.
Remember, paying for online gaming (mmo aside), is like paying for sex.
Don't see the big problem here, if MS follows this structure. If people want to pay for these maps now and play them now, that's perfectly fine.
If you have the patience and aren't terribly excited, you can easily wait the few months before they're free.
This is exactly what bungie and MS did when the 4 new Halo 2 maps were released, you could get them for price at first, but they were released like 4-5 months later for free.
The only problem is that EPIC publicly announced that they wanted them to be free, and the maps have been ready for a while.
MS should just let them go for free, now, and next time make the pricing structure discussions part of an NDA. Tempests in teapots should be avoidable.
I'm currently in the middle of listening to the interview. And this listed compromise was one of the things that bothered me.
Rein and Sweeney seem to know exactly what they want to do and can show these techniques have worked well for them in the past.
But then they seem to act as if they are open to certain compromises which don't accomplish their goals.
This is one of them. They want the maps free because it encourages customers to keep their copies of Gears and not trade them in. How is this free? I can't see how this would prevent me from trading my copy in. (Rein and Sweeney see sales of traded in copies as reducing sales of new copies, that's why they want to prevent trade ins).
Another one is they are angry that if they were a Games for Windows Live game, they couldn't offer buddy lists or voice chat to their customers. Instead, their customers would have to subscribe to Live Gold to get it. They find this wrong. But then they say that if you got a 90 day Live Gold trial, they'd be okay with it? How is this okay? What if I bought Shadowrun, used up my 90 days, then bought UT3? I wouldn't get the chat. They say chat should be free and it should, don't go halfway.
And the most baffling is they complain that with Live for Windows, they could can't support Macintoshes and dedicated Linux servers, both of which they support right now. If this is true (and it is), why would they even consider Live for Windows? MS is not going to support Linux. Also, considering in the same interview they say matchmaking in Gears is boned because MS didn't get the ability to do good (group-based) matchmaking into Live in time for them. So again, why would you jump into a program where you have to wait for MS to develop network capabilities you need, and they only seem interested in developing them on their own schedule (i.e. in time for Halo 3).
I just didn't see the point in the whining. Rein and Sweeney are smart and know what they want to do. And what they want to do is incompatible with Live for Windows. Thanks for exposing the problems with Live for Windows, but why are you still considering it when it will compromise your ability to follow your own principles and do your own development?
The conversation that was exposed between Microsoft and Epic is the same conversation that is had for every game between a studio and publisher - pricing, extras, expansion packs... Everything is discussed. The difference here is that these conversations are usually not exposed to the consumer.
What we should be looking for are ways to make user-created content more available and for sharing (for free or otherwise). Then, we will see the value (or lack thereof) from microtransaction content. It will seem more like a choice.
A lot of those complaining feel entitled, but to me, it seems the problem is that there is no competition for content, so pricing and offerings seem arbitrary and opportunistic to the consumer.
OMG I cant decide.... should I buy it when it comes out or wait.... I just wish MS had not given me the choise..... ahhhh boo hoooo.
Damn people grow some hair.
@t0nic:
"So not only do you have to pay for xbox live but if you buy a MMO for console now you have a monthly fee."
Not really. MMOs can be played with a FREE Silver account.
I love hearing people endlessly bitching about something that costs less than 10 dollars. I could collect cans to come up with the cash to get these maps if I needed to.
Stop pissing and moaning because everything isn't free and given to you at your beck and call. If you're so fucking broke you can't afford some new maps I don't know what to tell you.
A bunch of fucking crybabies...go back to WoW.
@DashTheHand:
Agreed, but this is NOT the case of Microsoft, the owner of the 360 marketplace, bullying Epic into charging for Gears content. This is Microsoft, Gears of War's publisher, demanding the content be paid so they can make money.
I guess it really is "up to the publisher to decide the cost for Marketplace content"
@FoxHoundADAM:
Totally agree with that statement. The "Microsoft can do no wrong" train is derailed, probably for good.
@tljent: hear hear. They are still going to release them for FREE in a few months time. This is just like silver account members bitching about not getting a demo until a week later... If you want the damn demo so bad, BUY A GOLD ACCOUNT! They are giving you a free service, it OFTEN costs money to be an early-adopter, regardless of the service being provided. It's called capitalism, get over it!
I think the sad thing is the game industry is purposefully creating a class system.
Used to be if I went out and bought a console, and you went out and bought one the only difference between the two are what games we chose.
Now your elite, I'm premium, and our other friend is the cash poor sorry bastard that got the base system or whatever they call that stuff.
But the divisions don't end there. Now you have some maps that I don't. Etc. Etc. We are devided from one another even when we own the exact same game.
Used to be when a developer wanted to make more money on a game they released an EXPANSION.
@E2K:
Are you retarded??? That's the worst analogy I have ever heard. The PSN and friend codes suck. When they give me the same quality I get out of $3 a month on Live, that is when I start advocating them.
Anyone consider all the bandwidth MS will need to use to send all these maps to people? I bet that cost a buck or two and the initial low download cost may be set to help off set this issue. If you want free online go to the PS3. I have it and have only used it to download a few games to my psp. It sucks as a primary online system.
XBL, PSN, and online play are overrated imo. I almost never play online, but almost all game allow it now.
I don't have a problem with paying for microtransactions.
I DO have a problem when a developer thinks something should be free, but MS steps in and forces customers (already paying monthly fees) to pay for what should have been free.
Uh, for understanding this thing .. you guys have to disconsider Microsoft Game Studios from the "Live" pot .. your "live" money isn't going to Microsoft Game Studios .. this is a separated publisher .. hosting Gears of War (and many other games.) .. they are maximising profit to go on publishing more games ..
They are just a publisher, like Ubisoft, EA etc .. so this actions have nothing to do with "FORCING THIRD PARTIES!!" or with "Stealing you for your live money and this".
I'd really like to know where the money goes for this
the first time they offered the Halo2 maps(the first ones) for sale (like 20 bucks or something ridiculous)...I was like, FUCK NO. And then I heard that if you wai