Should Be Free

Nice to see another serviceman speaking the truth, navyguy21. If you don't like paying for a service, don't. That's the best, most personal message you can send. cainetao11

[QUOTE="MKLOL"][QUOTE="navyguy21"] lol, thats not what im saying and you know it lol. Steam, XBL, PSN, and wii connect are not all the same services, so choosing between 2 PS3s is easy, go for the cheaper one. However, all these services differ, so the choice would be between the respective services, or in the case of the example i gave you, between the consoles. I could ask "why get a PS3 when the 360 offers just as much value" (pretty sure consumers are making that same choice). Of course then you would say "it was worth it to me", and you would be right, my idea of value would obviously be different from yours, but it doesnt make either of us "wrong".

navyguy21

[QUOTE="voxware00"]

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

Fine. Then here's my contribution to the "discussion".

Whining and complaining don't matter one iota unless you actually DO something about it. Otherwise, it's all just hot air.

If you pay for something you don't think is worth it, then you negated any point you may have had.

VoodooHak

I contribute by refusing to pay for live, if people would understand MS is having their cake and eating it too by forcing ads on the service, the price would be reduced or dropped entirely once everyone else just stopped paying for it, if even for a little while to send a message

just like complaining that the service DOES have the right to charge you doesn't matter either, don't discuss it if there is no need or difference being made right

"Or point out any factual inaccuracies or logical fallicies that weaken the point." but there is no point of discussion according to you, and complaining one way or another does nothing so why create a discussion.. any factual inaccuracy will just go ignored anyway

That MS is having it's cake and eating it too is a judgment call on your part. It's an opinion that I and many others don't share, so no, it's not appropriate to state it as if it were some universal truth. It's not.

If you don't like ads, then maybe you should stop buying magazines or newspapers or riding public transportation or driving on roads or cable TV. There are ads everywhere. It's a flawed analogy, incorrectly applied.

what's funny is network tv shows cost about $1 mil per ep average whereas cable shows have a much lower budget, because of the reduced audience

with a larger audience of multiplayer games, MS would be able to make more money off of DLC for multiplayer features, not to mention selling more multiplayer oriented games to people (plus more consoles, even bigger audience)

if they want to force me to sit through ads before I pop a game in, I would be content with that package.. same as I would prefer a way to get a reduced cost on games that I'm not able to play multiplayer in even though it costs them more to implement multi and I'm paying for that premium at a flat fee
Thing is once advertising pops up, there is usually a reduction in price(no matter what media).. not for MS

Ads on the side of the road are paid for and in no way pay for the roads either, cigarette taxes pay for roads.. so perhaps they could tax other luxuries such as DLC to pay for the service on top of the ads from MCD's which is more than enough to pay for the service

on a side note I love ads because I love free websites and tv.. and I do not pay for magazines, newspapers, public transportation(in my town it's free actually), cable tv or driving on roads.. the only time I don't like ads is when they're not reducing the price of what I'm paying for despite their supplementation.. Did you know mail is cheaper because of junk mail subsidies?

TC, you whole point gets flushed down the tubes when you consider the pricing of games with MP. Why not have the SP cheaper and sell another version with the SP and MP for $60? You see, if someone goes and buys Halo 3, they are paying for the online MP. And then the people that want to pay online get double-dipped when adding Live fees. Either the people that only play SP's get screwed, or the people paying for Live fees are getting screwed. Either way, someone is getting screwed.[QUOTE="IronBass"]So true. The "should be free" attitude makes me think that some people actually believe that companies owe something to them. They are companies. They offer a product. If you like it, you get it. If not, not. There nothing more. No one, nore the companies nor the gamers have any "moral obligation" here.PoppaGamer

If you are aware up front of what exactly you're entitled do then explain how anyone is getting 'screwed'?? Are you saying you are willingly screwing yourself?

Halo 3 single player costs, lets say, $30

Halo 3 single player plus multiplayer costs $30 + $4 per month.

You knew this when you read the box before you purchased it, so I ask again, how are you screwed?

[QUOTE="cainetao11"]Nice to see another serviceman speaking the truth, navyguy21. If you don't like paying for a service, don't. That's the best, most personal message you can send. navyguy21

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

[QUOTE="voxware00"]

I contribute by refusing to pay for live, if people would understand MS is having their cake and eating it too by forcing ads on the service, the price would be reduced or dropped entirely once everyone else just stopped paying for it, if even for a little while to send a message

just like complaining that the service DOES have the right to charge you doesn't matter either, don't discuss it if there is no need or difference being made right

"Or point out any factual inaccuracies or logical fallicies that weaken the point." but there is no point of discussion according to you, and complaining one way or another does nothing so why create a discussion.. any factual inaccuracy will just go ignored anyway

voxware00

That MS is having it's cake and eating it too is a judgment call on your part. It's an opinion that I and many others don't share, so no, it's not appropriate to state it as if it were some universal truth. It's not.

If you don't like ads, then maybe you should stop buying magazines or newspapers or riding public transportation or driving on roads or cable TV. There are ads everywhere. It's a flawed analogy, incorrectly applied.

what's funny is network tv shows cost about $1 mil per ep average whereas cable shows have a much lower budget, because of the reduced audience

with a larger audience of multiplayer games, MS would be able to make more money off of DLC for multiplayer features, not to mention selling more multiplayer oriented games to people (plus more consoles, even bigger audience)

if they want to force me to sit through ads before I pop a game in, I would be content with that package.. same as I would prefer a way to get a reduced cost on games that I'm not able to play multiplayer in even though it costs them more to implement multi and I'm paying for that premium at a flat fee
Thing is once advertising pops up, there is usually a reduction in price(no matter what media).. not for MS

Ads on the side of the road are paid for and in no way pay for the roads either, cigarette taxes pay for roads.. so perhaps they could tax other luxuries such as DLC to pay for the service on top of the ads from MCD's which is more than enough to pay for the service

on a side note I love ads because I love free websites and tv.. and I do not pay for magazines, newspapers, public transportation(in my town it's free actually), cable tv or driving on roads

The reason I pursued your advertising angle is because, at the end of the day, it's a moot point.

Neither of us are privy to the operational costs of Xbox Live. Nor do we know where any assumed advertising money is going. So how can you presume to re-craft their business model?

What we actually DO know: 1)services offered; 2) price. It doesn't have to get any more complicated than that.

You're making the personal judgment call as to whether XBL is worth the cost, then filling in holes where there is a lack of knowledge. The flow of the revenue within MS is irrelevent to the worth of the service from the consumer's perspective.

Do you like the service offerings? Yes? Then pay. No? Then don't. Any other rationalization and speculation really has no place in the discussion.

Only things I think should be free is the same type of stuff you get free as a PC gamer. If it is something I would be charged on PC for, then I think it should also cost on the console. But charging on the console for things that are free on PC is just wrong in my book. It is one of the main reasons I get all PS3/PC multiplats on PC.

I find it extremely sad how much people defend paying for online play.

I find it extremely sad how much people defend paying for online play.

Eddie-Vedder

you dont understand.

we're lucky that people are yet to find a way tocharge people for air we breath.

[QUOTE="voxware00"]

[QUOTE="VoodooHak"]

That MS is having it's cake and eating it too is a judgment call on your part. It's an opinion that I and many others don't share, so no, it's not appropriate to state it as if it were some universal truth. It's not.

If you don't like ads, then maybe you should stop buying magazines or newspapers or riding public transportation or driving on roads or cable TV. There are ads everywhere. It's a flawed analogy, incorrectly applied.

VoodooHak

what's funny is network tv shows cost about $1 mil per ep average whereas cable shows have a much lower budget, because of the reduced audience

with a larger audience of multiplayer games, MS would be able to make more money off of DLC for multiplayer features, not to mention selling more multiplayer oriented games to people (plus more consoles, even bigger audience)

if they want to force me to sit through ads before I pop a game in, I would be content with that package.. same as I would prefer a way to get a reduced cost on games that I'm not able to play multiplayer in even though it costs them more to implement multi and I'm paying for that premium at a flat fee
Thing is once advertising pops up, there is usually a reduction in price(no matter what media).. not for MS

Ads on the side of the road are paid for and in no way pay for the roads either, cigarette taxes pay for roads.. so perhaps they could tax other luxuries such as DLC to pay for the service on top of the ads from MCD's which is more than enough to pay for the service

on a side note I love ads because I love free websites and tv.. and I do not pay for magazines, newspapers, public transportation(in my town it's free actually), cable tv or driving on roads

The reason I pursued your advertising angle is because, at the end of the day, it's a moot point.

Neither of us are privy to the operational costs of Xbox Live. Nor do we know where any assumed advertising money is going. So how can you presume to re-craft their business model?

What we actually DO know: 1)services offered; 2) price. It doesn't have to get any more complicated than that.

You're making the personal judgment call as to whether XBL is worth the cost, then filling in holes where there is a lack of knowledge. The flow of the revenue within MS is irrelevent to the worth of the service from the consumer's perspective.

Do you like the service offerings? Yes? Then pay. No? Then don't. Any other rationalization and speculation really has no place in the discussion.

You're supporting their business model, I'm discussing solutions for their business model to appeal to everyone.. because what else is there to this topic other than "I agree, I disagree"

If you don't feel discussing moot points is worthy of chat, this entire topic is null because either way you're going to say "Don't like it, don't pay" Is there any room for enlightenment here? I'm saying, if they're going to cram ads down our throats, there should be reduced pricing. What DOES have place in this discussion anyway? "My opinion > Yours" Live is an overpriced rip off

Your damage control and support of the business model sounds like something you'd hear from a 60 yr old politican about the internet

This is coming from somebody who worked on mods for free mind you, I'd love for everyone to get their cut but MS is cutting too much and it's ruining the value of games and the platform... think about all the times devs wanted to release free DLC but MS wanted their cut.. It's a greedy business model

"What's more enlightened then letting go of that which is beyond one's control?" Why start a discussion if you can't control peoples opinions, is that enlightenment or nihilism/apathy

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

I find it extremely sad how much people defend paying for online play.

navyguy21

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

I find it extremely sad how much people defend paying for online play.

navyguy21

I totally disagree with the TC. somethings should be free and some should not. we're approaching a 'stage' where a fighting game like Street Fighter would come with like 4 characters and other characters would be DLC, dont say it cant happen because it can. I dont care what anyone says, any DLC that is released the same day as the game, is nothing but daylight robbery. Also, I saw in a forum where someone 'hacked' alternate costumes in Street Fighter IV, he paid nothing, all the costumes are already on the disc. MightyMuna

So after reading the reviews/box of a new Streetfighter with only 4 characters, you'd happily buy it??

When you bought SFIV, were you happy with what you paid for what you got with the original game? So only when the costumes were released after were you suddenly not happy with what you paid for the original game??

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

I find it extremely sad how much people defend paying for online play.

SpruceCaboose

[QUOTE="PoppaGamer"]TC, you whole point gets flushed down the tubes when you consider the pricing of games with MP. Why not have the SP cheaper and sell another version with the SP and MP for $60? You see, if someone goes and buys Halo 3, they are paying for the online MP. And then the people that want to pay online get double-dipped when adding Live fees. Either the people that only play SP's get screwed, or the people paying for Live fees are getting screwed. Either way, someone is getting screwed.[QUOTE="IronBass"]So true. The "should be free" attitude makes me think that some people actually believe that companies owe something to them. They are companies. They offer a product. If you like it, you get it. If not, not. There nothing more. No one, nore the companies nor the gamers have any "moral obligation" here.speedsix

If you are aware up front of what exactly you're entitled do then explain how anyone is getting 'screwed'?? Are you saying you are willingly screwing yourself?

Halo 3 single player costs, lets say, $30

Halo 3 single player plus multiplayer costs $30 + $4 per month.

You knew this when you read the box before you purchased it, so I ask again, how are you screwed?

You want Halo 3 SP, you pay $60 for it and the MP. You don't want the SP, you pay for it plus the live fees.PoppaGamer

what's funny is network tv shows cost about $1 mil per ep average whereas cable shows have a much lower budget, because of the reduced audience

with a larger audience of multiplayer games, MS would be able to make more money off of DLC for multiplayer features, not to mention selling more multiplayer oriented games to people (plus more consoles, even bigger audience)

if they want to force me to sit through ads before I pop a game in, I would be content with that package.. same as I would prefer a way to get a reduced cost on games that I'm not able to play multiplayer in even though it costs them more to implement multi and I'm paying for that premium at a flat fee
Thing is once advertising pops up, there is usually a reduction in price(no matter what media).. not for MS

Ads on the side of the road are paid for and in no way pay for the roads either, cigarette taxes pay for roads.. so perhaps they could tax other luxuries such as DLC to pay for the service on top of the ads from MCD's which is more than enough to pay for the service

on a side note I love ads because I love free websites and tv.. and I do not pay for magazines, newspapers, public transportation(in my town it's free actually), cable tv or driving on roads

voxware00

You're supporting their business model, I'm discussing solutions for their business model to appeal to everyone.. because what else is there to this topic other than "I agree, I disagree"

If you don't feel discussing moot points is worthy of chat, this entire topic is null because either way you're going to say "Don't like it, don't pay" Is there any room for enlightenment here? I'm saying, if they're going to cram ads down our throats, there should be reduced pricing. What DOES have place in this discussion anyway? "My opinion > Yours" Live is an overpriced rip off

Your damage control and support of the business model sounds like something you'd hear from a 60 yr old politican about the internet

This is coming from somebody who worked on mods for free mind you, I'd love for everyone to get their cut but MS is cutting too much and it's ruining the value of games and the platform... think about all the times devs wanted to release free DLC but MS wanted their cut.. It's a greedy business model

"What's more enlightened then letting go of that which is beyond one's control?" Why start a discussion if you can't control peoples opinions, is that enlightenment or nihilism/apathy

voxware00

The problem with your business proposal is you don't know what the monthly, quarterly and annual costs of Xbox Live are, we're not privy to that information unfortunately so you wouldn't actually know if your proposal is a good one or not. It very well might be but there's no way to tell and this is the primary reason why it's a moot point. Doesn't mean it can't be discussed though. I am very curious as to what the operating costs are for the service though.

Companies are free to charge whatever they want, and practice whatever sneeky manners to get more money from their customers.

They do so at a risk though. I did not buy RE5, I do not by Xboxes and I will be much less inclined to buy products from these producers because of their business practices.

I won't go into too much detail, this topic has been done to death. But I could play KZ2 with up to 32 players on a free service with dedicated servers or I could play Halo 3 wiith less players and no dedicated servers on the paid service. (I actually prefer Halo 3's MP to Killzone 2's, this is just an example)

^FAIL. It should be free.

*Holds up flameshield*

I find it extremely sad how much people defend paying for online play.

Eddie-Vedder

[QUOTE="voxware00"]

what's funny is network tv shows cost about $1 mil per ep average whereas cable shows have a much lower budget, because of the reduced audience

with a larger audience of multiplayer games, MS would be able to make more money off of DLC for multiplayer features, not to mention selling more multiplayer oriented games to people (plus more consoles, even bigger audience)

if they want to force me to sit through ads before I pop a game in, I would be content with that package.. same as I would prefer a way to get a reduced cost on games that I'm not able to play multiplayer in even though it costs them more to implement multi and I'm paying for that premium at a flat fee
Thing is once advertising pops up, there is usually a reduction in price(no matter what media).. not for MS

Ads on the side of the road are paid for and in no way pay for the roads either, cigarette taxes pay for roads.. so perhaps they could tax other luxuries such as DLC to pay for the service on top of the ads from MCD's which is more than enough to pay for the service

on a side note I love ads because I love free websites and tv.. and I do not pay for magazines, newspapers, public transportation(in my town it's free actually), cable tv or driving on roads

Lance_Kalzas

You're supporting their business model, I'm discussing solutions for their business model to appeal to everyone.. because what else is there to this topic other than "I agree, I disagree"

If you don't feel discussing moot points is worthy of chat, this entire topic is null because either way you're going to say "Don't like it, don't pay" Is there any room for enlightenment here? I'm saying, if they're going to cram ads down our throats, there should be reduced pricing. What DOES have place in this discussion anyway? "My opinion > Yours" Live is an overpriced rip off

Your damage control and support of the business model sounds like something you'd hear from a 60 yr old politican about the internet

This is coming from somebody who worked on mods for free mind you, I'd love for everyone to get their cut but MS is cutting too much and it's ruining the value of games and the platform... think about all the times devs wanted to release free DLC but MS wanted their cut.. It's a greedy business model

"What's more enlightened then letting go of that which is beyond one's control?" Why start a discussion if you can't control peoples opinions, is that enlightenment or nihilism/apathy

voxware00

The problem with your business proposal is you don't know what the monthly, quarterly and annual costs of Xbox Live are, we're not privy to that information unfortunately so you wouldn't actually know if your proposal is a good one or not. It very well might be but there's no way to tell and this is the primary reason why it's a moot point. Doesn't mean it can't be discussed though. I am very curious as to what the operating costs are for the service though.

considering shows get $1mil for 8 mins of ads(and that's just net production, also consider with games you know the exact size of your audience unlike television which makes for fair pricing to advertisers), i'm pretty certain sponsors could support the service especially if competitive services do it for free

tax luxuries like DLC, offer ads before or during games(some games have ads ingame already and they're not reduced prices) or reduced prices for silver players(put multi as a downloadable patch, sell the game at a base price instead of charging everyone a flat premium, also saves money for people buying games with tacked on bulletpoint multiplayer) if they're making a large profit as is, they can afford to take a hit in exchange for creating a larger audience for software and hardware

the current model does not enable devs to release free content as frequently as they'd like as well

Something that bothers me, I have HL2: OB.. if you don't have live, this game is done in less than a couple of days despite TFC2 just sitting there.. I'd love to be able to play splitscreen versus bots but the value of this game is a rental.. I would own more games like this if they retained their value.. but it's just stupid getting a game like this for 360 over PC even with live

Xbox Live should be free. There is very little justification for the fee and its being offered free on every other platform. There should not be a fee for Xbox Live, or, conversely, if they want to keep a fee, the fee should be switched up. Silver should be bare bones online play and the fee should be for all the frills like parties and whatnot. IMO at least. SpruceCaboose

You're supporting their business model, I'm discussing solutions for their business model to appeal to everyone.. because what else is there to this topic other than "I agree, I disagree"

If you don't feel discussing moot points is worthy of chat, this entire topic is null because either way you're going to say "Don't like it, don't pay" Is there any room for enlightenment here? I'm saying, if they're going to cram ads down our throats, there should be reduced pricing. What DOES have place in this discussion anyway? "My opinion > Yours" Live is an overpriced rip off

Your damage control and support of the business model sounds like something you'd hear from a 60 yr old politican about the internet

This is coming from somebody who worked on mods for free mind you, I'd love for everyone to get their cut but MS is cutting too much and it's ruining the value of games and the platform... think about all the times devs wanted to release free DLC but MS wanted their cut.. It's a greedy business model

"What's more enlightened then letting go of that which is beyond one's control?" Why start a discussion if you can't control peoples opinions, is that enlightenment or nihilism/apathy

voxware00

I really don't care what their business model is. That's my point. My consumer calculus starts and ends with features and fees. That's it. Nothing else to consider.

I continue this discussion to point out the consistently repeated theme in this thread and many other threads like it:

• Some people can't seem to fathom the idea that yes, some people are fine with payig the fee.
• That your assessment of value should be applied universally

These your own personal judement calls that I don't agree with:

• MS is cutting too much
• MS is ruining the value of games and the platform
• MS is employing a "greedy" business model

My response to each of these points is that they have no bearing on the services offered. That's all I'm looking at. Is my $50 per year worth the features of Xbox Live? That's the only question I'd ask because it's the only one I care about. I don't care about their business model. I don't care about their presumed greed. They don't play a role in my decision.

[QUOTE="voxware00"]

You're supporting their business model, I'm discussing solutions for their business model to appeal to everyone.. because what else is there to this topic other than "I agree, I disagree"

If you don't feel discussing moot points is worthy of chat, this entire topic is null because either way you're going to say "Don't like it, don't pay" Is there any room for enlightenment here? I'm saying, if they're going to cram ads down our throats, there should be reduced pricing. What DOES have place in this discussion anyway? "My opinion > Yours" Live is an overpriced rip off

Your damage control and support of the business model sounds like something you'd hear from a 60 yr old politican about the internet

This is coming from somebody who worked on mods for free mind you, I'd love for everyone to get their cut but MS is cutting too much and it's ruining the value of games and the platform... think about all the times devs wanted to release free DLC but MS wanted their cut.. It's a greedy business model

"What's more enlightened then letting go of that which is beyond one's control?" Why start a discussion if you can't control peoples opinions, is that enlightenment or nihilism/apathy

VoodooHak

I really don't care what their business model is. That's my point. My consumer calculus starts and ends with features and fees. That's it. Nothing else to consider.

I continue this discussion to point out the consistently repeated theme in this thread and many other threads like it:

• Some people can't seem to fathom the idea that yes, some people are fine with payig the fee.
• That your assessment of value should be applied universally

These your own personal judement calls that I don't agree with:

• MS is cutting too much
• MS is ruining the value of games and the platform
• MS is employing a "greedy" business model

My response to each of these points is that they have no bearing on the services offered. That's all I'm looking at. Is my $50 per year worth the features of Xbox Live? That's the only question I'd ask because it's the only one I care about. I don't care about their business model. I don't care about their presumed greed. They don't play a role in my decision.

[QUOTE="navyguy21"][QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"]

I find it extremely sad how much people defend paying for online play.

Eddie-Vedder

[QUOTE="Eddie-Vedder"][QUOTE="navyguy21"]why?? because YOU dont think its worth it?? What makes YOUR idea of value any more "right" than anyone else's??TheGreatOutdoor

Cause it's been free everywhere else since forever? Maybe we should be charged for breathing like some other poster said, breathing has great value, the goverment should charge us for that...Eddie-Vedder

Why should Health Care be free?

Why should Education be free? PS it's not...

You make these points about things that should be free... but why again?

Health care because everyone should be allowed to be healthy... ?

Eductation because it's better for everyone if more people are educated?

Well that's why I think Online gaming should be free.

Everyone should be allowed to play online... and online is better if everyone does play online...

A 52" HDTV, Core i7 PC with Nvidia 9800, and that MS Wireless racing wheel should be free. And no not because I want it, no not that reason at all, speedsix. Because... ahhh... *scratch scratch*.... because I deserve it, yeahhhh that's it! :D :lol: :P

You don't pay a fee to eat a sandwich.

You don't pay a fee to use the gas that you pumped into you car.

You don't pay a fee to play a DVD you bought.

You don't pay a fee to use your CPU.

You don't pay a fee to look at a painting you bought.

Since when have we been ok with paying a fee to use what we already own?

99% of the DLC should be free.

You don't pay a fee to eat a sandwich.

You don't pay a fee to use the gas that you pumped into you car.

You don't pay a fee to play a DVD you bought.

You don't pay a fee to use your CPU.

You don't pay a fee to look at a painting you bought.

Since when have we been ok with paying a fee to use what we already own?

GundamGuy0

Faulty analogy.

You would pay for a service to come serve your sandwich, drive you around, put DVDs in the player for you, type what you need to on your PC and to take out and put away your paintings.

You don't pay a fee to eat a sandwich.

You don't pay a fee to use the gas that you pumped into you car.

You don't pay a fee to play a DVD you bought.

You don't pay a fee to use your CPU.

You don't pay a fee to look at a painting you bought.

Since when have we been ok with paying a fee to use what we already own?

GundamGuy0

and gaming keeps on getting more and more expensive of a hobby... Next gen is gonna suck...$600 consoles $70 featureless games, more and more DLC to make those games worth playing..

If it was once free, it should stay free. If you like getting ripped off.. Then well. God help you.

TC you are the very reason XBOX Live has a subscription, because your easy to milk money out of. Your being taken advantage of. But you defend it anyway. :|

Good job, TC. It's definitely one of my pet peeves here. It's astounding how people feel they are owed something just because they sit on their asses all day and play games.

sounds like bellyaching is the solution to silence bellyaching here

feel free to justify what you consider value but if people want to complain something should be free, aren't you judging their idea of value just as much

developers want online to be free, think about how much easier it is to create multiplayer DLC than say something like GTA Lost&damned, without the larger audience to market to their losing a potenital slice of the pie.. not to mention you're losing money you could be spending on more software/dlc

now which would you prefer, a flat fee for online depending on how much or little you use it, or say an option to purchase multiplayer from a download.. publishers wouldn't just be forcing devs to include things for bullet points and tacking on multiplayer while losing focus on the singleplayer(because the low sales for poor multi wouldn't create these incentives), and games can on a whole be cheaper

4.) I do have a problem with devs releasing map packs and DLC a month after a games launch, but I can understand. In this economy, in this high cost of game development... I dont blame devs. People are buying used games all the times... games cost a ridiculous amount of money to create... DLC is just another way for devs to bring in income on their games. And it's optional, so really in the end you cant complain. As long as you arent just paying for a key to unlock content already on the disc, I dont have a problem with DLC.Keltoid