[QUOTE="JC_Spot"][QUOTE="Wasdie"]
New SP campaign? That's news to me. Can I get some information on this?
Last I checked, there are 4-5 map packs for multiplayer scheduled for CoD MW3, each with 3 multiplayer maps. That turns out to be the same as BF3's premium for the same price.
Also there aren't zombies in MW3. You really need to get your facts straight before making assumptions.
Wasdie
Black Ops 2.... But I know you were being sarcastic. Either way, even similar value to COD is an absolute crime. Imagine the reception this would have gotten 5-10 years ago, now people just accept it.10 years ago games were developed for about 1/100th of the cost they are now, modding was a necessary part of the game to get longevity out of the game, and game developers were fractions of the size they are now. Back then, games and maps were a tiny fraction of the complexity they are now. You could pump out new maps for Unreal or Counter Strike without much problem.
Developers learned that they cannot just keep working for free. They started releasing expansion packs, which were pretty much what DLC is today only less frequent, had a bit more content, and were more expensive. If you add up the BF3 premium, it's about the same amount of content as the 3 expansions for BF2 for $10 less.
It's all context and PC gamers are the worst at seeing this. They believe just becuase it used to be free means it should be today. With a map taking thousands of hours longer to make to the standards of the rest of the game, and mod tools costing millions of licensing fees to produce, it's just not viable to be putting out free content and mod tools all of the time.
Our own demand for higher quality graphics and games has put developers in a position they cannot support the industry like they used to be able to. Ever notice that all of the most moddable games today are always running on some pretty old engines and that indie game developers have even stopped giving out free content? There is a reason for this. Costs are to damn high to let your employees make more content for a game for free. You don't see any revenue from it and you waste your employees time they could be spent on making content for new games.
People "accept" it now because they feel that $15 for 3-5 well made multiplayer maps is still worth it, especially when they are playing a game for 200 hours. If people didn't feel that this content was worth their money, they wouldn't buy it. There are plenty of examples of DLC completely failing because it wasn't nearly worth the money.
In the case of BF3, I get more maps than launched with the game over the course of an entire year for $50. That's a damn good deal if you ask me. These aren't crappy maps that I have to play the alpha of for 6 months and redownload every time I go into a server, these are fully supported, well made maps by the developer.
In the case of Mount and Blade, I happily paid $10 (or was it $15) for that Napoleonic DLC. That was an indie game it was once a mod I could play for free, but it was loaded with good content and was a ton of fun.
I'm not playing PC games to uphold a status quo. I understand that developing games is damn expensive and as long as the content is worth the money, I'll pay for it. Everybody remembers all of the free crap we used to have back 10-15 years ago, but everybody forgets the hassle it was to get it all working and all of the hundreds of revisions it would take for something to be finished. It was annoying. People would spend more time messing with mods than they would playing. That's why expansion packs, even when the game was moddable, were able to sell no problem. Professionally made content is almost always worth the charge.
Your entire argument revolves around the assumption that DICE and EA absolutely NEED to charge $50 for this content to turn a profit. This is obviously absurd and not the case. You really believe that the cost of these maps is the same or similar as an AAA full release game expected to sell hundreds of thousands, if not millions of copies? What they should really do, is reward the people that bought their game by using their hundreds of millions of dollars of profits from the original game to give content. If they actually operated on the edge of cost and profit then I would have no issue with charging the necessary price for the content, but this is just greed. I mean Activision could probably charge $20 for COD and still make a crazy amount of money. 
Log in to comment