Musings on the Gears of War upcoming map pack debacle

BrokenDesign

Shared on Thu, 04/12/2007 - 13:08
I love my 360. It's got a great game lineup and future releases look to keep that pattern going through the end of 2007. However, in recent weeks I've become gradually less and less thrilled about my console. Not because I've fallen victim to the red ring of death, mind you, (however it does freeze up 4 out of 5 times that I'm playing) but because of all the BS that Microsoft is feeding us. I believe that this recent debacle over the upcoming Gears of War multiplayer map pack has brought a lot of stuff out of the woodwork and I'm going to cover as much of it as I possibly can, starting with the topic at hand in particular. First off, charging for the maps is a blatant ripoff of consumers. If Epic wants to offer the maps for free, they should be able to, and here's why:

1) Epic put forth the effort to develop the maps. They have a right to charge for them or not.
2) MS may have marketed the game, but they marketed the retail game and this is after the fact; besides which, after selling over 3 million copies I can't imagine that MS hasn't made their money back and then some.
3) MS has been telling the press in recent weeks that the developers of the content that appears on Marketplace are the ones who decide what the pricing is for each. This was evidently a blatant lie. (speaking of lies, who else remembers the promise of "Every game published by Microsoft Game Studios will be priced at $50"? I do. When was the last time a game that they knew would be a big hit was priced that way? Never.)

So this brings me to a more general topic when it comes to lies. Not only Epic is being forced to charge for content; Kotaku reported that Bizarre Creations was forced to charge 400 points for Geometry Wars (http://kotaku.com/gaming/bizarre/bizarre-geometry-wars-shoulda-been-free-244692.php). It seems that anything that is going to sell very well is being charged for because MS will not allow it to be free. I've heard something about MS getting a 50% cut of all Marketplace content sold, and if that's true it's no wonder that things are not only at a cost but can be kind of pricey, they are making money hand over fist.

I truly believe that MS is really making a push to set a precedent of content at a price so that in the future when nothing on the Marketplace is free no one will raise a stink and MS will continue to make a great deal of money. It all comes down to greed. And you know what's very interesting to me, they claim that the $50/yr subscription (which in and of itself isn't bad at all) is for maintaining and enhancing the services offered with Xbox Live. It seems safe to assume from that logic that all the money they're making as their cut from Marketplace sales is going straight into the MS pocket. They could easily use the revenue from content sales to fund Live and offer it to gamers for free. As time goes by it seems that the 360 more and more is simply a vessel for MS to penetrate the gaming market and satisfy its own agenda, especially in the realm of locking down the PC gaming market in a similar way, getting gamers to pay for what they're used to getting for free.

MS states that it's completely up to game developers whether or not they sign on board with Games for Windows Live, but by offering for developers to simply use the infrastructure of Live for matchmaking, et al, instead of developing it themselves, it's an offer really too sweet to pass up. From that point, in order to get the most out of a game that a person is paying good money for, they have to pay an additional $50/yr to MS. And while on the topic of GfW Live... I find it very interesting that PC gamers who don't sign on with the service get to continue to play online with other PC users, however not Xbox 360 users (for compatible games, the list of which is pretty paltry at this point and who knows how populated it will be in the future). The subscription fee merely nets them the ability to get the Live services such as matchmaking, multiplayer achievements, etc.

Considering that multiplayer at all costs $50/yr for all Xbox / Xbox 360 users for a P2P experience... why exactly is it that I have to pay an annual fee to connect to someone else's system over the internet? Shouldn't that be free and, like the PC, simply get the offerings such as Matchmaking and playing cross-platform for the premium price? The reason why MS is charging that fee is probably because people like me would never pay them money if playing online at its most basic level were free. I don't care about matchmaking. I buy games that my friends have and I only play online with them. I don't want to deal with the stupid effing 12 year old Timmys running all over the place making my game experience much less fun. No amount of matchmaking filters them out, I've found, so I don't bother. This is all a big scheme for them to get very, very rich and control the online gaming market and I wouldn't be surprised if it exiles gamers in droves.

Who agrees? Who disagrees? Let me know why.

Comments

codemonkey's picture
Submitted by codemonkey on Thu, 04/12/2007 - 13:13
Sounds like someone needs a Wii. It's uber, and you don't have to worry about Networking prices--there is no networking! I think the 50/year is enough to justify my friends list, p2p management and all that. So, DLC should be able to be free if the developer wants. Microsoft has to "eat the cost" for the bandwidth on all the downloads but that's why we pay 50/year. If it's not, then I'd love to see an itemized list of where that goes. Esp. considering I'm sure PLENTY of XBL subscribers (like myself) spend little time on their network (or powering the console up at all). It would be like paying for world of warcraft and not playing. You're just funding those that overplay and eat more than their fare share of bandwidth :) CodeMonkey
Gatsu's picture
Submitted by Gatsu on Thu, 04/12/2007 - 13:17
I agree totally man. But in the end ANY game company is out for 1 thing and 1 thing only...the almighty $1.00. It is total bullshit that we have to pay $50.00 for Live when there are free alternatives out there like Xbox Connect and XLink Kai. But since it doesnt have as much support, it takes longer for new updates to come out and you dont get the achievements.
Falelorn's picture
Submitted by Falelorn on Thu, 04/12/2007 - 13:48
they charged for the Halo 2 maps.. no one complained... Gears maps will be free a couple months after they are released, get them then.. no other console has a online system even close to Xbox Live for quality its more then worth the extra.. especially when you look at the costs for things.. like 3 hours to DL a 200mb movie, 12 dollars for a game with no demo, once you DL something but dont pay for it, its gone.. you cant try a demo again on PSN if you delete it.. and at least there is a standard with XBL.. Resistance is the only online game for the PS3 that is good, rest are horrid for everything..
BrokenDesign's picture
Submitted by BrokenDesign on Thu, 04/12/2007 - 14:09
You have a valid point about the Halo 2 maps and the comparison is good, but the issue is that the Halo 2 maps were always like that. They were always a premium but free after a couple months (or at least, that's what was publicly known to be the situation). In this case, Epic wants the maps to be free but Microsoft, in direct contrast to what they've publicly stated just days before about the cost of content being entirely up to the developer [read: lying], will not let them release it for free because Microsoft wants to make money off of it. Epic has always released free content in the past and MS is forcing them to break that track record simply out of greed. Had Epic never said that they wanted to release it free, this wouldn't be a problem. I would pay for the maps or wait (I'll wait either way, I wish that a majority of owners would but I know they won't), but the fact that we know the situation makes all the difference and really draws attention to what seems to be the underlying truth of the purpose of the Marketplace. As far as PSN downloads go, if no one buys them then perhaps Sony would release demos (my guess is that demos are not offered because the developers aren't making them, though). That's the big problem is that Xbox Live is unchallenged so it's being left unchecked to do whatever the hell they want. It isn't until Sony gets it together and sets the standards to lower prices and possibly more free content that we'll see prices in Marketplace come down. And say what you will about PSN, but from what I've heard the Resistance online play is virtually lag free, and that's quite the contrast to the Gears of War match I had last night where my shots were literally 1 second behind in lag and consequently I lost very, VERY badly. $50 well spent there... /end sarcasm
Rhysode's picture
Submitted by Rhysode on Thu, 04/12/2007 - 20:41
From a business standpoint, it wasn't well played by Epic. You know your publisher for GOW, the guy making the 360 wants to do this business model where they sell everything online. Its like saying you want to give away free bread out the backdoor and your boss is asking you, "wtf are you doing I'm trying to sell this". Personally, Gears was a flash in the pan for me. It owned my life for about 40 days and I've had no desire to go back. So I sure as hell wont pay for maps.

Join our Universe

Connect with 2o2p