Call of Duty 2 Map Packs Make Activision big $$

[Phades]

Looks like Xbox Live marketplace is proving quite profitable for publishers. Gamespot has the story (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6155241.html) :


But amidst the bickering and complaining, it appears as though one company got it right. During its quarterly earnings report, Activision revealed that it has sold about $1 million in Call of Duty 2 maps alone. Call of Duty 2 has consistently been the top played Xbox 360 game over Xbox Live, and it appears as though gamers are willing to pay up for extra content.

I'm not quite convinced this is a good thing. Say goodbye to developers releasing map packs for free. Why should they when Activision is proving that it's quite profitable to release a few ok maps for a broken multiplayer component of a popular game?

[Kefkataran]

I'm fine with devs charging for packs as long as: a.) the content is quality and b.) the price is reasonable. I haven't bought or played this one, so I'm not going to comment, but I feel confident that if I were to ever consider it, I could find plenty of opinions/reviews online to decide if it was worth it for me. Really it's going to be up to us gamers to police digitally distributed content and help each other decide whether or not to pay the price. That's the kind of thing communities like EvAv are built for.

[Borys]

Imagine the possible scenario:

(1995) - devs make an FPS which has 12 levels. Game launches.

(2006) - devs make an FPS which *had* 12 levels but now has 10 levels. The ALREADY DONE levels are cut from the FINISHED game and put to marketplace 3 months after game shipped. Each one costs $2.50.

This is the beginning of the end of gaming as we know it.

PAY-PER-LEVEL system is coming.

[Kefkataran]

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!

Seriously, though, I knew that's what this thread would come to, but this early? Hell of a way to start a Friday.

[Borys]

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!

Seriously, though, I knew that's what this thread would come to, but this early? Hell of a way to start a Friday.

Uh, I didn't even mention X**x in there.

STEAM, X**x Live!, Playstation Network etc. all will embrace this retarded system.

[Vandenh]

Imagine this Borys. Companies make cars/razors/.. that almost never break. Profit? NOT!

Remember the consumer dictates the stuff companies do. Look at all the people who buy f*cking ringtones etc... The world changes... some stuff gets more expensive and some stuff gets cheaper. It isn't always negative...

Imagine this:

(2005) I buy game with 12 levels for 40€. I finish 5 and can't be bothered because I play too much WoW
(2010) Company releases new game. 2€ per level (you buy each level as you go). I finish 5 and can't be bothered because I play too much StarCraft.

Nuff said?

[Suicidal ShiZuru]

A fucking million dollars.

They should charge cents for map packs, not dollars. Oh wait most companies are just greedy whores and the average consumer is retarded.

DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!

Seriously, though, I knew that's what this thread would come to, but this early? Hell of a way to start a Friday.

What are you talking about? Debates about how retarded this shit is? What else would we talk about, Activisions profits in other areas?

And Vandenh most of your post confused the hell out of me...

"This holiday we'll look to further capitalize on the success of the franchise and its online capabilities."

Wow... Lets boycott Activision. "This Christmas well be sure to rip off our consumers even more!"

Wait I dont really care Im mainly a PC gamer, lawl.

[Zombosis]

I'm not quite convinced this is a good thing. Say goodbye to developers releasing map packs for free.

So long as there are games made by gamers for gamers, there will be quality releases with free support, including free maps and mods, etc.

Your doomsday scenario only applies to big-money "A-list" games where the passion, art, and entertainment value of a game are entirely tertiary to the drive for profit.

I don't see this as the end of gaming, I see it as a boon to the little guys who will find increased attention being paid to their projects by a public quite tired of being gouged for every nickel and dime possible.

[Ailer]

But Zombosis, the little guy is really only present on one system at the moment. The PC. Every game costs more money to make now. In fact, as soon as the consoles went online, we all should have seen this coming.

[Demize99]

The whole "they had 2 maps done they could have put in release, but instead i have to buy them for more money" argument is such BS. Even assuming that completely finished, polished, and tested content is with held from the end product, shouldn't you be only buying the base product if the content in it at time of purchase is worth your $50?

Additionally, small paid content is as great for gamers as it is for developers. Especially small developers. With extra pay for content small developers will be able to produce and release content that would have otherwise been too expensive. This additional income over a longer period of time will also help small developers to pay the bills as they work on additional larger projects. For gamers, we get content that would otherwise not have been produced because it was too expensive.

As a rule, the only games that get free content are those that are not doing well in sales, and the developer needs to increase the value to the consumer. Lets face it, making content is expensive for any developer, and only large developers have the funds and the economic ability to release free content.

[bapenguin]

Uh, I didn't even mention X**x in there.

STEAM, X**x Live!, Playstation Network etc. all will embrace this retarded system.

Retarded or not, I think what we are seeing is the non vocal gaming crowd (ie People that don't visit this site) have a lot of expendable cash and don't mind paying for stuff like this.

You need to look at it like this. Most of these people never had access to downloadable content at all, they were mostly console gamers. They didn't know PC gamers got stuff like this for free. So when something like this is released and there's a small price attached to it, the value of it is apparantly worth the price of admission and people buy it.

Like it or not, WE are in the minority in gaming now...and it would just be easier to forget the old ways, because I fear they aren't coming back.

On a personal note...10 years ago I would have been cursing up a storm about all the stuff, but now that I'm (mostly) grown up with some more disposable income it doesn't bother me too bad.

[falcon]

Activision did release 2 or 3 free maps (I forget which) for COD2 during E3.

[Morangie]

PAY-PER-LEVEL system is coming.

Yes, its called episodic content.

[Phanto]

Imagine the possible scenario:

(1995) - devs make an FPS which has 12 levels. Game launches.

(2006) - devs make an FPS which *had* 12 levels but now has 10 levels. The ALREADY DONE levels are cut from the FINISHED game and put to marketplace 3 months after game shipped.

This exactly what happend with movies since some time now. You go to watch it to the cinema and their cut some scenes and then throw them to the DVD. "watch never before seen footage" "30 minutes never before seen" e.c.t.
That really sucks but thats how they can make more profit.

[Heretic Machine]

If they can make that much money selling a map pack for a game with terrible multiplayer, just imagine what competent devleopers will be making on similar packs :p

[Wonka]

Well I think this is great.

When this game shipped the MP was completely BROKEN. Since then, they have fixed that, and released maps for free as well as for sale. Part of why this game is popular is BECAUSE the original game had plenty of good maps in the 1st place. Also, the game is pretty damn fun (now that they fixed it anyhow). So once they repaired it, it had the momentum to release new maps. If the original game had remained mediocre, or had contained very few maps, then it would not have seen sales like this for the new maps. This game has seen good sales of add-on products BECAUSE a lot of people had already bought it on other merits (mostly the SP for this game). That is, relative to the rest of the 360 library, COD2 was already a GREAT game and a decent value.

Consider this:
As a consumer, I would MUCH rather pay a few bucks more to keep playing a GREAT game, than to buy an entire new one... In terms of cash my bill to play MORE COD2 = ~ $70 VS ~$120 for COD2 plus one other risky game. Since most released games tend to SUCK (it's just murphys law when a product this complex comes together), This strategy gives me more bang/buck.

You doom and gloom guys really need to look at the whole picture here. The games industry has always suffered because the products have always cost too damn much. Rising development costs are only going to make that situation worse. This is reality: deal with it. Nothing is for free because people who make games have to eat. PERIOD.

Now there are a few productive ways that this problem can be dealt with:
1) make development cheaper (make better middleware)
2) make smaller prototype games for consumers to test out via an online distribution system. Then keep the ones that work.
3) make additional content for successful games.
4) get the community at large to make free stuff for your games.

We are presently seeing at least 3 of these trends come to consoles, and this is a GOOD thing. It means that the industry can continue to survive. It also provides incentives for more kinds of games to get made (instead of the traditional sequel treadmill).

[Ix Quantum xI]

I think that the maps might have also been popular because when they re-released it as "the game of the year edition" you were able to download the new maps for free for purchasing the game. People talk about this as being bad that the company made a profit but they probably saved a ton of money because they didn't have to physically put them on a CD or even try and market it, maybe thats why they saw high profits?

[Kefkataran]

Uh, I didn't even mention X**x in there.

I didn't say you did. Doesn't make your first post any less boring or predictable. DOOOOOM!

What are you talking about? Debates about how retarded this shit is? What else would we talk about, Activisions profits in other areas?

We could, I dunno, actually figure out how "retarded" it is? Try to get some quotes from people who've actually played it? Discuss whether or not it's worth buying and whether or not it should've made this money? Anything rather than just shouting "OH WELL, WE'RE FUCKED LOLZ"

If they can make that much money selling a map pack for a game with terrible multiplayer, just imagine what competent devleopers will be making on similar packs

Too true, too true.

[dr_wily]

id rather have a shorter game that isnt rushed than a big game that is.
pure and simple, this helps devs get the games out before the holidays.

from a marketing standpoint, the extra packs pique interest for new gamers to the game and renew owners interest. Creates new buzz about a game forgotten.. very powerful stuff

but that power can and is being abused.. buyers dont want to be inundated with cheap ploys to squeeze a few extra bucks out.

All i know is mario kart desperately needs this churn.. i would pay good money for new battle and race maps.

[51|RandoM]

I think the CoD2 map pack is not a good barometer to test the waters with. Considering how successful the game was---as part of an extremely small library at the time---the map pack was going to sell, and probably would've sold just fine at twice the money.

Somebody will try this with a mediocre game and find out nobody buys their extra content.

[Major Dan]

Imagine the possible scenario:

(1995) - devs make an FPS which has 12 levels. Game launches.

(2006) - devs make an FPS which *had* 12 levels but now has 10 levels. The ALREADY DONE levels are cut from the FINISHED game and put to marketplace 3 months after game shipped. Each one costs $2.50.

This is the beginning of the end of gaming as we know it.

PAY-PER-LEVEL system is coming.

Then people stop buying games at full retail and wait wait for a price reductions

OR

Class action law suits

OR

They charge less and do the SiN model of chapters, which I haven't bought.


What I hape is for CoD2 map pack to become free like the Halo 2 maps and now The Outfit maps. :)

[Major Dan]

If they can make that much money selling a map pack for a game with terrible multiplayer, just imagine what competent devleopers will be making on similar packs :p

Actually I think the MP experience in CoD2 is the best 360 has. Although I admit the interface on LIVE sucked. But split screen MP rocks, I have had several fun days playing with friends.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

As a rule, the only games that get free content are those that are not doing well in sales, and the developer needs to increase the value to the consumer. Lets face it, making content is expensive for any developer, and only large developers have the funds and the economic ability to release free content.


Who's rule is that? Epic and Blizzard games on the PC (as well as MANY others) get free content all the time, even while they are selling very well. Hell Blizzard still supports games that can't be selling any copies at all, such as Starcraft and Diablo 2. They do this because they care about their customers and want to build goodwill with them, not because the sales are dead.

[Limech]

Actually I think the MP experience in CoD2 is the best 360 has.
Wrong. Battlefield 2 has the best multiplayer bar-none on the 360. :D

[Demize99]

Who's rule is that? Epic and Blizzard games on the PC (as well as MANY others) get free content all the time, even while they are selling very well. Hell Blizzard still supports games that can't be selling any copies at all, such as Starcraft and Diablo 2. They do this because they care about their customers and want to build goodwill with them, not because the sales are dead.

Yeah, show me a rule Blizzard doesn't break. Thats what makes them great.

Epic on the other hand... their XMP was because unreal 2 was a POS and didn't sell.

[random johnald?]

Regardless of what you doomsayers are thinking, this pay-per-level system is working. The new levels are fun, and although they would probably be free on the PC, a $3 price tag isn't so much that I can't spare it. If I had heard that the levels sucked (and I probably would have if they did), I wouldn't have bought them, and Activision wouldn't have seen as much of a profit.

I figure, as long as the content is good, it is worth paying a small amount for.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Yeah, show me a rule Blizzard doesn't break. Thats what makes them great.

Epic on the other hand... their XMP was because unreal 2 was a POS and didn't sell.



Good point about Blizzard. :D Hopefully they release something new next year - it's been an awfully long time since they released a game that I was really excited about.

[Major Dan]

Wrong. Battlefield 2 has the best multiplayer bar-none on the 360. :D

I haven't got this yet so I can't argue :D