Microsoft won't let Epic Games release new Gears maps for free

[Food Nipple]

In an interview with Shawn Elliott on this week's 1up Yours podcast, Epic Games founder Tim Sweeney confirmed that Microsoft is attempting to force Epic to charge for the next batch of maps for Gears of War.

We already released two (maps) and we have four more maps that we've built. We've been wanting to give them but actually Microsoft has been pushing back on us. They're trying to build this business model around selling additonal content for games and that's a valid idea, but we would definitely like to release more stuff for free, and we haven't been able to do so yet.

If Epic wants to give away free content to their customers, I don't think Microsoft should have a say in the matter. MS gets a cut of every microtransaction, so they have a vested interest in making sure that all developers charge for their downloadable content.

[Zeal]

Booooooooooooo!!

[karak]

I wonder what "Pushing back" means. As tons of data gets onto xbox live. Why couldn't Epic just say, nope. And release it?

[Gorvi]

Is this just becasue MS published the game, or do they have this much say in anything that goes up for download on LIVE?

[Tyrant]

Yeah, I don't see why Epic doesn't tell MS to go screw themselves and release the maps for free anyway. It isn't like MS is going to tell them to take Gears of War to another console or something.

Edit: Oh yeah! Lawsuits, but on what grounds?

[TragicComic]

Publishers often have quite a bit of say(i.e. TOTAL CONTROL) when it comes to what the developer can and can't do with a game. It all depends on the contract that the developer worked in the beginning.

Also, MS (and Sony) has complete control over everything that ends up on it's console. They can and will give feedback about the quality of games that MUST be addressed before they ship. This often leads to a lot of negotiation between publisher/developer/console manufacturer. Bugs get the same kind of treatment.

[Amalor]

Quite right Tyrant, Microsoft is not in a position to bully Epic. Gears is the whole reason I bought a 360.

-Cheers
-Amalor

[Rook34]

Yeah, I don't see why Epic doesn't tell MS to go screw themselves and release the maps for free anyway. It isn't like MS is going to tell them to take Gears of War to another console or something.

Edit: Oh yeah! Lawsuits, but on what grounds?

Gyah! Beaten to the point. Epic needs to push back and threaten the same. That's it. Doesn't MS get enough from subscribers?

[Codicier]

Dear MS,
Fuck off.

I'm sick of paying out the ass for every little goddamn thing.

[Heretic Machine]

I am immediately boycotting all forms of XBOX Live transactions, and will no longer purchase XBOX 360 games. This is exactly the kind of bullshit that people were worried about when the idea was first brought up.

[EGO]

Yeah, I don't see why Epic doesn't tell MS to go screw themselves and release the maps for free anyway. It isn't like MS is going to tell them to take Gears of War to another console or something.

Edit: Oh yeah! Lawsuits, but on what grounds?

Umm... except, the service and hardware is controlled by Microsoft, so Epic can say, "screw yourself," and Microsoft can say, "Okay, you don't have a platform to release your content."

Now, of course that's incredibly childish and it's not in either party's interest to go that route.

I'm just surprised by 2 things;
1. Epic wants to release them for free.
2. Microsoft & Epic have allowed this little internal squabble to become public.

These types of things happen all the time and we never know about them. I know in today's world of; I want it ALL NOW and FOR FREE and full-disclosure, people are saying, "yeah, we should know everything, so we can hate and bitch about it," but you really don't want to know everything and bitch about it. People don't know how streetlights work, they just do...

[CptTripps]

Ya know, I usually don't have a problem with MS and think they do some great things. But this day I am highly disappointed.

[TragicComic]

I am immediately boycotting all forms of XBOX Live transactions, and will no longer purchase XBOX 360 games. This is exactly the kind of bullshit that people were worried about when the idea was first brought up.


Huh? Why is it that no one wants to pay for content? Do you have any idea what it costs to build and test a single level for a game like this? Seriously, WTF, when did we all move to communist Russia?

[Codicier]

Umm... except, the service and hardware is controlled by Microsoft, so Epic can say, "screw yourself," and Microsoft can say, "Okay, you don't have a platform to release your content."

Now, of course that's incredibly childish and it's not in either party's interest to go that route.

I'm just surprised by 2 things;
1. Epic wants to release them for free.
2. Microsoft & Epic have allowed this little internal squabble to become public.

These types of things happen all the time and we never know about them. I know in today's world of; I want it ALL NOW and FOR FREE and full-disclosure, people are saying, "yeah, we should know everything, so we can hate and bitch about it," but you really don't want to know everything and bitch about it. People don't know how streetlights work, they just do...

Mysteries of the Universe revealed within! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streetlights)

And yes, I do want to know about everything. Why wouldn't I? The more info about shit like this that's out there, the more companies like MS have to account for themselves in the public eye. I bet you that's why this came out. Epic is being stonewalled by MS and suddenly they turn around and tell the public about this shit. Now they've got consumers on their side.

[Heretic Machine]

Huh? Why is it that no one wants to pay for content? Do you have any idea what it costs to build and test a single level for a game like this? Seriously, WTF, when did we all move to communist Russia?

I have no problem with paying for content, I have bought many things through XBOX Live, including new content for my games. But I have a serious problem with MS cock-blocking people trying to release free content for their games.

[The Iron Weasel]

This is absolute horse shit, and now that the news is out that they're forcing developers to charge for these things it might change the way Microsoft does things. Epic treats their customers right and I'm glad that they're not letting Microsoft push them around and change that.

[TragicComic]

I have no problem with paying for content, I have bought many things through XBOX Live, including new content for my games. But I have a serious problem with MS cock-blocking people trying to release free content for their games.

What makes you think it's free for Microsoft to host it and distribute it? In the end, someone has to pay for the storage, bandwidth, cpu time, etc.

I would assume that Microsoft doesn't charge developers or publishers for every free download that is out there.

[F3nyx]

Um, maybe I don't understand Xbox Live, but doesn't Microsoft have absolute control over what content is available for download?

edit: EGO totally beat me to this point

[Heretic Machine]

What makes you think it's free for Microsoft to host it and distribute it? In the end, someone has to pay for the storage, bandwidth, cpu time, etc.

Someone who pays a $50 a year fee, maybe? Someone like that?

[agentgray]

Microsoft unfortunately has the upper hand because they run Xbox Live off of an old refurbished Xbox 360. They control the horizontal and the vertical.

They control the tubes.

...and that's why they have to bring the ENTIRE thing down periodically to maintain it like all best practice network admins do.

Come to think of it, the last downtime was because they were probably upgrading the Xbox that runs live from a Premium to an Elite.

[EternalGamer]

Hopefully the fact that someone in Epic is willing to go public with this will mean that bad PR will cause MS to backoff.


What makes you think it's free for Microsoft to host it and distribute it? In the end, someone has to pay for the storage, bandwidth, cpu time, etc.

Um, that is what everybody on Live pay $60 a year for.

[GigaFuzz]

Huh? Why is it that no one wants to pay for content? Do you have any idea what it costs to build and test a single level for a game like this? Seriously, WTF, when did we all move to communist Russia?

Epic, the ones who are building and testing these levels, are the ones who want to release them for free.

Which kinda nullifies your argument.

[Acidpoptart]

Why not just release it for 100 points or something? Then its not free, but nice and cheap. Plus, you know you always have like 100 points left over from buying 500 for a 400 point game... Finally a use for small chunks of change (other than stupid gamer pics).

[Frogleg Special]

Huh? Why is it that no one wants to pay for content? Do you have any idea what it costs to build and test a single level for a game like this? Seriously, WTF, when did we all move to communist Russia?

Actually, this is not an issue whether gamers want to pay content or not. It's the issue that MS force the idea that every downloadable contents must not be free. Developers don't have the choice of giving their contents for free. So who's in mother Russia here?

You gotta pray that Xbox is not gonna be the sole console in the market. Because if it is, expect to pay $ 50 for a 10 minutes content. Yeah a reckoning of videogaming Monopoly will smack you right in the lack of foresight face.

[TragicComic]

Someone who pays a $50 a year fee, maybe? Someone like that?


Touche... I've gotten so many free years of XBOX live, I forgot that they charge the end user for online play.

[Food Nipple]

Epic's been silent on the issue up until now because they've been trying to negotiate. If they're publicly stating that MS won't let them release the maps, then I guess negotiations have failed. Somehow, I think the voices of thousands of angry gamers may just change some minds at MS.

[Heretic Machine]

Why not just release it for 100 points or something? Then its not free, but nice and cheap. Plus, you know you always have like 100 points left over from buying 500 for a 400 point game... Finally a use for small chunks of change (other than stupid gamer pics).

Because Microsoft doesn't want to release Halo 3 map packs at 100 points a pop. That is why.

EDIT: Bioshock is no longer a 360 exclusive? Good.

[bapenguin]

I'm guessing this has more to do with the fact that it's an MS published title and the fact they want to charge 5 bucks for 2 maps in another week for a 2 year old game.

There are maps and other content on Live that ARE free.

The be all end all is this is total bullshit.

[eth3rton]

Hmmm.... Guess the ones around here wanting Sony to Die should reconsider...

Sony just gets their money up front where as Microsoft nails ya again & again & again &..... :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[EternalGamer]

Why not just release it for 100 points or something? Then its not free, but nice and cheap. Plus, you know you always have like 100 points left over from buying 500 for a 400 point game... Finally a use for small chunks of change (other than stupid gamer pics).

Because this splits the userbase in an unnecessary way.

[Codicier]

Hmmm.... Guess the ones around here wanting Sony to Die should reconsider...

Sony just gets their money up front where as Microsoft nails ya again & again & again &.....

This has nothing to do with Sony. Why are you bringing them up?

[TragicComic]

Actually, this is not an issue whether gamers want to pay content or not. It's the issue that MS force the idea that every downloadable contents must not be free. Developers don't have the choice of giving their contents for free. So who's in mother Russia here?

You gotta pray that Xbox is not gonna be the sole console in the market. Because if it is, expect to pay $ 50 for a 10 minutes content. Yeah a reckoning of videogaming Monopoly will smack you right in the lack of foresight face.

Developers will always have the PC... they can give everything they want away for free.

And I'll tell you right now, as a developer that switched from PC development to console development, there is a LOT (and I mean 100x in some cases) more money to be made in the console market.

Also, console development can be a lot cheaper and easier than PC dev.

[Furious Wang]

Wow. Just wow. I've yet to buy a next gen system...but, the PS3 is already off my list of possibilities due to the fact my Ps2 Disk Read Errored and my Sony DvD computer drive doesn't want to read DVDs. I did however, love the xbox and had planned on buying the 360 once the price dropped but this shit takes 360 off my list as well. I'm boycotting every Microsoft gaming product until they back away from this "pay for everything because we say so" stance. Looks like this generation is going to be wii and pc for me. GTFO of consoles if you're going to pull that shit, MSoft.

[Heretic Machine]

Developers will always have the PC... they can give everything they want away for free.

And I'll tell you right now, as a developer that switched from PC development to console development, there is a LOT (and I mean 100x in some cases) more money to be made in the console market.

Also, console development can be a lot cheaper and easier than PC dev.

Dude, WTF, really? How is this relevant at all? And exactly what part of Microsoft do you work for?

[eth3rton]

This has nothing to do with Sony. Why are you bringing them up?

Without competition (Sony & I suppose Nintendo) Microsoft would Micropayment us into the poor house. Everyone that would like to see Sony fail needs to realize this...

[Frogleg Special]

Hmmm.... Guess the ones around here wanting Sony to Die should reconsider...


I kind of wonder who really want Sony to collapse. Hmm, I guess these guys might be:

a. Microsoft Employees
b. People who flunked Economics 101
c. Kids
d. Gamers with brains equivalent of kids'

[Kelegacy]

I'm actually impressed Sweeney mentioned this publicly. Gotta give props, even with the publisher of their game looming over them.

CliffyB was also quoted saying that games are far too expensive and should come down in price instead of going up. A short while later his game was made into the first first-party published game that retailed for 60 bucks.

At least this way, now that it's been said publicly, when they charge for maps Epic won't be left looking like the bad guys. Pretty good idea on Epic's part.

[TragicComic]

Dude, WTF, really? How is this relevant at all? And exactly what part of Microsoft do you work for?

I was replying to a previous post about developers not being allowed to give their content away. My point is that developers (sans publisher interference) always have an option, but if they want to drink at the fountain of money that is the console, they have to deal with stuff like this.

And I haven't worked on a game for Microsoft in a very long time.

[Heretic Machine]

I was replying to a previous post about developers not being allowed to give their content away. My point is that developers (sans publisher interference) always have an option, but if they want to drink at the fountain of money that is the console, they have to deal with stuff like this.

No shit. If this were not the case, this issue would not exist. The point is, this behavior is not something that I (nor any other sane gamer) wants to support.

[Johan]

This is such a load of horseshit...

doesn't MS realize that free content on Live can actually spur sales of a title? I bought Prey a bit back in part because I thought it was cool they were also offering the free content online.

Bullshit. They've made money hand-over-fist on GoW, and they're nickel and dime-ing people...

[EternalGamer]

I'm actually impressed Sweeney mentioned this publicly. Gotta give props, even with the publisher of their game looming over them.

CliffyB was also quoted saying that games are far too expensive and should come down in price instead of going up. A short while later his game was made into the first first-party published game that retailed for 60 bucks.

At least this way, now that it's been said publicly, when they charge for maps Epic won't be left looking like the bad guys. Pretty good idea on Epic's part.

I"m optimistic that their going public with this will ultimately mean that the maps get released for free. Despite this type of completely unjustified bullying, MS has demonstrated themselves to respond to public criticism in a pretty positive manner.

[Evil Dude]

What makes you think it's free for Microsoft to host it and distribute it? In the end, someone has to pay for the storage, bandwidth, cpu time, etc.

I would assume that Microsoft doesn't charge developers or publishers for every free download that is out there.
We already pay for a one full year Xbox Live subscription. How is that for the so-called "storage, bandwidth, cpu, time"???

Not to mention the game we play so far, we still need to host ourselves, using our own bandwidth!!! It's not even comparable to mmo like WOW!!!

Microsoft, this is really bullshit. We consumer need to do something!!!

Signed, pissed Xbox Fan.

[DesignerKid]

Huh? Why is it that no one wants to pay for content? Do you have any idea what it costs to build and test a single level for a game like this? Seriously, WTF, when did we all move to communist Russia?

I'll give you 460 reasons why I don't want to pay for additional content...
(Hint: Cost of 360 + cost of game). Of course microtransactions were one of the many reasons I actually got rid of my 360.

And yes, I work in the industry and I know what 'it takes' to build and test these levels. If you've got good tools, good artists and pipelines - it doesn't take nearly as much as you seem to think.

I'm voting with my dollar, which usually leads to a DS or Wii game. At least on those platforms I'm guaranteed to get every bit I expect and not have to worry about whether something was locked out so they could sell it to me later. My lifelong hobby has become the bane of my existence.

[Heretic Machine]

I"m optimistic that their going public with this will ultimately mean that the maps get released for free. Despite this type of completely unjustified bullying, MS has demonstrated themselves to respond to public criticism in a pretty positive manner.

But even if they buckle in this case, how many more times will it happen to smaller developers without the pull of Epic? How many times has it happened already? For me, this brings up quite a bit of distrust towards Microsoft, and I doubt I can pay for further microtransactions in good conscience.

[Codicier]

Without competition (Sony & I suppose Nintendo) Microsoft would Micropayment us into the poor house. Everyone that would like to see Sony fail needs to realize this...

Sony charging $600 for the PS3 has nothing to do with downloadable content. They're charging that much because it costs them *far* more to manufacture it.

Yes competition is a good thing, but what you said reads like flamebait.

[Evil Dude]

PS3 charing $600 for a ps3 are due to hardware cost.

Microsoft charging $5 for every single DLC is a rip off!!! (when developer want to release it for free! Epic has been known for supporting the Unreal modding community...yes, free stuff!)

[Codicier]

PS3 charing $600 for a ps3 are due to hardware cost.

Microsoft charging $5 for every single DLC is a rip off!!! (when developer want to release it for free! Epic has been known for supporting the Unreal modding community...yes, free stuff!)

You're a terribly original person. :rolleyes:

EDIT: 1000.....wasted. :p

[eth3rton]

Sony charging $600 for the PS3 has nothing to do with downloadable content. They're charging that much because it costs them *far* more to manufacture it.

Yes competition is a good thing, but what you said reads like flamebait.

Guess I need to remember to put the "Sarcastic" smilies up when making lil comments like that.... :rolleyes:

[Johan]

There's no real way for MS to spin this except for what it is; greed.

[Codicier]

Guess I need to remember to put the "Sarcastic" smilies up when making lil comments like that.... :rolleyes:

Advisable. ;)

[jeffbax]

Fuck you MS.

[bean19]

Interesting. . .

Is Microsoft really being mercenary here? I mean, they do pay for the download bandwidth on this stuff. They may have been telling Epic that they should at least charage 100 points for the full map-packs just so that Microsoft doesn't take a loss on it.

[Heretic Machine]

Interesting. . .

Is Microsoft really being mercenary here? I mean, they do pay for the download bandwidth on this stuff. They may have been telling Epic that they should at least charage 100 points for the full map-packs just so that Microsoft doesn't take a loss on it.

Do you really understand how little it would cost for each download of this pack? I doubt it would even amount to a penny, counting maintenance costs on the servers (which I already fucking pay for).

[Brady]

I didn't read through all 3 pages... but for those of you who are saying Microsoft has no right to tell this to Epic

I hope you know you are all horribly wrong.

Microsoft Games Studio was the publisher of this game. That means they had much money at stake in developing the game, same as Epic.

If this were published by 2K games or something, that'd be a whole other story, and Epic would have every right to release whatever they want (as long as 2K approves).

Anyhow, although we all think it sucks... Microsoft DOES have a say on the additional content of games they were the publisher on. Keep in mind the entire xbox division (the home entertainment division of MS) was never profitable untill recently. They are in the business of trying to make back all that money they spent on the original xbox to break into the market. Now that they are in... they need some money.

[Heretic Machine]

I didn't read through all 3 pages... but for those of you who are saying Microsoft has no right to tell this to Epic

This has nothing to do with rights. You have the right to walk into the middle of a fine restaurant and take a shit in your pants. That is not behavior that I will support, however.

[UnderHero5]

I've never liked the idea of Microtransactions since MS announced Live would be using them. I've always thought it was a bad idea and this just goes to prove that I was right. Microtransactions are one of the reasons I'm hesitant about getting a 360. I want nothing to do with the nickel and dime scheme they've got going.

I like the idea of buying a game and having a complete game. If they want to release MEANINGFUL extra content (like a full expansion pack) then I will pay for it. I don't want to be overcharged 10 times for ten tiny downloads for a game I already paid too much for (I think $60 is way too much for a game, personally. Not in my budget).
How is it I can buy an expansion pack for Titan Quest (PC) for $30 that ads 15+ hours of gameplay, hundreds of items, 50+ quests, new skills and masteries, tons of new locals and enemies, etc etc... Yet on Live they are charging 5 dollars for two freaking maps (Halo 2), or 10 bucks for 6 new characters (Marvel Ultimate Alliance)... That is not cool with me and really shouldn't be with any one else. I guess I just value the time I spent working for my money more than others might.

As others have said, Epic has always been awesome about supporting their community and their games. UT2004 has had amazing support from them, from MSU contests to lots of free content. I imagine they don't like to charge for these things for a few reasons... 1) They realize that by supporting their communities with patches/content they make their money back from returning customers who love the way they support their games and buy more of them because of it. 2) Because they don't want to split the communities of their online games apart by having only some purchase the content and others not.

What MS is doing here is bullshit, but I can't say it's unexpected.

Xbox Live in general is a complete rip off, in my eyes. I actually had a subscription back when it was first released on Xbox (played lots of Mech Assault, and had fun). Back then I unsubscribed because there was nothing to play on it. These days I realize that you get very little for your money. Most of the content you have to pay for... you host all the online games on your own Xbox's, using your own bandwidth. Online play should be FREE for all games on Xbox, imo.
The only reason MS charges for it is because they can, there are no other options. Live is just something I do not want to be a part of, though I would like online play if I had a 360. It's not that I don't have the $50, it's just the fact that I don't see the value in it.
This is not a knock against the 360, before people start calling me a Sony fan or something. I'm just giving my opinion.

[Conway]

Tim Sweeny has just gained a ton of respect from me tonight by being honest and truthful about this whole Marketplace bullshit.

[Frogleg Special]

Developers will always have the PC... they can give everything they want away for free.


PC is another type of market. Developers cater for the two extremes: the hardcores and the mainstream. For everything else there are the consoles. I bet Sony would give more freedom to the developers.


Also, console development can be a lot cheaper and easier than PC dev.

Why, you can't compete with the big boys? Relic and EA (gasp) still make money out of the PC.

[DeathtollWRX]

This is annoying news to hear. Microsoft nickel and diming us is going to far. Either way people are going to download the maps whether they are free or not. I'd pay if I had to.

[Johan]

I wonder if this might impact Epic's desire to work with MS as a publisher in the future?

You'd think MS would be looking long-term here, as well. I'm sure they were smart enough to contract for first-right-of-refusal for GoW sequels, but Epic makes other great games. MS is, in my opinion, being quite stupid here...

[UnderHero5]

They are in the business of trying to make back all that money they spent on the original xbox to break into the market. Now that they are in... they need some money.
Microsoft NEEDS money like I need another root canal (trust me I don't, I learned to take care of my teeth after that one ;) )

Why is it that so many gamers care so much about lining the corporations pockets? I don't understand that. MS is a multi BILLION dollar corporation. They don't need a dollar from the few thousand people who would be downloading this map pack, trust me.
There are some things that SHOULD be free, to build customer confidence and make for happier customers. This is one of those things. Especially since the people who actually MADE the content think it should be free. Not to mention (or to mention again) that people already pay a subscription fee to use Live. Which also has advertisements in the damn thing... so there's even more revenue.

[PXG 360]

Yeah this sucks, but there are really only two options.

1) Pay for it, thus continuing the consumer rape
2) Boycott the shit

If its free, thats great, if not, oh well...As long as its not too expensive, I'm cool with it.

[Incidence]

I've always had a lot of respect for Epic, they make great games and they really support the community, and this just conforms my support for them in the future. I don't give a rats ass about Microsoft's greed, Epic spent the time, resources and man hours making the content they should have the say in how much or if to charge for it.

[wyeast]

Wow - this is the kind of crap I'd expect EA to pull. Way to bring me down, MS. :mad:

[archon]

I understand that the PC is a separate market, but if Gears had been released on PC at the same time, you know we'd be getting these maps for free. As it is they'll probably be released with the PC version when it ships later this year (or next, whenever).

[UnderHero5]

Yeah this sucks, but there are really only two options.

1) Pay for it, thus continuing the consumer rape
2) Boycott the shit

If its free, thats great, if not, oh well...As long as its not too expensive, I'm cool with it.
That's part of the problem though. It's priced low enough where people say "oh well, whatever, I'll deal with it". Eventually it's just going to go higher and higher. Gamers need to have more self control if they actually want Lives prices to change. Trust me, as it goes right now, it's just going to get worse and worse.

MS is trying to charge for everything because they know they CAN charge for everything and people will pay it regardless of whether the purchase is actually worth the money or not.
That's a big problem, and I see every person who says "I'll buy it anyway" as a big part of that problem.

Seriously. You deserve to be ripped off if that's how you think. I'm sorry but it's true.

[NeoSuplex]

Now why does this story sound so familiar... Oh, how I wonder... (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27378)
And the forces of 'good' have triumphed over Evil. Avatar.

[Tyrant]

Now why does this story sound so familiar... Oh, how I wonder... (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27378)
And the forces of 'good' have triumphed over Evil. Avatar.

Aside from our outrage being a few weeks late, Evil Avatar's response to your topic says that it is not true that MS is holding up the map pack from being released.

Who are we to believe?!

[Serapth]

Wow, people are really taking a one sided view of this...

First off, the biggest fuckup factor here is the EPIC went public with this. Microsoft are not only the owner of the Live network, but they are also the publisher of the game in the first place. This boils down to a business decision Microsoft made, and one party going public with information that never should have been public in the first place. Much as if Rockstar wanted to release a free upgrade to GTA, but Take 2 wanted to charge for them, that is a perfectly valid decision for Take 2 to make. Not one, as a consumer, I like, but a valid one none the less.

Frankly, this is a bad strategic move by Epic. Then again, this is a company that again and again has said some seriously stupid shit in public. One side of the face you had CliffyB talking about how GoW was going to be the best game ever, then on the otherside, you had Mark talking about how Unreal could only be done on the PS3. Sometimes boy, its better to just shut up.

Finally, from a business perspective, it makes sense for Microsoft to want to them to charge for content. They wanted to build a microtransaction system and encourage all developers to release addons into the marketplace. However, once a couple developers start releasing all their shit for free, consumers will expect that of all publishers and blammo, Microtransactions are dead.

[Heretic Machine]

Now why does this story sound so familiar... Oh, how I wonder... (http://www.evilavatar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27378)
And the forces of 'good' have triumphed over Evil. Avatar.

It was a rumor then. It is confirmed now. That is the difference.

[Heretic Machine]

First off, the biggest fuckup factor here is the EPIC went public with this. Microsoft are not only the owner of the Live network, but they are also the publisher of the game in the first place. This boils down to a business decision Microsoft made, and one party going public with information that never should have been public in the first place. Much as if Rockstar wanted to release a free upgrade to GTA, but Take 2 wanted to charge for them, that is a perfectly valid decision for Take 2 to make. Not one, as a consumer, I like, but a valid one none the less.

Ok, so you say that they have a right to make that decision. And Epic doesn't have a right to tell the public what is really going on, so that consumers can make their own choice about whether or not to support such a decision?

Frankly, this is a bad strategic move by Epic.

Dude, seriously, that is completely irrelevant.

Finally, from a business perspective, it makes sense for Microsoft to want to them to charge for content.

I'm sure they would also love to charge me for air. If there are plans in effect to work towards this end, I would love to hear about it.

[51|RandoM]

Microsoft is just trying to maintain the questionable value of other DLC they're making you pay for.

I know why they're doing it, but that doesn't make me like it.

The downside of this is that I can easily seeing both parties sitting there, continuing to disagree while *EVERYBODY* loses. MSFT gets a black eye with the customers, Epic gets a black eye with MSFT, and the customers have tasty new maps dangled just out of their reach indefinitely.

[Eleo]

You know I was kind of disappointed by the announcement of Annex. I had been hearing rumors of new weapons and maps for several weeks, and was anticipating those more than a new gametype. When just Annex + bugfixes are announced, I was like, that's it? It turns out they do have more content but cannot release it.

Seriously, MS is starting to get on my nerves lately. I already don't want to pay $50/yr for permission to host games off my own fucking broadband connection. Why are they trying to interfere with what Epic wants to give us or not give us?

[Serapth]

Ok, so you say that they have a right to make that decision. And Epic doesn't have a right to tell the public what is really going on, so that consumers can make their own choice about whether or not to support such a decision?


Frankly, that isnt a decision thats up to the consumer. The consumer has one decision and one decision alone. Do I buy it, or not. Dont like the decision, dont buy an xbox 360, or GoW, or the addon maps, whatever. This obscenely misguided sense of "consumer rights" is laughably wrong. Never has such a thing existed, nor never will it.

That said, Epic has a right, I guess to do what they did, as in legal right or even moral right if you really want to stretch things. From a business perspective, they totally are in the wrong. They just bit the hand that feeds them, gave their partner a public relations black eye in exchange for some consumer good will. Microsoft however, as publisher is completely in the right to force them to charge for content... they pretty much own the rights to this version of Gears of War.



Dude, seriously, that is completely irrelevant.

No, its completely relevant. Epic just damaged a relationship with their publishers, a publisher they had a signifigant amount of clout with in the past ( if the 256 megs of ram story was true ).


I'm sure they would also love to charge me for air. If there are plans in effect to work towards this end, I would love to hear about it.

Dont buy stuff, simple enough.

[Serapth]

Microsoft is just trying to maintain the questionable value of other DLC they're making you pay for.

I know why they're doing it, but that doesn't make me like it.

The downside of this is that I can easily seeing both parties sitting there, continuing to disagree while *EVERYBODY* loses. MSFT gets a black eye with the customers, Epic gets a black eye with MSFT, and the customers have tasty new maps dangled just out of their reach indefinitely.


Basically 100% true.

Net result... consumers gained nothing, Microsoft looks bad and Epic lost face with Microsoft. Them coming public changed nothing ( Microsoft is going to fight this to the grave, as they want DLC to fly obviously ).

Had Epic just STFU, we would have had the same net result, minus MS looking bad to the public and Epic looking bad to Microsoft.

[Kelegacy]

This has nothing to do with rights. You have the right to walk into the middle of a fine restaurant and take a shit in your pants.
LOL.

Imagery will haunt my dreams tonight.

[silv]

I think this is more MSFT being the publisher, than MSFT owning XBL.

There is tons of XBL free content, so I doubt MSFT is pushing people to charge now.

[Heretic Machine]

Frankly, that isnt a decision thats up to the consumer. The consumer has one decision and one decision alone. Do I buy it, or not. Dont like the decision, dont buy an xbox 360, or GoW, or the addon maps, whatever. This obscenely misguided sense of "consumer rights" is laughably wrong. Never has such a thing existed, nor never will it.

Umm... buying = supporting. Not buying = not supporting. Was I being unclear?

That said, Epic has a right, I guess to do what they did, as in legal right or even moral right if you really want to stretch things. From a business perspective, they totally are in the wrong. They just bit the hand that feeds them, gave their partner a public relations black eye in exchange for some consumer good will.

Just like Microsoft bit the hand that feeds them, i.e. the consumer. I must say, I'm absolutely amazed at your disdain for the consumer. The way you're talking, I would say that you think we should all be mindless Credit Zombies buying whatever is sat in front of us.

No, its completely relevant. Epic just damaged a relationship with their publishers, a publisher they had a signifigant amount of clout with in the past ( if the 256 megs of ram story was true ).

No, it isn't relevant. The point is that MS is essentially displaying their complete lack of loyalty to their customer base. This is underhanded behavior, plain and simple.

Dont buy stuff, simple enough.

As I said, I'm boycotting 360 products, both digital and physical. Hell, I'm extending that to include all MS products. If I wanted to use MS software, I would no longer feel guilt in pirating it. They are one of few companies to ever gain such a distinction.

[Kelegacy]

Basically 100% true.

Net result... consumers gained nothing, Microsoft looks bad and Epic lost face with Microsoft. Them coming public changed nothing ( Microsoft is going to fight this to the grave, as they want DLC to fly obviously ).

Had Epic just STFU, we would have had the same net result, minus MS looking bad to the public and Epic looking bad to Microsoft.
Epic knows it doesn't NEED Microsoft. They're a prominent developer/software creator, and can stand on their own two feet just fine (on the engine building alone). If MS didn't publish, I know of a dozen other publishers that would pick up Epic in a heartbeat. On the other hand, while Epic doesn't need MS, MS sure as hell needed them this past year. Look at the sales surge caused by Epic. I doubt this comment will damage anything with MS. They know who's filling their coffers.

That's why they are so cocky. I actually enjoy this. You won't see Insomniac doing this, or Rare, because they are owned by Sony and MS respectively. But Epic doesn't have to worry overly much. They have had a strong record of giving free content to their customers and are a bit miffed that they can't continue that streak of goodwill here in the console realm. Free = good relations with the people who buy their games. Epic earns a lot of respect points here, even if it upsets their publisher.

Rein will probably come out tomorrow and apologize, so it's all moot anyway. I hope he doesn't, however.

[Serapth]

Simply put Perigon, you seem completely unable to look at this as anything other then with a consumers perspective.

I agree with you, as a consumer its shitty news, I am not arguing that.

What I am saying is, Epic fucked up by making this public. In the end, that move helps nobody and was bad from a business perspective. The fact you right that off as irrelevant simply reinforces the fact you can't see the bigger picture here.

[Serapth]

Epic knows it doesn't NEED Microsoft. They're a prominent developer/software creator, and can stand on their own two feet just fine (on the engine building alone). If MS didn't publish, I know of a dozen other publishers that would pick up Epic in a heartbeat. On the other hand, while Epic doesn't need MS, MS sure as hell needed them this past year. Look at the sales surge caused by Epic. I doubt this comment will damage anything with MS. They know who's filling their coffers.

That's why they are so cocky. I actually enjoy this. You won't see Insomniac doing this, or Rare, because they are owned by Sony and MS respectively. But Epic doesn't have to worry overly much. They have had a strong record of giving free content to their customers and are a bit miffed that they can't continue that streak of goodwill here in the console realm. Free = good relations with the people who buy their games. Epic earns a lot of respect points here, even if it upsets their publisher.

Rein will probably come out tomorrow and apologize, so it's all moot anyway. I hope he doesn't, however.

Oh, no, Epic doesnt *NEED* Microsoft. But they are damned stupid to piss them off. They have a huge amount of clout with steering the console, probrably have a shit ton of inside information, got access to devkits extremely early and lastly got a ton of promotional support from Microsoft.

If you like Gears of War would have sold what it has if Microsoft wasnt the publisher, you are kidding yourself. Microsoft put a TON of marketing behind this title, and used it as their flagship title in almost every trade show and press release.

Pissing away a relationship like that is simply not a good idea. Then again, Epic has done dumb shit like this over and over, so no really big suprise.

[Heretic Machine]

Simply put Perigon, you seem completely unable to look at this as anything other then with a consumers perspective.

Ya, no shit.

I agree with you, as a consumer its shitty news, I am not arguing that.

Which is absolutely the only thing relevant to the majority of the gaming public.

What I am saying is, Epic fucked up by making this public.

They wouldn't have to if MS weren't trying to actively breed hate for themselves among consumers.

In the end, that move helps nobody

Helps me decide between a 360 game and a Wii game.

The fact you right that off as irrelevant simply reinforces the fact you can't see the bigger picture here.

The bigger picture is what this means for my wallet in the future, and it isn't looking good with MS at the helm.

Pissing away a relationship like that is simply not a good idea. Then again, Epic has done dumb shit like this over and over, so no really big suprise.

Well, I'm much happier paying for Epic's brand of stupidity than Microsoft's idea of good business practices. I might not be able to stop Microsoft from killing my hobby, but I sure as hell won't be footing the bill.

[NeoSuplex]

It was a rumor then. It is confirmed now. That is the difference.

Actually, it was False then apparently.

[Jack B]

There isn't a boilerplate/industry standard for a legal agreement between a developer and a publisher. Many have similarities, however you must know the financial agreement with incentives, accelerators etc, before you would know who wins and loses and by how much when free content is given away.

For all any of us know, Epic may have been contracted to produce a certain amount of downloadable content. In that scenario, Epic wouldn't lose a nickle for giving it away, because they'd already been contracted. Thus, it's not their content to give away. If that's the case, it's really dirty pool, that Epic would disclose their internal discussions. I'd be pissed at Epic if I were Microsoft no matter what the situation. I highly doubt anyone posting in this thread has seen the financial contract.

The contracts can be similar to movie deals. Each one is different. It's all a negotiation. Typically the publisher gets to call the shots. I'm sure these types of discussions have happened many times over the years between publisher and developer. We usually don't hear about them. This is embarrassing for Microsoft and I'm sure they're pretty pissed at Epic for disclosing the internal discussions.

Having said all that, I think given the amount of money Microsoft has likely made on Gears, I'd say they should give something back to the fans. I'm both disappointed in Microsoft for not offering some free content on a big money maker like Gears, although they certainly aren't the only developer who hasn't given free content away. Most don't so singling out Microsoft is unfair. I'm also disappointed in Epic. It's bullshit for them to devulge internal business discussions. That's not what business partners do. Also, if they really don't participate in the profits of the downloadable content, then they truly are being assholes and Microsoft is being fucked.

Not a lot of winners here, but we don't have all the facts and many people are jumping to the most obvious conclusion, but without all the facts.

[NeoSuplex]

Serapth, I want you to explain to me just how this hurts anyone other than Microsoft? Epic is an independent developer that just so happens to have the rights to the most popular 3rd Party next Gen engine. Why the hell should they care what MS says? What exactly can they do?

Oh yeah... withhold content on the 360.
You see what I did there?

[Serapth]

Serapth, I want you to explain to me just how this hurts anyone other than Microsoft? Epic is an independent developer that just so happens to have the rights to the most popular 3rd Party next Gen engine. Why the hell should they care what MS says? What exactly can they do?

Oh yeah... withhold content on the 360.
You see what I did there?


And:
- refuse to work with them on future products as closely
- not publish their titles
- withhold marketing support

Just a few of the things...

[Heretic Machine]

And:
- refuse to work with them on future products as closely
- not publish their titles
- withhold marketing support

Just a few of the things...

In which case Epic can take their exclusives elsewhere, and at this point I'd be inclined to follow.

[Brady]

I feel like Serapth is the only one thinking about this from any sort of logical point of view.

To whoever said something about Microsoft not needing any more money, come on now, you've got to be kidding. Yeah, in the past MS has been extremely fortunate in their finances. This doesn't mean they will continue making that money on Windows and Office. With open source software advancing and Apple finally making any sort of dent in the market, Microsoft can't solely rely on these cash cows. They need to divirsify their offerings. This is where things like the xbox come in to play. They didn't get into the market just to lose money. They need to be successful, and they've barely turned a profit on any of this.

Also, look at the XBLM, of all the publishers abusing microtransactions, I really don't see Microsoft as one of those publishers. Really, the only game I could get annoyed with is Viva Pinata with all the accessory packs for 90ms pts. Then again, I couldn't care any less about those. Microsoft has been one of the publishers that would typically give out the most free stuff. Once MS starts charging for cheats (like EA), then everybody can complain.

[Darkkoji]

If Epic wants to give away free content to their customers, I don't think Microsoft should have a say in the matter. .


what are you saying...MS is the PUBLISHER!!!! If they wanted to release free content when they wanted, they should have self-published.

[Wolvie]

Well, this is the first time I've seen MS in a Sony way. This is bad, MS reverse course now, or you will lose my faith quickly. You bastards make enough money, throw us XBL gold members a bone damnit! :mad:

[TrackZero]

I'm just surprised by 2 things;
1. Epic wants to release them for free.
2. Microsoft & Epic have allowed this little internal squabble to become public.


Agreed. Professionalism intact, you shouldn't be bringing up your internal business parter discussions on radio shows. That's just bad form, despite whether who's right or wrong (in the court of public opinion).

[Heretic Machine]

what are you saying...MS is the PUBLISHER!!!! If they wanted to release free content when they wanted, they should have self-published.

Do you know what kind of deal they made? The extent of my knowledge about it is that MS published the physical copies of the game and distributed it. Do they have rights to further development to the game? I don't know, but it seems like they don't, otherwise I doubt that Epic would be surprised that they weren't releasing content for free.

[Serapth]

Do you know what kind of deal they made? The extent of my knowledge about it is that MS published the physical copies of the game and distributed it. Do they have rights to further development to the game? I don't know, but it seems like they don't, otherwise I doubt that Epic would be surprised that they weren't releasing content for free.


Trust me, since the day Sierra got fucked up the hoop by Valve over Steam, these things are part of the publishing deal.

[Limech]

See, I KNEW it!!!

Why do you think we don't see many free themes or gamer pictures? I'm sure plenty of developers would like to give them out for free to advertise their game (which is what you do when you use a gamer picture for a game).

If some developers give stuff out for free, then why would people pay for the other stuff? They wouldn't. They would only wait for free stuff. Then the prices would need to come down to compete withe the free stuff. Their "business model" would fall apart.

If I'd be Epic, I'd release the maps on a magazine CD for free and bypass the marketplace. :)

[mikeohara]

and this is exactly why I will never own another XBox product ... MS is trying to screw with their biggest selling franchise outside of the Halo games. If I were Epic and Mark Rein respectively, I'd be threatening to take the game to the competition unless I got what I wanted.

[bean19]

Do you really understand how little it would cost for each download of this pack? I doubt it would even amount to a penny, counting maintenance costs on the servers (which I already fucking pay for).

I knew that it would be a small amount, but I didn't know what it would be exactly since I have never dealt with bandwidth costs directly.

However, if a million users cost you a penny then that quickly turns into $10,000.00. Now, this isn't anything to Microsoft. It is a mere drop in the bucket, and Atari might even pay it. In fact, this may be what Microsoft has asked them to do.

[Food Nipple]

Epic is an established name in the business, and Gears was a badly needed hit for MS. Microsoft needs Epic a lot more than Epic needs Microsoft. Furthermore, Epic's got an established track record of giving freebies to their customers.

Microsoft should stop stepping on the toes of their closest allies and let them do what they want.

[Frogleg Special]

Without the games, Xbox 360 or any consoles for that matter is nothing. XBL would be like a glorified chat room without a game to play. Epic could go back to PC (yikes) or ally with Sony/Nintendo.

[Evil Avatar]

Aside from our outrage being a few weeks late, Evil Avatar's response to your topic says that it is not true that MS is holding up the map pack from being released.

Who are we to believe?!

You should believe Tim Sweeney. I was aware of the issue with Epic wanting to release stuff for free and Microsoft wanting to charge for it and I talked to someone at Epic about it, but I didn't think they were "holding up" the map pack - I just thought that they were argueing back and forth about the issue for future map packs and other downloads.

I never expected Microsoft to actually prevent someone from releasing something - I guess I just gave them too much credit and I'm sorry if I posted something that was wrong.

[Norse]

MS wants to make money? What a shocker.....

[wangstramedeous]

Wow, I'm in a state of shock, no one seemed to notice Jack's post. Ya'll are still arguing and gnashing your teeth. Yet you have no clue what the contract stipulates and yet you think you have the solution in your hands. If it was stipulated in the contract that Epic release additional content to be published by Microsoft then most of your arguments hold no water.

I think what is irking most people really is the principle of charging people for the additional content. Obviously we'll like to get it free but the content providers have other plans. If Microsoft really does have rights to the assets then you might as well suck it up and decide whether to pay or not. I don't like micropayments much especially because of the stratification they cause. On the other hand its a valid business model and Microsoft can/should be able to use it as they see fit.

[Heretic Machine]

Wow, I'm in a state of shock, no one seemed to notice Jack's post. Ya'll are still arguing and gnashing your teeth. Yet you have no clue what the contract stipulates and yet you think you have the solution in your hands. If it was stipulated in the contract that Epic release additional content to be published by Microsoft then most of your arguments hold no water.

Sure, if it does. Does it?

I think what is irking most people really is the principle of charging people for the additional content.

Most of us that are pissed off have probably bought content like this before. I know I have. I bought all of the various Kameo packs, and two UNO decks, for instance. This is about the rights of the developer, and Microsoft's insistence on forcing developers into practices that weakens the developer's relationship to the fan-base.

[Tel Prydain]

I agree with what some people have already said: I think this has a little to do with MS controling live, and a lot to do with MS being the Publisher for Epic.
I think MS wants to make as much as they can from their investment as a publisher. As they should expect to.

[Tel Prydain]

This is about the rights of the developer, and Microsoft's insistence on forcing developers into practices that weakens the developer's relationship to the fan-base.
But the difference is that some of us are talking about the rights of the developer vs Microsoft's plans for live.
The other half is talking about rights of the developer vs the rights of a publisher.

I'd be up in arms if MS were saying this to a average 3rd party devaloper. But as they are talking from the role of publisher (rather then the role of Live admin) they are well in their rights to demand whatever they like.

[Heretic Machine]

But the difference is that some of us are talking about the rights of the developer vs Microsoft's plans for live.
The other half is talking about rights of the developer vs the rights of a publisher.

I'd be up in arms if MS were saying this to a average 3rd party devaloper. But as they are talking from the role of publisher (rather then the role of Live admin) they are well in their rights to demand whatever they like.

Eh, except that we don't know if they are acting within their rights. Sounds more like this is something they are demanding now, not something that they had talked to Epic about when signing the publishing agreement. Listen to the way Sweeney talks about it, he says that apparently MS is trying to build an economy. To me, it sounds like they aren't interested in the profits from this venture, they are interested in conditioning people to pay for this stuff.

[Podfork]

There's a lot of outrage in this topic.

I don't see the big deal - people want something extra but they're annoyed at the prospect of paying for it. Why?

Is it because extras for free are the way things ought to be? If so, that seems one-sided. If you then argue as a consumer and state that that is the only perspective you care about then you're deliberately choosing to be ignorant and you're also being as selfish as the other parties in the equation that you've declared you don't care about.

Furthermore, I see no talk of a compulsory purchase. It appears optional. So, if you don't want it, you don't have to pay for it.

Instead, it seems that not only do people want it, but people want it for free. Once again, that seems a little selfish to me.

And this story - if that's coloured your opinion on the situation then fair enough. But who's to say there aren't more instances of the same? Or maybe even instances of a developer wanting to charge and Microsoft insisting it be free in order to raise the appeal and profile of XBL?

Admittedly, you can't account for what you don't know. But I believe there are many unknown factors in this sort of story and in numerous other ones relating to industry actions. It's doubtful anyone will ever know the FULL story and what we have left is one person's view on the situation - and he may not be the most neutral of people to deliver that view.

And no, I don't work for Microsoft.

...

Anyway, as a sort of curveball to the conversation - would people prefer a free-with-adverts map pack or a maps-for-a-fee map pack?

[Heretic Machine]

Podfork, you haven't read the post.

[Mojopin]

This has nothing to do with Sony. Why are you bringing them up?
Lets see , console maker... check online... check competing with the Xbox360... CHECK... Looks like this has a lot to do with Sony... as in they are the other choice... clearer?

[Micasa]

So why does this kind of thing only happen to Epic?

I mean it was Epic who said that they couldn't use the Halo-style matchmaking because Microsoft wouldn't allow games to use it... then Microsoft said that wasn't the case and other games actually used the whole 'party system' anyway.

Now this?

[Frogleg Special]

There's a lot of outrage in this topic.

I don't see the big deal - people want something extra but they're annoyed at the prospect of paying for it. Why?



Got reading comprehension?

Here's Cliff Notes for you: People would pay extra but they're annoyed at MS denying freebies.

[menage]

Hell, start releasing more good stuff that I want to buy instead of crap then MS. Maybe you don't have to bully your main force in the game then.

[Yellowman]

I think this thread is really funny. You got to see the MDF for once, and look how they did spin it. Epic wants to release free content, Microsoft block them but of course they are 'making sound business decisions'. Absolute bollocks guys, stop defending a giant multinational corporation, they should be able to handle attacks theselves after all.

What I think is really funny is Serapth who comes to Nintendo threads to laugh at NDF, but look here he is, behaving in exactly the same way that he makes fun of others for. Hilarious.

It's disgusting MS behaves this way, and Epic probably used the only leverage they had to try and get around the problem. Fans. Please don't dissapoint them by turning into a bunch of fawning fanboys willing to sacrifice your wallets on the alter of xbox 360.

If I was Epic I'd talk to Sony about getting a new publisher. Bring some of that Gears Of War goodness to PS3. That might make Microsoft shut up.

[Xerxes]

I think it's publisher wanting to make money. The group with games, under Shane Kim. Not the group under whoever is running Xbox 360/Live network these days. I've "heard" the Live group is about charging as well but in this case, MS is the publisher.

MS Live pushing for devs to charge = evil , corporate evil you deal with only a daily basis so it shouldn't throw you off to much accept this time it's exposed.

MS Publisher pushing for devs to charge = not cool, but understandable seeing as they pour assloads of money into marketing and development so they'd like the books to look good when coming to the next big project. Who wants to be unprofitable.

I've heard rumors about MS making everything on live pay to make consumers get use to a system as such. Paying for all your content. Probably like Itunes I guess. But when folks want to give you something free, rope you in a bit longer, it's a sign of good faith. Either way I say free items should've been fine.

[Yellowman]

I'm sorry but Gears of War has made Microsoft a butload of money and sold a lot of consoles, it's the game that got me interested in buying an xbox 360. Microsoft have got their return from this game.

The thinking behind this move is 'We know a lot of people with 360s have Gears of War, possibly more than any other game, so it has the largest potential audience for microtransactions. So we are damn well going to get them to pay it, screw the developers wishes.' Basically it's all about greed as usual. Why is it that it's so easy to confuse it with 'sound business practices'? I guess people see it the way they want to see it.

I'm fine paying for extra content in my games, unless I feel it will really add to the experience then I simply won't. If a developer decides to make an assett for their game and reward those who bought it by giving it a little extra longevity (in this case, by adding extra maps) the publisher has no right to step in and force them to make it paid content, simply because they own the means of distibution. The developer made the content, they made the original game. Beyond publishing they have no say over what Epic release for free afterwards. The only leverage they have is that it's there party and they get to decide who has cake.

Microsoft have tried really hard to not piss off the community, but stuff like this shows that behind closed doors their true colours come shining through.

EDIT - It's Microsoft's kind of thinking that got the record companies to the place they are today. In fact, a lot of comparisons between the two industries can be drawn. The microtransactions are a lot like merchandise, and selling content to you over and over again in different formats is a practice loved by both (Yeah, I'm looking at you VC!)

[Micasa]

The publisher in this case is also the one behind the content distribution.

From that standpoint, they likely want to make sure that new content keeps a standard level of cost. They could put out free content additions for their first-party games or for games they publish, but that makes all the second- and third-party content "overpriced" no matter what that content priced at.

So nothing is free.

If you can't see why they want to make sure the standard is to charge for content, then it's probably not a matter of understanding the concept at all.

[Dag-Sabot]

Huh? Why is it that no one wants to pay for content? Do you have any idea what it costs to build and test a single level for a game like this? Seriously, WTF, when did we all move to communist Russia?404 Communist Russia not found. Think about it. Try again. People who legitimately bought gears should be able to get free maps for it.

[Yellowman]

The publisher in this case is also the one behind the content distribution.

From that standpoint, they likely want to make sure that new content keeps a standard level of cost. They could put out free content additions for their first-party games or for games they publish, but that makes all the second- and third-party content "overpriced" no matter what that content priced at.

So nothing is free.

If you can't see why they want to make sure the standard is to charge for content, then it's probably not a matter of understanding the concept at all.

And that is why one company should not control distribution and creation. It's up to the market to decide the value of content, not Microsoft. What you are describing is the monopolistic practice of price fixing.

[Tempest261]

Because this splits the userbase in an unnecessary way.

Exactly. NOBODY will wind up playing the maps since it creates a catch-22. Those who want the maps will realize that nobody is in them and refuse to download because they have to pay for them, and those that already had paid for them won't play them because nobody is in them. I think Epic realizes this, especially with EA's Battlefield 2 expansion pack fiasco.

[roboninja]

Huh? Why is it that no one wants to pay for content? Do you have any idea what it costs to build and test a single level for a game like this? Seriously, WTF, when did we all move to communist Russia?
Oh great, the communist Russia argument. Tell me, when did capitalism become equal to democracy? Oh, that right, when we let corporations control our government. Now you have people making $15/hour touting the virtues of capitalism, thinking it benefits them as much as the multi-billion dollar company.

You do realise the company that made these levels wants to give them away for free? And somehow you are all for charging for them. Wow, unbelievable. You, sir, could be a cardinal in the new religion: consumerism.

/rant and threadjack

[Xerxes]

I'm sorry but Gears of War has made Microsoft a butload of money and sold a lot of consoles, it's the game that got me interested in buying an xbox 360. Microsoft have got their return from this game.

Return? A return is still a loss in most business. It negates even making the product. They want profit. They need profit to keep rolling on in the right way. Epic should know this, unless is the Live Team not wanting to post free stuff. Then, like i said, evil.

[MacD]

I'm just surprised by 2 things;
1. Epic wants to release them for free.
2. Microsoft & Epic have allowed this little internal squabble to become public.


Number 1 is absolutely not a surprise. EPIC has a great track record with it's community, encouraging modding, free bonus mappacks. In fact, it would have been surprising if EPIC had wanted to charge for bonus content.

Number 2 surprises me too, though. But, as pointed out by some, EPIC has the stronger hand here. They score points with the consumer, and MS loses bigtime. MS can't just ban the dev of their most popular game from their platform ('cause despite what the console makers would want you to believe, it's the games which are the only important thing to consoles...the x360 and ps3 each need a certain number of games attached sold to be able to make a profit on their sold-at-a-loss machine).
What EPIC has done is a strategic move; by going public, they're not only framing the debate, but also forcing MS' hand, at the cost of pissing off their x360 publisher. But what is that cost? What can MS do? Nothing, 'cause they can't kill the goose that laid the golden egg.

My prediction is that instead of the 2000ms pts (or whatever) MS wanted to charge, the maps will come online for 10 ms pts (or whatever) as a nice compromise.

And I have to say: fuck you Microsoft! Nickle-and-diming bastards. But then again...the pessimists were oh-so-right on this one.

[EternalGamer]

Agreed. Professionalism intact, you shouldn't be bringing up your internal business parter discussions on radio shows. That's just bad form, despite whether who's right or wrong (in the court of public opinion).

This is only true if you value the business world more than you value your customers. Just like it is only true in politics if you value the political machine over your voters. Many of the problems we have today are exactly because people have the attitude you are suggesting they should take.

[EternalGamer]

And:
- refuse to work with them on future products as closely
- not publish their titles
- withhold marketing support

Just a few of the things...


Why are any of these a problem for Epic? They now have what is probably the hottest brand out there, in addition to their Unreal brand. I don't think they are going to have any problems finding a publisher for either of those. If MS doesn't want to publish Gears of War 2 (and they have first refusal), you sure as hell better bet dozens of other publishers will be courting them with all kinds of sweetheart deals.

[Saracen Pariah]

This is only true if you value the business world more than you value your customers. Just like it is only true in politics if you value the political machine over your voters. Many of the problems we have today are exactly because people have the attitude you are suggesting they should take.

Well said. I'd add my voice to the mix that thinks MS would be better served, long-term, to not force charges for add-on content. "Free Content" was one of the '70 reasons to buy an Xbox' that they originally marketed. Just like Johan said, having free content for a game that has already sold triple-platinum, can serve to push late-adopter gamers to buy more copies of the game, in addition to keeping the lifespan of the game going. Would StarCraft have endured as long, if Blizzard didn't release free maps? I dunno.

Is Mark Rein still lurking on EvAv? If so, I'd be curious to hear his thoughts on this. In addition, what can we do to hammer our point to MS, rather than simply bitch about it on this forum?

[bean19]

This is only true if you value the business world more than you value your customers. Just like it is only true in politics if you value the political machine over your voters. Many of the problems we have today are exactly because people have the attitude you are suggesting they should take.

Do you really think that Microsoft should have to fight their image of being greedy even more if they were merely in negotiations over this point with the developer?

We don't know the full story here and there are tons of assumptions people are reading as fact.

I also speculate that Microsoft is being greedy and I expect that is the case, but we don't KNOW that for certain. We may never know it if Microsoft is professional and doesn't hurt Epic's reputation by issuing a response (if Microsoft isn't such a bugbear in the issue that they can issue a response contrary to the "Microsoft is greedy" message from Epic).

I agree that the assumptions are likely. They certainly fit Microsoft's past bad behavior. It is as easy to believe that Microsoft is being greedy as it is to believe that Sony is being arrogant or that Nintendo only has three great releases in a year.

However, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't question Epic's professionalism for releasing information on their business partners or that people shouldn't question the assumptions that we are all making.

I'd like to know more than this story is telling me, so I agree with the people who have questions. . . while also agreeing that the assumptions that people are making are likely correct.

I think it is healthy to continue to question your assumptions and those of other people. Not doing so is actually kind of retarded.

[EternalGamer]

I'd like to know more than this story is telling me, so I agree with the people who have questions. . . while also agreeing that the assumptions that people are making are likely correct.

I think it is healthy to continue to question your assumptions and those of other people. Not doing so is actually kind of retarded.

And MS is now free to go public with their side of the story as well if they think that Epic is giving a slanted perspective. And the only way we are able to continue to question are assumptions is if people are willing to be candid with us, as consumers, as voters, or in any other function in which we live.

[Codicier]

Lets see , console maker... check online... check competing with the Xbox360... CHECK... Looks like this has a lot to do with Sony... as in they are the other choice... clearer?

Not everything is about the console war buddy.

Maybe you'd enjoy turning every thread into a Sony vs MS thread so we can all put forward the same fucking arguements for the 100 billionth time, but some of us would like to talk about something else for once.

An internal discussion between MS and Epic made public has *nothing* to do with Sony.

[Food Nipple]

I also speculate that Microsoft is being greedy and I expect that is the case, but we don't KNOW that for certain. We may never know it if Microsoft is professional and doesn't hurt Epic's reputation by issuing a response (if Microsoft isn't such a bugbear in the issue that they can issue a response contrary to the "Microsoft is greedy" message from Epic).

However, that doesn't mean that people shouldn't question Epic's professionalism for releasing information on their business partners or that people shouldn't question the assumptions that we are all making.


Lots of other developers have echoed Epic's complaints, just not as vocally. Garage Games, Bizarre Creations, and Team 17 have all said that MS has prevented them from giving stuff away for free.

I have nothing but the utmost respect for Epic, they're one of the very few companies that values their customers more than their business partners.

[bean19]

Food Nipple - I agree that there is strong reason to believe that this speculation is probably correct.

I was just pointing out that I don't like people who bulldog those who question the speculation.

[Syl]

All I'm going to say is that UT2004 had free CONTENT updates almost two years after the game came out; without a single pay expansion; and the game released for below $50 when it was originally launched.

[the soUL TRAder]

I really think this is just pathetic:
The "paralysis by analysis" the gaming community has adopted is bleeding the last ounce of dignity out of this hobby.
If we want it to be treated as a 'grown up" hobby, we probably should start acting grown up.

Even if MS is going for a cash grab, which really seems unlikely, the business side of the decision is to maintain and build the value of XBL; If Epic releases Gears maps free, the bulk of gaming sites will be filled with people wondering why they should pay for ANY new maps.
Enough of an effect and MS could lose major value in one of their main bullet-points.

It's just business, and Epic's IP is already sold, they made millions and they have steady money stream potential from the obligatory next two sequals. (Even after that, something tells me noboby at Epic is "losing sleep" because they can't get the maps out free.)

On the other hand, MS has lost 4 billion+ in gaming and they have to figure out profit verticals to help change that, the downside of this is the occational "horse armor" and maybe they aren't overjoyed to give away millions, without a plan to show other developers that they can still make a profit off of the marketplace.

The best bet is to vote with your wallet, if new maps are worth the price for you, enjoy; for the rest, let MS know you want more free stuff, especially from 3+ million sellers, by not buying.
MS should just make it easy and give away free swag when games sell a million copies, than more at 2mill.,.....etc.

But let's stop acting like we're not grown up; we can simply not buy a product if it's value isn't there, instead of "waxing idiotic" about how we know more than multi-billion dollar companies on what a business needs to succeed.

[Herald42]

Why not just release it for 100 points or something? Then its not free, but nice and cheap.

Why stop there? I'd charge 1 point from it, just to make a point.

And give a 1 point rebate.

[UnderHero5]

But let's stop acting like we're not grown up; we can simply not buy a product if it's value isn't there, instead of "waxing idiotic" about how we know more than multi-billion dollar companies on what a business needs to succeed.
This is a discussion forum; if you expect no one to discuss this, you're in the wrong place.

The rest of your argument has already been addressed several times by several people. Read. We aren't discussing what's "better for MS's business". As some one said, it would be better for MS is they could charge us for air, does that mean we should support them in that effort?

Also, your idea of acting "grown up" may be "bend over and take it" but not every one else's is.
There's a big problem with this world and it comes from thinking like that. Thinking along the lines of "it's always like that, so it should be expected".
MS will just keep taking and taking until people stop giving. It's people who keep giving, blindly, that are the problem. No self control.

You say "we can simply not buy the product if the value isn't there"... but that doesn't fly when millions of others DO buy it. Does that mean it has value? Not necessarily. I pointed this out in an earlier post (relating these microtransactions to full expansions).

Edit: And sometimes we DO know more about what it takes for a business to succeed than the business does. I don't see people saying this stuff when Sony makes a bad decision. I'm pretty sure WE knew the nGage was a bad idea, while Nokia did not. Etc, etc. We're the consumers, in the end we DO decide what is or isn't a good business decision.

[Shodan2020]

I am immediately boycotting all forms of XBOX Live transactions, and will no longer purchase XBOX 360 games. This is exactly the kind of bullshit that people were worried about when the idea was first brought up.

dude, you should totally make a petition on the internets! :)

I thought this was a news item about a month ago, but that MS had said that they didn't have any problem with Epic releasing maps for free....

I do think that this is rank bullshit. Free maps would only give people more an incentive to purchase Gears and a 360 (obviously those that don't already have Gears, me being one, but it's not cause of lack of maps or anything). I think the more free stuff the better! :)

[Druxk]

So why do we pay a yearly fee for Xbox live? All downloadable content except arcade releases and expansion packs such as the Elder Scrolls one, should be free of charge. Microsoft needs to realize that free additional content keeps the community fresh and maintains their user traffic levels by keeping their major franchises more appealing.

[beefyjr]

Oh, no, Epic doesnt *NEED* Microsoft. But they are damned stupid to piss them off. They have a huge amount of clout with steering the console, probrably have a shit ton of inside information, got access to devkits extremely early and lastly got a ton of promotional support from Microsoft.

If you like Gears of War would have sold what it has if Microsoft wasnt the publisher, you are kidding yourself. Microsoft put a TON of marketing behind this title, and used it as their flagship title in almost every trade show and press release.

Pissing away a relationship like that is simply not a good idea. Then again, Epic has done dumb shit like this over and over, so no really big suprise.
Epic can ruffle Microsoft's feathers, and the fact of the matter is that they've made Microsoft quite a bit of money in units and hardware sold. If push came to shove and Epic wanted to take their ball and go home, it would hurt Microsoft way more than the other way around. The fact of the matter is that they have enough cash to have developed Gears completely on their own, and publishers likely would have fought over the rights to put it out for them. You're fooling yourself if you think that other publishers wouldn't have dumped a shit fucking ton of money into marketing the fuck out of that game, especially given the fact that even five months later it looks orders of magnitude better than any other game on any console. Microsoft needs Epic way more than Epic needs Microsoft, and everyone in the equation understands that. So explain to me how they're "pissing away a relationship" in this situation, or are "damned stupid to piss them off?" They'll be upset with each other for a little while, but you know what? It's business. It happens. Everyone will get over it and go back to making tons of money.

I'm actually really surprised that Microsoft are stupid enough to piss away their goodwill with their player base. Obviously, they're the publisher and it's their right to charge for content if they want to, but that to me seems so fucking ridiculous even in the face of their goals with microtransactions that I never would have even considered the possibility. I really thought that they would have had more sponsored content like the last map pack (which worked on me, since I had never heard of Future Weapons before that and now I watch it). It's disrespectful to their customers and it's disrespectful to Epic as well.

Furthermore, Epic has been doing this for a long time, and if they were contracted to produce content on Microsoft's terms, I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that they'd play ball and not make this shit public.

[the soUL TRAder]

This is a discussion forum; if you expect no one to discuss this, you're in the wrong place.


I agree DISCUSS-but the way the gaming communities have been re-acting to these simple market creating steps is juvinile. It's like we have to find where DarthVader is hiding behind all this controversy. MS isn't being mean or evil or greedy, they are simply trying to establish themselves in a market with some profitability.

And I wasn't rehashing the: "this is profit and this is business" mantra of other MS apologist posts, IMO, the key factor to MS console success, aside from the games of couse, is the VALUE of the XBLMarketplace to FUTURE developers. And concidering that XBL profitability is the one thing MS has as a hudge advantage over their competition, it IS the "AIR" in MS's console market survivability and if they ever want to show a profit they will never spoil it's value. So, IMO, this is specifically something they need to move carefully on.

I guess you are ready to start bullying other people to convince them to make decisions that are more inline with your own; I don't think I ever want that much responsibility over others thoughts, so I'll have to let the majority of idiots purcase overpriced content and, personally, live without it.

And, while I also agree that the consumer SHOULD be (but often isn't) the expert on the product, most show a stunning ignorance of actually how that product is brought to market and what value it have to be profitable.

In the end, this isn't in any way adding goodwill toward MS, but it's certainly not negating the goodwill built up by the first xBox, and the XBL product they use to supplement some great games.

And, in the end, because gamers are talking about this across the web, as others have said, MS will have to address the issue.

Community based Media Power, FTW.

[the soUL TRAder]

...... All downloadable content except arcade releases and expansion packs such as the Elder Scrolls one, should be free of charge.........



See this is why they can't just "give away" 2-3million map-packs, because other dev's will think they'll have to "give" them away-so those Devs just won't make extra.

[UnderHero5]

See this is why they can't just "give away" 2-3million map-packs, because other dev's will think they'll have to "give" them away-so those Devs just won't make extra.
No, I think his point is that if they want to charge for content it should be worthwhile content that is actually worth the price, like a full game or a a full expansion. Not 6 skins for 10 dollars.

I think the prices for some of the things on Live are what is so ridiculous. If you could get those 6 player models for a buck or two, fine. 10 dollars though? Seriously? When they are selling thousands? No cost for packaging a product, no cost for advertising, no cost for tons of other things that go along with selling a physical product... and they want ten bucks? I've created digital content in my spare time, and I'm no professional. I know it doesn't cost that much in labor to make a few player models (or maps, though maps can take a substantial amount of time assuming they are made from scratch and not using existing assets from the game. Which I'm sure most maps made after the fact DO).

Not to mention half of these things they sell on Live could be things that were already made but weren't put into the game because of time constraints or some reason, which would mean they cost devs almost nothing.

I have a big problem with how Live works, as I'm sure you've figured out by now. The fact that it costs so little to make this digital content means that they CAN overcharge, and even if not many people buy it, they STILL make a profit. That does not sit well with me. They have no reason to drop the price unless the overwhelming majority don't buy it. I'm talking 90%+
That's a problem, in my eyes.

I also am not trying to "bully" any one into taking my view. I understand that I have a poor opinion of Live. Some people may not, whatever. I'm not saying any one has to agree with me, but if they DID then Live would get a lot cheaper, and fast (assuming they could have some self control and not make the purchases). I'm not really referring to most of the people on this site when I say this. I mean the thousands of casuals who log on and say "hey, it's only 5 or ten bucks, that's less than a Big Mac meal" without thinking about whether it's WORTH that. There are a lot of people out there like that.

It's not breaking any one's bank, but it's the principal, to me.
Prices WILL keep going up for less and less content unless people stop buying it. This content isn't something we need, like Gasoline. People can effect the Live market, but it would take almost every one who uses Live to do it, and that's a problem, since it will never happen.

[the soUL TRAder]

No, I think his point is that if they want to charge for content it should be worthwhile content that is actually worth the price, like a full game or a a full expansion. Not 6 skins for 10 dollars.


Well stated and agreed, I certainly hope we can use our wallets to adjust the content to a proper value, than I may actually buy more DLC ;) , it may well turn out that most of what is DLC now should be free, and we should get a lot more add-ons, like misson packs, and I would be really happy about that.

[Brady]

For those of you arguing that MS has already made enough money off Gears of War from selling the game, and the systems bought to play the game. Do you not understand that the Xbox platform was basically a hemorrhage of cash for nearly 5 years? Making a decent amount on one game will hardly do anything to make any of this cash back. The only smart thing they could do would be to try and make as much money possible off this one hot game.

For those of you calling for ridiculous responses from Epic... remember what it is we are talking about. Microsoft is saying, oh lets charge like 3 dollars for these maps. Epic wants it free. Is this in any way a reason for Epic to go..... OH! Lets ignore all this money we've made fromt he 360, say fuck Microsoft and lets go exclusive to the PS3 limiting our customer base and alienating all of our fans that don't give a shit about 3 dollars? I think not. This entire thing is a small argument that should have never gone public and Epic was wrong to say anything. If MS wanted money, and Epic wanted it free? Then compromise!! Remember the first two maps were sponsored by Discovery Channel, what is to stop them from finding a new sponsor for new maps? Or they could even take the approach that Halo 2 took. Release new maps for a certain ammount, and announce from the beginning that in 2 months (or whatever time) the maps will be free.

Its this simple. Are you upset about this? Don't buy it! Speak with your wallet and you will be heard.

[MacD]

Even if MS is going for a cash grab, which really seems unlikely, the business side of the decision is to maintain and build the value of XBL; If Epic releases Gears maps free, the bulk of gaming sites will be filled with people wondering why they should pay for ANY new maps.
Enough of an effect and MS could lose major value in one of their main bullet-points.

Wow. You do realise you contradicted yourself in the same bloody paragraph! ?

Not only that, but MS being greedy seems far from unlikely, it's their MO (as bourne out by the numerous courtrulings against them...courts around the world have found MS to be anticompetitive and greedy). "Building the value of XBL" is just the case in point.

[RMan]

Although it’s admirable that Epic wants to release content for free, it’s not reasonable to expect their publisher to distribute it for them especially when it will hurt their business model. I’m quite sure Epic knew there would be consequences to signing with MS, Gears certainly wouldn’t have gotten the resources it did and wouldn’t be the success it is without MS, and I’m sure they knew there would be concessions that’d have to be made (there are with any publisher). These types of comments are hardly uncommon from developers (some kind of complaint about the publisher), but it should still be considered that Epic knew what they were getting into, they got the benefit of being a 1st party console title, which is resources far exceeding what is ‘natural’ for a game designed only for it’s own profit, concessions are expected and this one is a pretty darn reasonable and entirely expected one. Anyway, doesn’t seem like Sweeney blasted MS, it seems a low-key comment, but I’m just saying that although I’m all for ‘developer rights’, this seems a bit unreasonable (and if you want to look at it negatively, this is a way for Epic to get the good will without giving anything away for free, since they likely knew MS would charge for the content).

[jeffbax]

I'm sorry, but not allowing free content is about as lame as you can get. Its more damaging to split your userbase (Chromehounds, Splinter Cell maps) and piss off gamers (this) than to nickel and dime people (Worms HD).

I really hope that Sony capitalizes on this and shoves free content in Microsofts greedy fucking face. I love my 360 and it has the games, but I'm sick of this. Give us free content, or don't charge us for Live. Not fucking both. This whole "microtransaction" age is one big clusterfuck. Games already cost a $10 premium over last gen.

Fuck, honestly I guess I shouldn't be surprised with what people pay for fucking gamer pictures and themes (most retarded thing ever and I will never pay). I just hate how easily the "ringtone" type financial-fuck seems to translate to consoles, especially when DEVELOPERS want to release it for free.

Mark/Epic, if you are reading this, please don't back down! There is nothing better than free content for games. The amount of value gamers got out of things like UT2004 is ridiculously amazing. Shit, I still play it today because of all the amazing community and free dev content. This is something consoles need to learn about, especially when paying a premium for Live to begin with.

[Podfork]

I find it interesting that the only two people to respond to my objective post (as I took no sides) both came across as the sort that feel free should be the norm and that they're insulted to even have to think about the situation from a perspective other than their own.

Complaining that things aren't free and refusing to acknowledge any other perspective outside your 'right' to free digital entertainment is just plain selfish. Easily on par with the selfish nature of the party you accuse.

And for those stating that their yearly $50 covers all the costs, I have to wonder how you break that down accurately.

I do, however, agree with the sentiment that Epic, announcing this disagreement publicly is unprofessional. It smacks more of a knowing of the nature of vocal gamers and, as a result, making an unprofessional announcement that'll almost certainly win them the sympathy vote. Which is nothing to detract from their reputation as a games developer or their output.

I'm a gamer. I have absolutely no problem paying for quality products. If it funds the developers who make the games, the publishers that bring me those games or the hardware manufacturers that make the platform available in the first place that's fine by me. I'm smart enough to know the nature of marketing and sales. I can read between the lines of hyperbole. It's really not that tough to avoid being ripped off. Frankly, I've seen more downright 'evil' and profiteering behaviour on Ebay than in what I've learned of the games industry's machinations.

If the alternative to this scenario is another that would mean fewer games of the calibre of Gears of War are available to me then I will be delighted to pay a few bucks for the countless hours of quality entertainment it'll give me.

I have no economics degree but I know that everything costs. This outrage, like so much outrage, is totally misplaced. So I've no beef with MS, Epic or people asking/demanding money for good quality product. I don't regard that as selfish.

[bean19]

Well stated and agreed, I certainly hope we can use our wallets to adjust the content to a proper value, than I may actually buy more DLC ;) , it may well turn out that most of what is DLC now should be free, and we should get a lot more add-ons, like misson packs, and I would be really happy about that.

It's far more likely that crap will continue to be sold at fairly low prices and that good things like The Shivering Isles will have fair prices that appeal to larger crowds.

You can make money selling to a small market if that market is willing to overpay. You can also make money from selling a good product at a fair price. The problem is that Microsoft doesn't know whether or not to make downloadable content the equivalent to the mini-bar in a hotel or a real bar down in the bottom of the hotel. They're trying to be both, but consumers resent them for it because they don't separate the horrible deals from the competitive ones. This creates negative feedback from players.

Maybe they need to separate expansions from expensive and arbitrary downloadable content. . . but this solution would only help their image instead of their bottom line. What they should do is force companies to release downloadable content only in packages that are large enough to be called expansions at an expansion's price, but allow them to piece-meal the bits and pieces of that expansion out for high cost if a company chooses to do that.

They definitely need to establish a "fair price" for downloadable content and it needs to be something that makes sense with the cost of a game. If an expansion adds a third of a game's content (not just in gaming hours but in new assets, etc.) then it should cost $20. Likewise, horse armor, which adds about ten seconds of enjoyment to the game, should cost $0.01. ;)

It's likely that they want to sell downloadable content at a premium. . . whatever the market will allow. The problem with that is that Microsoft doesn't have a monoply on videogame consoles like they effectively have on the PC. They need to learn to go after our dollars without alienating consumers and to think of the business in the longterm. At this point, the 360 doesn't matter nearly as much to Microsoft as gaining market-share (and good will) for the digital download era.

Eventually digital downloads will not be "extras" like buying $5 sodas when you go to the movies. Eventually they'll be the main source of income for Microsoft, and mercenary practices this early are not to their benefit in the long run.

Corporate America's focus on improving from quarter to quarter may not be able to follow through on plans this longterm.

[wangstramedeous]

Sure, if it does. Does it?



Most of us that are pissed off have probably bought content like this before. I know I have. I bought all of the various Kameo packs, and two UNO decks, for instance. This is about the rights of the developer, and Microsoft's insistence on forcing developers into practices that weakens the developer's relationship to the fan-base.


I think you still missed my point.

1. From the news post it appear that MS is trying to get Epic to release content at a price. It says no mention of other developers. We don't know, its foolish to speculate and argue that they might have been coercing others until we know better.

2. We don't know what the contract is like, Epic may be in the wrong for all we know. If MS controls the content and they want to release it at a price so be it.

3. Now why they would want to put a price...that's another question. Get people used to paying? Set a trend so that they can charge for halo 3 maps? I don't know, and unless you guys happened to been an involved party, you probably don't know either.

[the soUL TRAder]

Wow. You do realise you contradicted yourself in the same bloody paragraph! ?

Not only that, but MS being greedy seems far from unlikely, it's their MO (as bourne out by the numerous courtrulings against them...courts around the world have found MS to be anticompetitive and greedy). "Building the value of XBL" is just the case in point.

No, it's just a subtlety that some seem to miss.

"Building Value" is the opposite of a "cash grab", it's an investment not greed.

Yes, I get it, you harbor hate toward MS because of their PC business, I did too, a decade ago. The funny thing is, no-one came along and ever offered anything that could compete with their shitty OSs, so, at this point, I have to give them some small credit.

Plus, as a PCr, if you can justly condemning MS for the lack of investment on the OS side, don't you have to, as a gamer, give them due for the $4billion they have put into making gaming better?

And, yes, I do realize in the end MS does all of this to make their shareholders more $$, so I'm not holding a "love in" for them, I'm simply willing to deal with the bumps in the road of XBLMarketplace DLC pricing and live without anything overpriced.
Especially if that means more developers will make more games for the 360 because they think suckers will buy their overpriced DLC, it just means I have more games to choose from and more stuff on MP, not to buy.

[the soUL TRAder]

...... So I've no beef with MS, Epic or people asking/demanding money for good quality product. I don't regard that as selfish.

I agree with you.

[Craigtheplague]

I think the prices for some of the things on Live are what is so ridiculous. If you could get those 6 player models for a buck or two, fine. 10 dollars though? Seriously? When they are selling thousands? No cost for packaging a product, no cost for advertising, no cost for tons of other things that go along with selling a physical product... and they want ten bucks? I've created digital content in my spare time, and I'm no professional. I know it doesn't cost that much in labor to make a few player models (or maps, though maps can take a substantial amount of time assuming they are made from scratch and not using existing assets from the game. Which I'm sure most maps made after the fact DO).
What I don't understand is how Blizzard can allow gamers to play Starcraft, Diablo, Warcraft III on either of their four DEDICATED SERVERS around the world, release new maps for the games regularly, and keep track of player stats, ALL WITHOUT CHARGING A PENNY! There are some ads on Battlenet, but they are hardly noticable. My guess as to why microtransactions exist is because they can. Just like a grocery store or gas station charging more because they're located in a rich neighborhood.

[jpc_theoneandonly]

Why should microsoft release these maps for free? Well, since GoW release there has been a drastic climb in xbox live gold members. I believe the numbers were 10,000,000 strong. Feel free to research this, I don't know exactly. But if that is correct, 10,000,000 x 50= 500,000,000. I think that is plenty to allow a few free maps. This "micro-transaction" bullshit is ridiculous. I understand not everything can be free. But I believe MS is just being a big, greedy asshat right now.

[Ailer]

We all had this conversation a year ago over horse armour, and even then the vast majority of us were railing against it. What changed guys?

Here's the thing. The marketplace was meant to be a place to get additional content for our games, and that's what it's always done. But with the introduction of the 360, microsoft points were added, and we were suddenly paying for content we weren't before. Sometimes it's worth it (full expansion pack over live? YES SIR!) but the vast majority of the stuff they sell is garbage that should be free. And the vast majority of us seem to know it. We're already paying for the bandwidth and storage with our subscriptions.

But you know what really gets me? We all called this. We doom and gloomed, and were fought by some of you saying that "microsoft would NEVER do this to their loyal customers" and now they have, and you are STILL defending them. This is the problem with fans, and I really haven't been around (posting anyway) that much lately, and even reading this site has degenerated far further into the fanboy trolling of other sites. I came to evil avatar to get away from that shit guys.

And serapth? Man, I love you, I always have, but I'm pretty damn sure you were on my side calling the doom of microtransactions not but a year ago. What changed?

[Xerxes]

Most the shit they put on Live now is smaller than the shit we use to get free. And a good deal of it is garbage go figure. I can actually seeing paying for new levels to a single player game and expansion packs. Other premium contents. Map packs I think should be at the discretion of the developer. I think what sucks about that is they split online players. Some might refuse paying for new maps and it also makes the games you can join skimpier.

I don't think anyone has tried this yet, but since he comes here sometimes let give it a go...

MARK REIN, I SUMMON THEE....

[Durandal-217]

All. Game. Content. Should. Be. Free

[GigaFuzz]

What I don't understand is how Blizzard can allow gamers to play Starcraft, Diablo, Warcraft III on either of their four DEDICATED SERVERS around the world, release new maps for the games regularly, and keep track of player stats, ALL WITHOUT CHARGING A PENNY! There are some ads on Battlenet, but they are hardly noticable. My guess as to why microtransactions exist is because they can. Just like a grocery store or gas station charging more because they're located in a rich neighborhood.

Probably because Blizzard employees have to climb up a mountain of money to get to work.

Wait, MS also has shitloads of money, so that argument means crap all.

I hope MS backs down on this. I know it's a MS published game, and MS's service, but hopefully Epic can push their weight around. They had a big part in bumping up the memory in the 360, let's hope they have the same sort of influence here....

[albrnick]

What makes you think it's free for Microsoft to host it and distribute it? In the end, someone has to pay for the storage, bandwidth, cpu time, etc.

I would assume that Microsoft doesn't charge developers or publishers for every free download that is out there.

Yeah, must have been this fear back in the day that made EA not do/delay Live for the XB1. I believe that EA wanted more control/have less of it in MS's hands.

Peace

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Fuck this. This and that Elite crap make me want to stay away from the 360. The PS3's already out because it's ridiculously overpriced (as is the 360 IMHO), so it looks like it's the Wii or no gaming at all this gen. I don't even really care about the Wii right now either. Damn.... :(

Why did my beloved gaming hobby have to go all to pieces? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[TrackZero]

Fuck this. This and that Elite crap make me want to stay away from the 360. The PS3's already out because it's ridiculously overpriced (as is the 360 IMHO), so it looks like it's the Wii or no gaming at all this gen. I don't even really care about the Wii right now either. Damn.... :(

Why did my beloved gaming hobby have to go all to pieces? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Why do you need the elite? Are you holding out from playing games unless it has HDMI? Why not just buy a 360 premium? (confused.)

[Johan]

Why did my beloved gaming hobby have to go all to pieces? $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

It really is horrible how expensive it is to get in on the action. If you want to get all five major platforms (PS3, 360, Wii, DS, PSP) you're looking at a minimum price of just over $1,300 with only the pack-in Wii Sports as a game. Then you're shelling out $50-70 for the three consoles' games (less for the handhelds, but still expensive).

The games do go down in price, thankfully, but it's still freaking expensive, and very depressing as a result. I don't know how a typical person can afford all the platforms, really...

[Xerxes]

It really is horrible how expensive it is to get in on the action. If you want to get all five major platforms (PS3, 360, Wii, DS, PSP) you're looking at a minimum price of just over $1,300 with only the pack-in Wii Sports as a game. Then you're shelling out $50-70 for the three consoles' games (less for the handhelds, but still expensive).

The games do go down in price, thankfully, but it's still freaking expensive, and very depressing as a result. I don't know how a typical person can afford all the platforms, really...

Then you add to the thing I fear with digital distribution. No depreciation in the price of games. No sales. I voiced it before but you just point out how much that one option could truly suck. No going down in price at all.

[Johan]

Then you add to the thing I fear with digital distribution. No depreciation in the price of games. No sales. I voiced it before but you just point out how much that one option could truly suck. No going down in price at all.

That's a good point. And add to that the fact that digital versions of disk-based games aren't cheaper to begin with...usually costing the same price as disk-based games...and without the ability of the consumer to resell the game in the future!

[Xerxes]

That's a good point. And add to that the fact that digital versions of disk-based games aren't cheaper to begin with...usually costing the same price as disk-based games...and without the ability of the consumer to resell the game in the future!

Games should go down a great deal in price when(I would say 'if' but that's where the signs are pointing) they go that route. I mean they cut out a great deal of middle man there. I mean $20+ is the price you would pay for a expansion pack in store. Why is it that much on Live? Sure as hell not passing the savings on to us. :(

[Jack B]

Has anyone seen the Microsoft/Epic contract yet? Since, I'm in software sales management I have to read and/or negotiate many million dollar plus contracts in the course of a year. Many posting in this thread don't read contracts of this type and are simplifying how these deals get structured.

I'm guessing no one on EvAv has seen the Microsoft/Epic contract. For the record, those contracts can be very long and contain specifics around things like:

1. Who makes how much money and on what products, sequels, downloadble content, accessories, marketing items (ie Lunch Boxes), who owns the movie rights, book rights, etc.
2. Who makes how much in what countries....
3. Who makes how much for how long (ie how many years if there are limitations)
4. What kind of incentives exisit for different revenue, profit, unit sales metrics etc.

These are just some of the pieces of a software development contract. The publishers often control many of the decisions.

Who knows, maybe Mark Rein gave away the rights to the profits on the downloadable content in return for some other consideration knowing full well, they wouldn't charge anyway. Then later issues a statement, that they want to give it away, but Microsoft won't let them. He looks like a good guy and Microsoft looks like greedy bastards. The catch is, in that scenario, it wasn't his "product" to give away.

Maybe Microsoft said, "OK, we'll give away the revenue/profits on the downloadable maps you were paid to produce in the contract, but you'll have to give back a percentage of your deal...".

Bottomline. 95% of the publishers out there have charged for their maps. Microsoft is getting shit on here, because Epic was a loose cannon. That's bullshit from a business partner perspective. I'd be pissed as hell if I were Microsoft. Any publisher would. Epic has a reputation for being controversal. This isn't changing it much.

I'd love to see the maps for free, but we don't know the full story here and I don't think we ever will.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Why do you need the elite? Are you holding out from playing games unless it has HDMI? Why not just buy a 360 premium? (confused.)

It has nothing to do with HDMI. I don't want to go into a big explanation, as I've already repeated myself on this a number of times. Basically I think that the price they are charging for a bigger HD is insane. The price of the current HD is already way too high, and now they are charging even more? On top of that it does nothing to fix the hardware problems that the current 360 has. Like I said before, I want a 360, but I do not want to support this kind of BS, and I don't want to buy a platform that has a reputation for dying an untimely death.

My main beef with the "Elite" is the price. It just seems completely unnecessary. I'd have no problem if it was $400. The 360 was already expensive, making it more so just seems like a bad move to me.


It really is horrible how expensive it is to get in on the action. If you want to get all five major platforms (PS3, 360, Wii, DS, PSP) you're looking at a minimum price of just over $1,300 with only the pack-in Wii Sports as a game. Then you're shelling out $50-70 for the three consoles' games (less for the handhelds, but still expensive).

The games do go down in price, thankfully, but it's still freaking expensive, and very depressing as a result. I don't know how a typical person can afford all the platforms, really...


Exactly. I paid around $1,200 dollars for a great PC in early 2002, when the PC market was still flooded with games that I wanted and really enjoyed playing. I also bought a Cube for $150. Between the two I got a ton of great gaming and had a the huge bonus of Internet access and all the other things you can do with a PC.

Now I'm not interested in where the PC market has gone, and there isn't one next-gen console that fulfills all of my gaming needs. Add to that the fact that the 360 and PS3 are both expensive, and it puts me in the unpleasant situation of holding off for price drops and missing out on a lot of great gaming in the process. I haven't been gaming much at all lately simply because I think it's all become way too expensive. I'm still playing my Cube, but there obviously isn't anything new there to entertain me, so once I finish a few more titles I'll be left high and dry until some serious price drops take place.

More than anything I'm just frustrated by all of this. I'd love to get a 360 and play on Live with you guys, but I can't in good conscience support stuff like this that I just don't agree with.




As some other posters have already mentioned, a lot of us called this when the 360 and the Marketplace was announced. I was very vocal then about how I knew this was going to lead to bad things and wasn't good for gamers. Here we are two years or so after Marketplace was announced, and there has been plenty of evidence that the MP wasn't such a great thing. Great content is one thing, but rewarding loyal customers has gone out the window in favor of charging for every little thing. As if a $10 increase in game prices and $50/year for who-knows-what wasn't enough.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

It's rather strange that earlier today I posted about how I've though about leaving the site, and then proceeded to make more posts in a single day than I have in quite some time - not to mention some very lengthy posts at that.

I think I need help. :p

[TrackZero]

It has nothing to do with HDMI. I don't want to go into a big explanation, as I've already repeated myself on this a number of times. Basically I think that the price they are charging for a bigger HD is insane. The price of the current HD is already way too high, and now they are charging even more? On top of that it does nothing to fix the hardware problems that the current 360 has. Like I said before, I want a 360, but I do not want to support this kind of BS, and I don't want to buy a platform that has a reputation for dying an untimely death.

My main beef with the "Elite" is the price. It just seems completely unnecessary. I'd have no problem if it was $400. The 360 was already expensive, making it more so just seems like a bad move to me.


Ah. Well, I guess I can understand. It's definitely a silly move on their part, but it doesn't change the system or the games. It's just another SKU. At this point, if I didn't own one, I'd be waiting until the fall anyways for the 65nm processor 360s to come out.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Ah. Well, I guess I can understand. It's definitely a silly move on their part, but it doesn't change the system or the games. It's just another SKU. At this point, if I didn't own one, I'd be waiting until the fall anyways for the 65nm processor 360s to come out.


That's what I'm waiting for. I'm disappointed that the Elite doesn't have the new processor and (hopefully) quieter drive. Without those it seems unnecessary, especially at a higher price.

[TrackZero]

That's what I'm waiting for. I'm disappointed that the Elite doesn't have the new processor and (hopefully) quieter drive. Without those it seems unnecessary, especially at a higher price.

Yup. MS is letting it's greed get in the way on this one, and it may cost them what they could have had. Though most sales for the year won't kick back in until the fall anyways, so having a "limited edition" version to ride them through the summer may not be that stupid after all. But it certainly doesn't help the consumer.

[Xerxes]

Has anyone seen the Microsoft/Epic contract yet? Since, I'm in software sales management I have to read and/or negotiate many million dollar plus contracts in the course of a year. Many posting in this thread don't read contracts of this type and are simplifying how these deals get structured.

I'm guessing no one on EvAv has seen the Microsoft/Epic contract. For the record, those contracts can be very long and contain specifics around things like:

1. Who makes how much money and on what products, sequels, downloadble content, accessories, marketing items (ie Lunch Boxes), who owns the movie rights, book rights, etc.
2. Who makes how much in what countries....
3. Who makes how much for how long (ie how many years if there are limitations)
4. What kind of incentives exisit for different revenue, profit, unit sales metrics etc.

These are just some of the pieces of a software development contract. The publishers often control many of the decisions.

Who knows, maybe Mark Rein gave away the rights to the profits on the downloadable content in return for some other consideration knowing full well, they wouldn't charge anyway. Then later issues a statement, that they want to give it away, but Microsoft won't let them. He looks like a good guy and Microsoft looks like greedy bastards. The catch is, in that scenario, it wasn't his "product" to give away.

Maybe Microsoft said, "OK, we'll give away the revenue/profits on the downloadable maps you were paid to produce in the contract, but you'll have to give back a percentage of your deal...".

Bottomline. 95% of the publishers out there have charged for their maps. Microsoft is getting shit on here, because Epic was a loose cannon. That's bullshit from a business partner perspective. I'd be pissed as hell if I were Microsoft. Any publisher would. Epic has a reputation for being controversal. This isn't changing it much.

I'd love to see the maps for free, but we don't know the full story here and I don't think we ever will.

Like I said the publisher MS is understandable. But we are all thinking it's Live MS that wants to force paying for stuff on us.

[xarmerlyn]

So a game makes hardware sales for you, gets tons of subscribers into your micro transaction revenue stream, but then you don't allow them to support their release as they have supported their previous titles? I guess 2 big wins isn't as sweet as 3 big wins. Heck, charge a bunch for a HD which they will pay again to fill with content. Revenue within revenue, perfect.

It's getting so I can't contemplate buying any of the next gen systems.

[Heretic Machine]

Has anyone seen the Microsoft/Epic contract yet? Since, I'm in software sales management I have to read and/or negotiate many million dollar plus contracts in the course of a year. Many posting in this thread don't read contracts of this type and are simplifying how these deals get structured.

I'm guessing no one on EvAv has seen the Microsoft/Epic contract. For the record, those contracts can be very long and contain specifics around things like:

1. Who makes how much money and on what products, sequels, downloadble content, accessories, marketing items (ie Lunch Boxes), who owns the movie rights, book rights, etc.
2. Who makes how much in what countries....
3. Who makes how much for how long (ie how many years if there are limitations)
4. What kind of incentives exisit for different revenue, profit, unit sales metrics etc.

These are just some of the pieces of a software development contract. The publishers often control many of the decisions.

Who knows, maybe Mark Rein gave away the rights to the profits on the downloadable content in return for some other consideration knowing full well, they wouldn't charge anyway. Then later issues a statement, that they want to give it away, but Microsoft won't let them. He looks like a good guy and Microsoft looks like greedy bastards. The catch is, in that scenario, it wasn't his "product" to give away.

Maybe Microsoft said, "OK, we'll give away the revenue/profits on the downloadable maps you were paid to produce in the contract, but you'll have to give back a percentage of your deal...".

Bottomline. 95% of the publishers out there have charged for their maps. Microsoft is getting shit on here, because Epic was a loose cannon. That's bullshit from a business partner perspective. I'd be pissed as hell if I were Microsoft. Any publisher would. Epic has a reputation for being controversal. This isn't changing it much.

I'd love to see the maps for free, but we don't know the full story here and I don't think we ever will.

Again... companies that produce content for games that aren't published by Microsoft are always being strong-armed to charge for content that they want to release for free. This has nothing to do with the profits from GoW content, this has everything to do with conditioning people to pay for stuff that they would normally be getting for free, because Microsoft has a monopoly on the 360 platform. I'd love to see them try this shit on the PC, I really would, see how far they get there.

[Mark Rein]

Folks,

I think you guys are blowing this up into something bigger than it is. Please listen to the entire podcast before jumping to conclusions.

What we have here is simply a difference of opinion on how to maximize the return on Gears of War - something both Epic and Microsoft want to do. While we create products like Gears because we love games, and we have a passion for making them, at the end of the day this is a business for both companies and how we earn our living.

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. They did this with the original Halo2 map pack and it was a huge success. Lots of people bought the maps and lots of people downloaded them when they became free. That’s what is going to happen and it seems like a fair compromise for both companies and a win-win for Gears players.

Why does Epic not have control over this even though we created this content on our own time and our own dime? Quite frankly Xbox Live Marketplace isn’t our store. It’s Microsoft’s store. Like any retailer they have the right to figure out what goes on the shelves of their store and what price they sell it at. They spend the money to operate the store and deliver the content. They’ve also spent billions of dollars to create and build Xbox and subsidize it’s the price so you can afford it and we can make games for it. As our publisher, they also invested tens of millions of dollars marketing Gears of War, and have done an awesome job for us, so they have a right to a good return on that investment.

As Tim Sweeney and I said in the podcast, we want the download economy to work – it is something the industry needs, something we hope to use in the future, something that will help bring more variety to end-users and ultimately could help bring prices down for end-users. If we had to put this map pack on a disc and sell it in retail it would be more expensive to end-users and maybe we wouldn't have done it because of all the extra work and cost involved.

In the mean time we are planning to bring out an awesome new Gears of War multi-player gametype called Annex that works will all of the existing multi-player maps and the new pack we're talking about here. The 1UP guys who got to play it a few weeks ago left the office raving about how it could be our best Gears gametype yet and I think a lot of people will enjoy it. Best of all, it is totally FREE and will come in the new Gears update that we expect to see released this week.

[Gorvi]

My god it is so nice to see a post like that, Mark. I'm not a huge fan of the games you guys do (they're not really my main genre of interst), but you guys have my respect in every way for the way you communicate with the community.

[fitbabits]

Folks,

I think you guys are blowing this up into something bigger than it is. Please listen to the entire podcast before jumping to conclusions.

What we have here is simply a difference of opinion on how to maximize the return on Gears of War - something both Epic and Microsoft want to do. While we create products like Gears because we love games, and we have a passion for making them, at the end of the day this is a business for both companies and how we earn our living.

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. They did this with the original Halo2 map pack and it was a huge success. Lots of people bought the maps and lots of people downloaded them when they became free. That’s what is going to happen and it seems like a fair compromise for both companies and a win-win for Gears players.

Why does Epic not have control over this even though we created this content on our own time and our own dime? Quite frankly Xbox Live Marketplace isn’t our store. It’s Microsoft’s store. Like any retailer they have the right to figure out what goes on the shelves of their store and what price they sell it at. They spend the money to operate the store and deliver the content. They’ve also spent billions of dollars to create and build Xbox and subsidize it’s the price so you can afford it and we can make games for it. As our publisher, they also invested tens of millions of dollars marketing Gears of War, and have done an awesome job for us, so they have a right to a good return on that investment.

As Tim Sweeney and I said in the podcast, we want the download economy to work – it is something the industry needs, something we hope to use in the future, something that will help bring more variety to end-users and ultimately could help bring prices down for end-users. If we had to put this map pack on a disc and sell it in retail it would be more expensive to end-users and maybe we wouldn't have done it because of all the extra work and cost involved.

In the mean time we are planning to bring out an awesome new Gears of War multi-player gametype called Annex that works will all of the existing multi-player maps and the new pack we're talking about here. The 1UP guys who got to play it a few weeks ago left the office raving about how it could be our best Gears gametype yet and I think a lot of people will enjoy it. Best of all, it is totally FREE and will come in the new Gears update that we expect to see released this week.
Thanks for the clarification, and also for taking the time to inform the community. It's greatly appreciated.

[Johan]

Mark Rein: Awesome! Taking the time to let us know directly, and working so hard to forge a pretty happy compromise with the maps...one which will make everyone happy except the crankiest amongst us, I'm sure...really says a lot. I for one appreciate your dropping in here to let us know. It does not go unnoticed, and it is appreciated.

Keep up the good work. GoW is terrific. Now, get busy on GoW2 already!!! ;)

[Jack B]

Mark, gotta love your willingness to step up and address your fans. And believe me, you have a ton of Gears fans on this site! Like many I've logged 50 hours or more.

You're probably painfully aware of this already, but even the slightest bit of information given to the media and/or internet gaming forums gets ripped to pieces. Conclusions are drawn faster than a chainsaw through a Horde. It's painfull to watch some of conclusions drawn without the facts.

Also, glad you re-inforced the "this is a business" message. Until I see every developer, both good and bad generating 2x typical earnings, I'd say we're being charged what is typically fair for the costs of getting a game to the consumer. Costs associated with getting games to consumers are not trivial, although many here think all publishers and developers are "rolling" in the profits. It's easy to make games... Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Epic's post game support is... well... Epic and Gears is a value to me whether the extra content is ultimately charged for or not! I'm fine either way. Keep up the good work!

You've been rewarded financially with Gears, but there are no guarantee's in the business and every title has risk associated with it. I'd imagine it's not as easy as it looks.

PS - I should listen to the podcast and will.

[Serapth]

Nah, nah, I was right!

That is all. ;)


Nice post Mark.

[Xerxes]

Holy shit, I didn't think summoning Mark Rein would actually work.

[the soUL TRAder]

Ditto on the high level of respect for the post MarkRein, thanks for the time.

Makes me want to run out and find a good deal on Gears :D.

Anyway, I appreciate, as a consumer, that you'll take the time to share the challenges of making great games while still paying mortgages; sometimes it's a hard sell to consumers who seem to want it all, want it all free and still want to tell you how bad it was when done. Nice to see you're still willing to give it a try. GoodFortune to Epic!, I says.

[Dag-Sabot]

ok and now for the counter point.. I summon: Bill gates!

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

I am glad to hear of the solution, which I think is great.

There shouldn't have been an Epic versus MS situation though. People have to realize that there are costs associated with delivering "Free" content. There is the cost of distribution, but also of testing, verifying the content for quality and security, and patching it later (possibly several times). Those are costs that MS is expected to eat, and they should have the ability to say that they don't want the costs of "free" tossed into their realm. It's not unreasonable.

What it comes off as is that one side is willing to do something for free, and tells fans that they would do it for free, while foisting the costs onto another party.

It's all live and learn for everyone; the developer, the publisher, and the customer. Personally, I prefer to pay for good content. I like "free", but I also don't mind paying for things I enjoy. Doing that is exactly what makes more of that content available.

[Xerxes]

As Tim Sweeney and I said in the podcast, we want the download economy to work – it is something the industry needs, something we hope to use in the future, something that will help bring more variety to end-users and ultimately could help bring prices down for end-users. If we had to put this map pack on a disc and sell it in retail it would be more expensive to end-users and maybe we wouldn't have done it because of all the extra work and cost involved.

Well that download economy needs price drops. Doing it for GoW maps is awesome but after a while a good chunk of that stuff should be free or lowered in price. More so if Epic's high quality stuff can head in that direction.

[karak]

Since these maps WOULDN"T have been included in the game without delaying it, I have no PROBLEM PAYING FOR IT WHATSOEVER.

[Xerxes]

ok and now for the counter point.. I summon: Bill gates!
Pffft. We've seen Mark around before when speculation on Epic run wild. I figured he would be here in matter of time. I wonder however if you went lower on the food chain, say summoning Peter Moore. I could see him showing off his tats on forums. :rolleyes:

[Jack B]

I am glad to hear of the solution, which I think is great.

There shouldn't have been an Epic versus MS situation though. People have to realize that there are costs associated with delivering "Free" content. There is the cost of distribution, but also of testing, verifying the content for quality and security, and patching it later (possibly several times). Those are costs that MS is expected to eat, and they should have the ability to say that they don't want the costs of "free" tossed into their realm. It's not unreasonable.

What it comes off as is that one side is willing to do something for free, and tells fans that they would do it for free, while foisting the costs onto another party.

It's all live and learn for everyone; the developer, the publisher, and the customer. Personally, I prefer to pay for good content. I like "free", but I also don't mind paying for things I enjoy. Doing that is exactly what makes more of that content available.

Trazzlo, I've been meaning to say this for a while, but I'm often really impressed with your posts. Well said.

[bean19]

Perigon - Would you like some shit-sauce on your crow?

Dag-Sabot - We get quite a few developers on Evil Avatar, but I don't think I've ever read a big-wig publisher on here.

[Xerxes]

Perigon - Would you like some shit-sauce on your crow?

Dag-Sabot - We get quite a few developers on Evil Avatar, but I don't think I've ever read a big-wig publisher on here.

Pfft. Perigon will come on here and tell Mark to shove it and that MS is wrong for tricking them into not letting it go for free in the beginning. :rolleyes:

[Heretic Machine]

Nah, nah, I was right!

That is all. ;)


Nice post Mark.

Uh, no you weren't dude. He just confirmed what I was talking about, in the nicest way possible. Microsoft is refusing to put free items up for download if they feel that it would benefit them to price it. He said nothing about the maps being Microsoft's property, which is essentially what you and others were implying with your talk about Microsoft being the publisher of GoW. So, ya, I was right, Microsoft is abusing their role as the owner of the only distribution center for digital XBOX 360 content.

But whatever, I'm dropping the subject for now.

Why does Epic not have control over this even though we created this content on our own time and our own dime? Quite frankly Xbox Live Marketplace isn’t our store. It’s Microsoft’s store.

[Xerxes]

I was close. Perigon still came back as being right.

[Heretic Machine]

I was close. Perigon still came back as being right.

Well, if you can quote anything out of Mark Rein's post that supports the theory about publisher's rights to digital content, go for it. His post directly confirmed what I said: Microsoft is cock-blocking free content because they control Live, and there are no other options available to people. They're being assholes.

I was wrong about one thing though: I'm apparently not dropping the subject. Imagine, if you will, that a game company decided to put a free insert into their game boxes that would allow you to go onto their website, type in a code, and get free content. But Wal-mart said, "Fuck no, you can't put free shit up in here. I mean, that paper you printed the codes on, it costs money to transport, how are we going to be reimbursed for the gazillions of dollars each gram of paper takes to move to the store? And if you start putting free shit in your boxes, people will expect free shit in every box. It will get out of control in no time! Shit, you're going to have to bump up the price by a few bucks if you want us to carry it."

And the developer was like, "This is madness!"

"This is RETAIL!"

[Xerxes]

Well, if you can quote anything out of Mark Rein's post that supports the theory about publisher's rights to digital content, go for it. His post directly confirmed what I said: Microsoft is cock-blocking free content because they control Live, and there are no other options available to people. They're being assholes.

I was wrong about one thing though: I'm apparently not dropping the subject.

Your right. He didn't specify if Live is being greedy, or if the publisher just wants to be more profitable. I would still say it's publisher MS cause if it were up to Live, prices would hold regardless. Never becoming free.

[Heretic Machine]

Your right. He didn't specify if Live is being greedy, or if the publisher just wants to be more profitable. I would still say it's publisher MS cause if it were up to Live, prices would hold regardless. Never becoming free.

Well, he actually did say specifically that they were enforcing their rights as the owners of the distribution medium, and said nothing about them being the publishers. That is pretty telling right there, especially with all of the other rumors from other developers.

By the way, back on the subject of a publisher's rights to digital content: It would have to be a damn specific contract to keep people from releasing it, without direct control over the distribution of said content (as Microsoft has). Last I checked, you can modify any game you like, however you like, as long as it isn't for profit and you don't infringe on anyone's copyrights. So, making a map for GoW shouldn't be in any way illegal for anyone, as long as they don't sell said maps, and they don't distribute any of the art assets that were originally in the game.

[Tyrant]

To be fair, it does cost money to host the bandwidth needed to transfer an amount of data potentially beyond terabytes. Didn't the first map pack clock in at about 70mb?
With up to 2 million downloads for something like that, I wouldn't want to see the next month's bandwidth bill. Of course, if there was a peer to peer delivery system setup, this would be a moot point.

I think I can also see the two sides of a coin between a dev and publisher when it comes to content. The dev may want to release free content so that when it comes to the future, the consumer will think, "hey, company X has always rocked in the post release free content category, so I'll probably buy their new game at full price", which is very true for Epic games. Where as the publisher may be thinking in the here and now, as charging even $1 per download could generate upwards of $2 million in revenue.

[Trazzlo the Magnificant]

Well, if you can quote anything out of Mark Rein's post that supports the theory about publisher's rights to digital content, go for it. His post directly confirmed what I said: Microsoft is cock-blocking free content because they control Live, and there are no other options available to people. They're being assholes.
Being an asshole is nothing more than expecting you to pay for something of value? I find that odd. Self centered even.

They aren't cock-blocking anything. They have the ability as publisher to have a say in how items will be billed for. You are assigning "Asshole" status to them without having heard their side; you want and demand "free" and any opposition is declared an asshole.

Why not see that they carry the costs of the delivery system? They aren't 3rd party bystanders with nothing to do but screw with Epic. At the very least I assumed that they would have the bean counters put a tally together of how much it actually costs to deliver "free" content, and have Epic pay that. But, it depends a lot on how many people download it, how many have problems, how many times it goes through the QA program that all XBox Live content has to undergo.

And, there are probably limited resources for QA. For each one of these "free" projects that has to undergo testing there are other new paid for games that get bumped off. So, it's not fair to simply say MS has no stake in this. Looks to me like they carry a ton of the costs to giving you "free" stuff.

This should have all been part of the original negotiations. It probably was (how expansions or add on content are made available, who pays which part etc). If that agreement wasn't there or was deficient in handling this case, then they need to work it out. Thats the Live-and-Learn part I was talking about in my earlier post.

Trazzlo, I've been meaning to say this for a while, but I'm often really impressed with your posts. Well said.
Thanks Jack!

[UnderHero5]

To be fair, it does cost money to host the bandwidth needed to transfer an amount of data potentially beyond terabytes. Didn't the first map pack clock in at about 70mb?
With up to 2 million downloads for something like that, I wouldn't want to see the next month's bandwidth bill. Of course, if there was a peer to peer delivery system setup, this would be a moot point.
Or if only people already paid 50 bucks a year for Live... oh wait.
If people are using their bandwidth to host online games on their local machines... then shouldn't their 50 bucks a year at least cover the bandwidth of downloadable content?

[Heretic Machine]

Being an asshole is nothing more than expecting you to pay for something of value?

When you didn't fucking make it and own no rights to it, ya, that is being an asshole.

They aren't cock-blocking anything. They have the ability as publisher to have a say in how items will be billed for.

This is in no way related to them being the publisher of GoW.

You are assigning "Asshole" status to them without having heard their side; you want and demand "free" and any opposition is declared an asshole.

I want Epic to be able to distribute content that they make at any price that they want.

Why not see that they carry the costs of the delivery system?

I have paid them $100 over the past two years to cover that. I want my money back.

[VTBlue]

DISCLAIMER: I'm a Microsoft Employee. The following are my personal opinions, not those of the company or the XBox Team

This whole situation smells of redtape. I'm gonna be finding out the genius who's pushing back. Tragic, I'll pretend you didn't just make this statement. The benefit and goodwill of releasing a map for free far outweigh the INSIGNIFICANT cost of hosting a fucking 3-30MB download, especially if the PUBLISHER wants to.

In contrast, charging makes sense for items like bonus songs for Guitar Hero II because there is an associated cost for copyrighted material (HUGE).

Sorry i'm pissed.


What makes you think it's free for Microsoft to host it and distribute it? In the end, someone has to pay for the storage, bandwidth, cpu time, etc.

I would assume that Microsoft doesn't charge developers or publishers for every free download that is out there.

[TrackZero]

DISCLAIMER: I'm a Microsoft Employee. The following are my personal opinions, not those of the company or the XBox Team

This whole situation smells of redtape. I'm gonna be finding out the genius who's pushing back. Tragic, I'll pretend you didn't just make this statement. The benefit and goodwill of releasing a map for free far outweigh the INSIGNIFICANT cost of hosting a fucking 3-30MB download, especially if the PUBLISHER wants to.

In contrast, charging makes sense for items like bonus songs for Guitar Hero II because there is an associated cost for copyrighted material (HUGE).

Sorry i'm pissed.

That doesn't make any sense. Why is it ok for Red Octane to charge for content and not MS, they're both game publishers. There's no difference. Beyond the fact that if Red Octane posts songs for free, it costs them nothing, while if MS does, they're the ones paying for the hosting (and hosting DOES cost fucking money, don't just laugh it off) and QA. Your logic is bunk.

Now, if anything the Gears maps should be free to Gold subscribers. This is a perfect example of when they should be doing that. Gold subs will play online anyways, and any silver members who want the maps for LAN play can pay for them. Case closed.

Edit: And to add on to what you just edited in your post:
3MB x 500k downloads = 1.5 Terrabytes of traffic.

Edit Edit:

Secondly, it's not 3MB. The last map pack (which was 2 fucking maps) is 99MB big. So let's see...4 new maps, and let's even be nice on this and say they're only 150MB together (instead of 200). And I'm only using 500k downloads, even though gears sold a lot more than that.

150MB x 500k download = 75 Terrabytes.

So, how about you use your head and do some math before you go spouting off next time "MS employee".

Edit Edit Edit:

And welcome to EvAv. ;)

[bean19]

That doesn't make any sense. Why is it ok for Red Octane to charge for content and not MS, they're both game publishers. There's no difference. Beyond the fact that if Red Octane posts songs for free, it costs them nothing, while if MS does, they're the ones paying for the hosting (and hosting DOES cost fucking money, don't just laugh it off) and QA. Your logic is bunk.

It does cost Red Octane to post songs. Beyond the programming and testing to make the content playable on Guitar Hero 2, they also have to pay the original owner of the song for the rights to use it in their game.

[TrackZero]

It does cost Red Octane to post songs. Beyond the programming and testing to make the content playable on Guitar Hero 2, they also have to pay the original owner of the song for the rights to use it in their game.

Content issues aren't part of this discussion, it was merely an example company. Don't be literal.

[bean19]

Content issues aren't part of this discussion, it was merely an example company. Don't be literal.

This was the point that the person was making about Red Octane's additional songs. Did you read their post all the way through? You appear to be ignoring the major point to create a strawman. . . not like you to go off half-cocked TrackZero.

[Jack B]

Just a side note. Every day in every software publisher and developer are people who believe XYZ product is too expensive or not expensive enough or should be free or should be charged for....

The reason for all the fuss here is that 99% of the time those discussions remain inside information. They don't publish the votes. They don't say, "Phil Harrison thought $30 was plenty but Kaz thought $60 and Ken thought it should be $70...".

These discussions happen ALL the time internally in the offices of a publisher/developer. Believe me if you spend 2 years making a game you don't spend 10 minutes deciding on pricing. Many many meetings happen with many differing opinions. That information is not supposed to be discussed on podcasts or in articles.

Blaming some else publically is called, "throwing someone under the bus". I really don't think the intent was to throw Microsoft under the bus, but if the reason given for not yet allowing free content was Microsoft, then yes, they were thrown under the bus. Just look at all the knee jerk reactions. Epic is the good guy, Microsoft is run over by the bus.

Let's start a thread ripping the shit out of all the companies that charge for extra content. Why single out any one company? Every company that charges for a product has people who believe it should be free.

Last note: We still haven't seen the contract and we won't. We don't know all the particulars and there are typically a lot of particulars. Lawyers can have a field day dissecting a contract when nit picking over who did what to whom and who got the better end of a "deal". The Microsoft and Epic contract, despite what Perigon say's he knows has not been made public and won't be.

If you ever own a store and pay the overhead for that store, then you too can decide which products you'd like to sell. Free ones sit next to the cash register. There typically aren't too many free things in stores I frequent. I never thought to give them shit about giving shelf space to things that cost money. Maybe, I should rethink my position and start picketing Walmart.

Lastly, my position is with Mark Rein. I think the Gears franchise would be better served with the free content, although I don't have access to the financial models that are causing Microsoft to recommend charging. I just think there are too many jumping to conclusions with only one side of the story and very little real factual information.

[VTBlue]

FYI: I have to put that disclaimer, no need to be snooty. :confused:

Thanks for doing the math, I'll finish the equation. A simple look at various hosting cost, I'll use GoDaddy for example:

Premium Plan: $12/mo for 2TBtransfers *38 plans *12 months =~ $5500. Hell, I'll factor in the cost for quality of service on the bandwidth at an unrealistic 3 times = $11,500. This isn't alot of money for any AAA publisher. That's like a fraction of an Ad deal.

Thanks for the warm reception ;) I'm a long time reader, never bothered posting, I think i'll reevaluate that and start posting more.

I think my opinion is to do what is right for the customer. The fact that Mark Rein pinged in and said that the stuff will eventually be free does comfort me. Both parties seemed to have made a fair compromise, I just wish I didn't have to read the negative headlines.

Good idea on the gold subscription.



That doesn't make any sense. Why is it ok for Red Octane to charge for content and not MS, they're both game publishers. There's no difference. Beyond the fact that if Red Octane posts songs for free, it costs them nothing, while if MS does, they're the ones paying for the hosting (and hosting DOES cost fucking money, don't just laugh it off) and QA. Your logic is bunk.

Now, if anything the Gears maps should be free to Gold subscribers. This is a perfect example of when they should be doing that. Gold subs will play online anyways, and any silver members who want the maps for LAN play can pay for them. Case closed.

Edit: And to add on to what you just edited in your post:
3MB x 500k downloads = 1.5 Terrabytes of traffic.

Edit Edit:

Secondly, it's not 3MB. The last map pack (which was 2 fucking maps) is 99MB big. So let's see...4 new maps, and let's even be nice on this and say they're only 150MB together (instead of 200). And I'm only using 500k downloads, even though gears sold a lot more than that.

150MB x 500k download = 75 Terrabytes.

So, how about you use your head and do some math before you go spouting off next time "MS employee".

Edit Edit Edit:

And welcome to EvAv. ;)

[Heretic Machine]

I want to make this clear, once again. This has nothing to do with me having objections to paying for content, I have none. If content is good and at a reasonable price, I have no problem paying for it. If it is not, I simply won't buy it. This is irrelevant to the discussion. My problem, the real problem with this, is that Microsoft is demonstrating that they will strong-arm companies when they WANT to give me something for free, and will force them into setting a price just so that Microsoft can justify the cost of other content in their network, which may or may not be worth it. The danger here is that one day the PC market may die, and closed networks like XBOX Live may be the only place we can play games online. Microsoft has proven that they are more than willing to push developers around if given the chance, and that leads to a grim future in this hobby, my friends. A future where the creator of the leading platform gets to call all the shots, period.

[Johan]

This has been an interesting discussion. I'm very happy with the compromise that was reached of a timed-charge release of the maps; pay for early use of them, or wait a few months and get them for free. That's a pretty good deal, and very fair in my opinion, if that's how it ends up shaking out.

Kudos again to Mark for actually stopping in to set the story straight, as well.

If you ever own a store and pay the overhead for that store, then you too can decide which products you'd like to sell. Free ones sit next to the cash register. There typically aren't too many free things in stores I frequent. I never thought to give them shit about giving shelf space to things that cost money. Maybe, I should rethink my position and start picketing Wal-mart.

A very effective analogy. Very clear and logical.

[TrackZero]

This was the point that the person was making about Red Octane's additional songs. Did you read their post all the way through? You appear to be ignoring the major point to create a strawman. . . not like you to go off half-cocked TrackZero.

Hrm. That part must have been edited before I hit the quote button, it wasn't there before. Regardless, my points weren't referring to that. Nor should someone be expecting that all content should be "free" simply on the merit that it didn't need to be licensed from a 3rd party. That's just silly.

[TrackZero]

FYI: I have to put that disclaimer, no need to be snooty. :confused:

Thanks for doing the math, I'll finish the equation. A simple look at various hosting cost, I'll use GoDaddy for example:

Premium Plan: $12/mo for 2TBtransfers *38 plans *12 months =~ $5500. Hell, I'll factor in the cost for quality of service on the bandwidth at an unrealistic 3 times = $11,500. This isn't alot of money for any AAA publisher. That's like a fraction of an Ad deal.

That's the cost that GoDaddy offers for web hosting. That doesn't mean they're on a good provider, what their SLA is for ping times or speed, etc. When a company buys their own pipes, bandwidth costs can be surprisingly high depending on the backbone network you're with.


Thanks for the warm reception ;) I'm a long time reader, never bothered posting, I think i'll reevaluate that and start posting more.

I think my opinion is to do what is right for the customer. The fact that Mark Rein pinged in and said that the stuff will eventually be free does comfort me. Both parties seemed to have made a fair compromise, I just wish I didn't have to read the negative headlines.

Good idea on the gold subscription.

Welcome aboard (for real). The more the merrier. My snarkiness was just because your initial comment seemed to dismiss costs too easily, and as someone who's been working in the hosting industry for a long time (web hosting as well as other types companies), I just wanted to point out it's not as cut and dry as many assume.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Blaming some else publically is called, "throwing someone under the bus". I really don't think the intent was to throw Microsoft under the bus, but if the reason given for not yet allowing free content was Microsoft, then yes, they were thrown under the bus. Just look at all the knee jerk reactions. Epic is the good guy, Microsoft is run over by the bus.


Um, maybe that's because Microsoft IS the company preventing the content from being free? I know you don't like to see anyone say bad things about MS, but they are clearly the company here that is charging for the Gears content. Epic wants it to be free, MS wants to charge for it. Period.


Edit - Oh, kudos to Mark for stopping by and clearing some things up. Always great to see developers participating in the forums. Unless it's Zanzibar of course. ;)
that damn commie...

[Magnanimous Gnome]

The danger here is that one day the PC market may die, and closed networks like XBOX Live may be the only place we can play games online. Microsoft has proven that they are more than willing to push developers around if given the chance, and that leads to a grim future in this hobby, my friends. A future where the creator of the leading platform gets to call all the shots, period.


Exactly.

Look at what happened when Nintendo was on top and pretty much the only game in town - they bullied around the developers, the retailers, and the customers. We really don't need to get back into a situation like that, but that's the kind of thing MS has been doing in small (but significant) steps with Live.

[Jack B]

Um, maybe that's because Microsoft IS the company preventing the content from being free? I know you don't like to see anyone say bad things about MS, but they are clearly the company here that is charging for the Gears content. Epic wants it to be free, MS wants to charge for it. Period.


Edit - Oh, kudos to Mark for stopping by and clearing some things up. Always great to see developers participating in the forums. Unless it's Zanzibar of course. ;)
that damn commie...

Magnanimous, read my post history. I give Microsoft grief when I feel they deserve it.

As for this issue. Read my posts on this topic again. I side with Mark Rein and do not, I repeat, DO NOT agree with Microsoft on this issue. Having said that, I don't side with Mark Rein/Tim Sweeney for throwing Microsoft under the bus. That's not professional.

As for people over reacting. I believe they are. There have likely been dozens of these internal debates found in the offices of Konami, Capcom, Ubisoft, Bethesda, Electronic Arts, etc, etc. The reason this is and issue, is because Epic executives did a podcast and aired the internal discussions. We get one side to the story and everyone wants to jump down Microsoft's throat. You may think you know the whole story. I don't. Microsoft likely has more to say on this topic. My guess is they'll take the high road and not comment in public.

[Jack B]

This has been an interesting discussion. I'm very happy with the compromise that was reached of a timed-charge release of the maps; pay for early use of them, or wait a few months and get them for free. That's a pretty good deal, and very fair in my opinion, if that's how it ends up shaking out.

Kudos again to Mark for actually stopping in to set the story straight, as well.

Johan, Ditto. Kudos for Mark posting his side. And I think they did a pretty decent job on a compromise as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jack B
If you ever own a store and pay the overhead for that store, then you too can decide which products you'd like to sell. Free ones sit next to the cash register. There typically aren't too many free things in stores I frequent. I never thought to give them shit about giving shelf space to things that cost money. Maybe, I should rethink my position and start picketing Wal-mart.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johan123
A very effective analogy. Very clear and logical

Thanks.

[pacman]

I just read this whole thread and the only questions I'm left with are how much will they cost? and will that be too high (imo) for me to shell out the cash?

[TrackZero]

I just read this whole thread and the only questions I'm left with are how much will they cost? and will that be too high (imo) for me to shell out the cash?

I'd be surprised if a 4 map pack costed more than $12 (most likely 8).

[Pluvious]

Factor in MS greed and you get $10-15.

[mister_slim]

It'll be interesting to see how this type of thing goes with Sony and UT3. Since Epic will probably be hosting their own servers, I imagine they won't have this roadblock. Another advantage of competition, I guess. Now if only Nintendo would open up a bit.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Hey JackB - I wanted to apologize for my comments towards you yesterday. I was a little intoxicated, not that that is an excuse at all. Sorry man, I shouldn't have accused you of bias like I did.

[Ancalagon]

Running with the store analogy, maybe I sell ice cream cones at a price. Now I have a very good supplier of ice cream cones, who says that, if I sell his cones, he will give me free ice cream to put in them. So what do I do? I sell his cones, and I allow people free ice cream if they buy one of the manufacturers cones.

He wins - he sells more cones through me. I win - his deal, offered through me, gets me more business, because I know if someone wants ice cream they might also want chocolate.

So the argument that MS wont stand to benefit if it doesnt sell the content doesnt hold water in my opinion.

Someone else is doing this now, dunno if you guys have noticed.

Valve.

Who here has played HL2 and HL2 - Episode 1? Episode 1 was the most disappointing thing I have ever seen. At nearly the full cost of HL2, you get a piddly 4 hours of gameplay, with no new weapons, and some rethinks of monsters. Barely any new textures are far as I could see. Now I know why Valve did that. They spent a lot of money on developing HL2, and it didnt sell as well as they hoped. So they want to get more money from the franchise. So they use the same engine they have been working on, much of the same content, and release a game that could easily have been part of the first or released for free. I know HL2E1 has got good reviews, but after Steam and then this, I'll never touch Valve again, I dont know if anyone else agrees.

And I think that is what Microsoft is all about. Its customer lock in. You cant buy Sony games for an XBox, so when you buy an XBox, you are agreeing to spend more money with Microsoft. When you buy a map pack from the net, you also have to have bought the original game, and how much money do you think MS stands to make from them, given that they paid to develop the original game but not any map packs?

[Johan]

It's a business. It's a BIG business. They're all in it to make money. The key is you DON'T have to part with your money if you DON'T want to!

Buy it or not...but the CHOICE is your own.

[Jack B]

Hey JackB - I wanted to apologize for my comments towards you yesterday. I was a little intoxicated, not that that is an excuse at all. Sorry man, I shouldn't have accused you of bias like I did.

Magamimous, you sir are a gentleman and a scholar! Thank you! :)

I try very hard to give credit where credit is due, but I make mistakes. On the whole I prefer the 360 because it meets my particular needs and I like the vision, but I can list a ton of features of the Wii, PC and PS3 platforms, that I like better. It's all shades of gray for me.

Sometimes, I do come across as having bias, so I understand, but I really do try to be fair. No harm no foul.