Microsoft and Bungie just annonced the first map pack for Halo 3 called the Heroic Map Pack. It will be available on december 11, 3 levels for 800 points. Images inside.
What's wrong with 3 maps for $10? Seriously, I want people to nail down what is wrong with that. None of us knows how good these maps are. Would you rather have 10 maps that all sucked and only have to pay $5?
Also, if the attempts to get more money out of PC gamers continues to fail, so will that market. PC has been bringing in less money for game publishers year after year. If PC gamers refuse to pay for little things like this, they won't be able to offset development costs much longer. For example, I have no doubt that Crysis has bombed hard, and that EA has lost millions on that game.
Halo 3 has pretty good netcode. I've never had any instance of something happening like Grift mentioned. It's not perfect of course, but I can't think of any game on consoles or PC that has perfect netplay (because it's impossible).
Anyways, I find it hilarious that people are calling these maps 'shitty' or 'any kid' could make, you haven't played them and you probably don't have any interest to do so...
Its about £6.50 by my estimates. A little over £2 per map.
Its being published by the richest company in the world (who didn't get there by giving things away) and you're blaming them for trying to make money? People will pay, MS make them pay. Simple as that.
You don't want to pay, don't pay. Prove the point, and stop whining about how you're "forced" to pay. What BS is that?
And has everyone forgotten how you had to pay 500points for 3 songs on GH2? Thats still far worse in my mind.
I don't even have live, so it makes no difference to me.
It amazes me how some people just don't get it. They don't get how this divides communities--they don't get how Epic has managed to maximize profits for years by being good to their fan base and giving back to that community when they can. It amazes me that some people applaud bungie's ability to charge extra for content that costs so little to make, because they're generating revenue for a title post release that is, get this, still generating revenue on its own.
Yay for people complaining about complaining. Like just because we're not buying into this DLC crap means we can't comment about it.
But people will continue to misinterpret the point, and assume it's because we can't afford it or something. Not that it just defies every principal of community support that gamers have been treated to over the years on different platforms. Games are already $60 on a good day, and then we're being greeted with hidden costs on top of that.
How much can one group of users be milked before they actually start to care? It's not just $10, you're wearing blinders if you think it is, it's all part of a much more expensive, much less consumer friendly bigger picture. Unfortunately it seems like it will take quite a bit to tip the scales here, and it's only going to get worse before it ever gets better. The only way we'll ever see an end to this is if there's just a complete meltdown within the community, a backlash bigger than poor sales of the DLC itself. Otherwise, people would simply have to stop playing, and stop buying Halo. And since that's not going to happen, it seems awfully shortsighted to me to say shame on us for voicing our opinions.
And no, we didn't forget about GH2, and two wrongs (or three, or four, or a hundred) still don't make a right.
I think the price is steep regardless of when this came out but to charge in the first place when the game only had 11 maps and they're still selling boatloads of copies is pretty shocking.
It also doesn't sound an awful lot like Bungie to me, they've always been good to their fans before. Clearly they've lost some sway with the MGS coffers or this was part of the deal when they split. (i.e. MS gets to take the lions share of DLC pricing and set what price it wants). There must have been some way the head guys at Bungie could afford to buy it back after all :S
Commented on 2007-11-19 22:23:28 In reply to GriftGFX
Posted by GriftGFX
It amazes me how some people just don't get it. They don't get how this divides communities--they don't get how Epic has managed to maximize profits for years by being good to their fan base and giving back to that community when they can. It amazes me that some people applaud bungie's ability to charge extra for content that costs so little to make, because they're generating revenue for a title post release that is, get this, still generating revenue on its own.
Yay for people complaining about complaining. Like just because we're not buying into this DLC crap means we can't comment about it.
But people will continue to misinterpret the point, and assume it's because we can't afford it or something. Not that it just defies every principal of community support that gamers have been treated to over the years on different platforms. Games are already $60 on a good day, and then we're being greeted with hidden costs on top of that.
How much can one group of users be milked before they actually start to care? It's not just $10, you're wearing blinders if you think it is, it's all part of a much more expensive, much less consumer friendly bigger picture. Unfortunately it seems like it will take quite a bit to tip the scales here, and it's only going to get worse before it ever gets better. The only way we'll ever see an end to this is if there's just a complete meltdown within the community, a backlash bigger than poor sales of the DLC itself. Otherwise, people would simply have to stop playing, and stop buying Halo. And since that's not going to happen, it seems awfully shortsighted to me to say shame on us for voicing our opinions.
And no, we didn't forget about GH2, and two wrongs (or three, or four, or a hundred) still don't make a right.
Dividing the Halo 3 community isn't going to hurt. There are so many people playing the game. UT3 is probably going to bomb (on all platforms), so that community didn't really add up to much in the end.
$60 for a game is NOT too much, with inflation, game prices are lower than they were most past generations. I personally am willing to pay for NEW CONTENT, as long as they didn't pull this content from the game specifically so they could sell it later. I don't buy all new DLC, I might not even buy this content, but I like the option to do so (unless the community is so small that splitting it could seriously hurt it).
The Guitar Hero content is just absurd and a insult, but I wouldn't even buy one of those games anyways.
after playing COD4 it made me realise that , IMO, bungie are lazy, egotistical, and not as talented as hyped up to be. halo 1 was great. but 2 and 3 didnt capture the spirit and feelings of the first. still great games, i love them all... but 800 points? what is halo, the freakin messiah?(and to think i used to actually think it was!!)
i say this because COd4 had little hype around it (in comparison to halo) and also in comparison, not as much coverage. no podcast, no bungie staff going on about how great they are,no burger king promotions!! ect ect ect, but while similar to halo in the length of the game (quite short) cod4 was a much more quality experiance, in graphics, gameplay, design, immersion and fun IMO.
im just really not very intrested with these maps, i would have paid 800 before COD4 was released though, but now whats the point? from the look of the last screen, which looks beautiful, it just makes me angry and think, too little too late!! thats what single player should have looked more like.
Oh grift i get it all right, and used it in my argument against halo 2 packs
"xbox live, play anyone anywhere anytime "
Bullshut slogon from xbox live launch
as for the "only costs 2 pound a map" sure yeah, but keep been a sheep and take it up the arse if you choose, i for one choose not to be taken for a cunt
Ha 800 points, They know where they can stick them then. Do they think because they call them points we don't know that there still costing us money. thieving gits.
Three maps for 800 Points? At least Call of Duty 2 gave me FIVE maps for that money and from what I know from every game I downloaded maps for, it's just not worth it.
Commented on 2007-11-19 23:35:24 In reply to Scarbir
Posted by Scarbir
Three maps for 800 Points? At least Call of Duty 2 gave me FIVE maps for that money and from what I know from every game I downloaded maps for, it's just not worth it.
How can you even compare them though. I bought the first COD2 mappack (was there more than one? I forget), and I was only ever able to find A SINGLE ROUND on those maps!
Commented on 2007-11-19 23:40:00 In reply to Jigen
Posted by Jigen
Dividing the Halo 3 community isn't going to hurt. There are so many people playing the game. UT3 is probably going to bomb (on all platforms), so that community didn't really add up to much in the end.
$60 for a game is NOT too much, with inflation, game prices are lower than they were most past generations. I personally am willing to pay for NEW CONTENT, as long as they didn't pull this content from the game specifically so they could sell it later. I don't buy all new DLC, I might not even buy this content, but I like the option to do so (unless the community is so small that splitting it could seriously hurt it).
The Guitar Hero content is just absurd and a insult, but I wouldn't even buy one of those games anyways.
Still adds up. Some of us aren't willing to pay $240 for Halo and frankly no one should. I'm glad that there seem to be a reasonable number of people who see this for what it is, which isn't harmless.
Oh, and UT3 isn't going to bomb.. and it's going to come with a lot more content than Halo 3 to start with as well. But you get what you pay for, right.. or.. maybe not?
Posted by Jigen
How can you even compare them though. I bought the first COD2 mappack (was there more than one? I forget), and I was only ever able to find A SINGLE ROUND on those maps!
Oh, right.. so basically if a game makes more money in the first place, they should charge more for less content? I'm surprised there were COD2 map packs at all.. I don't seem to remember such a product existing on the PC. Weird.
Commented on 2007-11-20 00:05:47 In reply to Jigen
Posted by KORNdog
inless they become free later down the line then i couldnt care less.
They will be in Spring 08
Posted by Jigen
I personally am willing to pay for NEW CONTENT, as long as they didn't pull this content from the game specifically so they could sell it later.
Well I'm not being explicit about this but today's update on Bungie says;-
Christopher Barrett: Standoff, or Bunkerworld as it’s known internally was one of the maps we had originally planned as one of the Halo 3 release multiplayer maps. Because of time we ended up postponing it until DLC, and here it is!
I'm as willing as anyone to pay devs for post-release content where it's reasonable. I think Oblivion's a decent example of reasonable DLC pricing, Horse armour (which was just a test) asides.
However, the game shipped with 11 maps, not all of them really "new" maps which most people would agree isn't really enough. To then charge 800 for three is taking the piss, in my view.
In relative terms, it's cheaper here than for those in the US ($10 is 1/6th the game price whereas £6.50 is a bit less than 1/6th of £45) but it's still pricey and when I see long time Halo fans questioning it I think that's pretty telling. Most of those people would fall over themselves to give Bungie a few quid here or there for new content under normal circumstances.
Commented on 2007-11-20 00:22:51 In reply to GriftGFX
Posted by GriftGFX
It amazes me how some people just don't get it. They don't get how this divides communities--they don't get how Epic has managed to maximize profits for years by being good to their fan base and giving back to that community when they can. It amazes me that some people applaud bungie's ability to charge extra for content that costs so little to make, because they're generating revenue for a title post release that is, get this, still generating revenue on its own.
.
Griff,
I think it is pretty obvious that you don't get the economics of the situation. Regardless of what the vocal few think, the charge now and release for free later is an optimal strategy. It is win-win for everyone involved. Customer segmentation in this matter is a key component of many industries' business models, especially service, retail and entertainment based businesses. At the end of the day everyone gets the maps for free if they choose that route, so there is very little to complain about here.
I don't wanna flame or anything but to those of you who are actually DEFENDING this crazy fucking pricing scheme then please and I beg you PLEASE, just go die so that the rest of us who aren't retards can enjoy these maps without us having to pay for them.
Commented on 2007-11-20 00:29:12 In reply to ramses01
Posted by ramses01
so there is very little to complain about here.
ya aside from MS charging us 10$ for 3 maps we shouldn't be charged for anyways considering how well halo 3 is STILL selling (and how well it did sell for that matter) I can't really see anything else to complain about either...
Commented on 2007-11-20 00:37:46 In reply to ramses01
Posted by ramses01
I think it is pretty obvious that you don't get the economics of the situation.
Right. I guess Epic and all of the other developers throughout our gaming history who believe they can maximize their profits by supporting their core user/fan base for free are clueless too. There's a sound economic strategy behind their model too, and despite what you think, this is not a win/win solution for everyone. This is a win for Microsoft though, especially when people are so willing to eat it up.
I'm thankful that this model will continue to fail in the PC market, for the time being.
Loakum
Ugh….scratch that previous comment. The upcoming Game of Thrones video game is a F’in mobile phone game. Why can’t they came an open world GoT game, like Witcher 3 or God of War? (> 3 Months ago)
Loakum
By FAR, the upcoming Game of Thrones King’s Road was the Game of the Show! It plays like God of War Ragnarok! :) (> 3 Months ago)
Loakum
@Driftwood Awesome! I’m loving it! It does show a much crisper picture and the frame rate looks good! I was playing Stella Blade and Dragonball Soarkling Blast! :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
@Loakum: enjoy, the one Sony sent us will be there on launch day. Coverage will follow asap. (> 3 Months ago)
Loakum
*takes a large sip of victorious grape juice* ok….my PS5 pro arrived early! So much winning! :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
@reneyvane: non ils l'ont publié le 1er octobre et je crois que tu l'avais déjà linkée. ;) (> 3 Months ago)
reneyvane
Factornews à joué à KingdomComeDeliverance2 au Gamescom 2024 mais ne publie sa preview que maintenant ? [url] (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Download is now functional again on Gamersyde. Sorry for the past 53 days or so when it wasn't. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Another (French) livestream today at 2:30 CEST but you're welcome to drop by and speak English. I will gladly answer in English when I get a chance to catch a breath. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
GSY is getting some nice content at 3 pm CEST with our July podcast and some videos of the Deus Ex Mankind Divided preview build. :) (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
For once we'll be live at 4:30 pm CEST. Blim should not even be tired! (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
More Quantum Break coverage coming in a few hours, 9:00 a.m CEST. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
We'll have a full review up for Firewatch at 7 pm CET. Videos will only be tomorrow though. (> 3 Months ago)
Driftwood
Tonight's livestream will be at 9:15 GMT+1, not GMT+2 as first stated. (> 3 Months ago)
Patreon
All comments (86)
Commented on 2007-11-19 20:26:56
Commented on 2007-11-19 20:43:11Also, if the attempts to get more money out of PC gamers continues to fail, so will that market. PC has been bringing in less money for game publishers year after year. If PC gamers refuse to pay for little things like this, they won't be able to offset development costs much longer. For example, I have no doubt that Crysis has bombed hard, and that EA has lost millions on that game.
Halo 3 has pretty good netcode. I've never had any instance of something happening like Grift mentioned. It's not perfect of course, but I can't think of any game on consoles or PC that has perfect netplay (because it's impossible).
Anyways, I find it hilarious that people are calling these maps 'shitty' or 'any kid' could make, you haven't played them and you probably don't have any interest to do so...
Commented on 2007-11-19 20:51:09in the words of gears of war MS "eat shit and die"
Commented on 2007-11-19 21:13:55Its about £6.50 by my estimates. A little over £2 per map.
Its being published by the richest company in the world (who didn't get there by giving things away) and you're blaming them for trying to make money? People will pay, MS make them pay. Simple as that.
You don't want to pay, don't pay. Prove the point, and stop whining about how you're "forced" to pay. What BS is that?
And has everyone forgotten how you had to pay 500points for 3 songs on GH2? Thats still far worse in my mind.
I don't even have live, so it makes no difference to me.
Commented on 2007-11-19 21:22:08
Commented on 2007-11-19 21:25:10Yay for people complaining about complaining. Like just because we're not buying into this DLC crap means we can't comment about it.
But people will continue to misinterpret the point, and assume it's because we can't afford it or something. Not that it just defies every principal of community support that gamers have been treated to over the years on different platforms. Games are already $60 on a good day, and then we're being greeted with hidden costs on top of that.
How much can one group of users be milked before they actually start to care? It's not just $10, you're wearing blinders if you think it is, it's all part of a much more expensive, much less consumer friendly bigger picture. Unfortunately it seems like it will take quite a bit to tip the scales here, and it's only going to get worse before it ever gets better. The only way we'll ever see an end to this is if there's just a complete meltdown within the community, a backlash bigger than poor sales of the DLC itself. Otherwise, people would simply have to stop playing, and stop buying Halo. And since that's not going to happen, it seems awfully shortsighted to me to say shame on us for voicing our opinions.
And no, we didn't forget about GH2, and two wrongs (or three, or four, or a hundred) still don't make a right.
Commented on 2007-11-19 21:33:50It also doesn't sound an awful lot like Bungie to me, they've always been good to their fans before. Clearly they've lost some sway with the MGS coffers or this was part of the deal when they split. (i.e. MS gets to take the lions share of DLC pricing and set what price it wants). There must have been some way the head guys at Bungie could afford to buy it back after all :S
Commented on 2007-11-19 21:55:29
Commented on 2007-11-19 22:23:28 In reply to GriftGFXYay for people complaining about complaining. Like just because we're not buying into this DLC crap means we can't comment about it.
But people will continue to misinterpret the point, and assume it's because we can't afford it or something. Not that it just defies every principal of community support that gamers have been treated to over the years on different platforms. Games are already $60 on a good day, and then we're being greeted with hidden costs on top of that.
How much can one group of users be milked before they actually start to care? It's not just $10, you're wearing blinders if you think it is, it's all part of a much more expensive, much less consumer friendly bigger picture. Unfortunately it seems like it will take quite a bit to tip the scales here, and it's only going to get worse before it ever gets better. The only way we'll ever see an end to this is if there's just a complete meltdown within the community, a backlash bigger than poor sales of the DLC itself. Otherwise, people would simply have to stop playing, and stop buying Halo. And since that's not going to happen, it seems awfully shortsighted to me to say shame on us for voicing our opinions.
And no, we didn't forget about GH2, and two wrongs (or three, or four, or a hundred) still don't make a right.
$60 for a game is NOT too much, with inflation, game prices are lower than they were most past generations. I personally am willing to pay for NEW CONTENT, as long as they didn't pull this content from the game specifically so they could sell it later. I don't buy all new DLC, I might not even buy this content, but I like the option to do so (unless the community is so small that splitting it could seriously hurt it).
The Guitar Hero content is just absurd and a insult, but I wouldn't even buy one of those games anyways.
Commented on 2007-11-19 22:45:03What other game are you going to play ??????
I'm down to pay:
$60 Online
$60 Game (H3)
$60 for larger map packs
$60 for a good MM playlist that has SLAYER and not all the other B.s gametypes
Commented on 2007-11-19 22:59:22
Commented on 2007-11-19 23:00:38
Commented on 2007-11-19 23:04:06I'll happily be playing COD4, until Activision sells 3 maps for 800 pts and divides the community. :(
Commented on 2007-11-19 23:23:13i say this because COd4 had little hype around it (in comparison to halo) and also in comparison, not as much coverage. no podcast, no bungie staff going on about how great they are,no burger king promotions!! ect ect ect, but while similar to halo in the length of the game (quite short) cod4 was a much more quality experiance, in graphics, gameplay, design, immersion and fun IMO.
im just really not very intrested with these maps, i would have paid 800 before COD4 was released though, but now whats the point? from the look of the last screen, which looks beautiful, it just makes me angry and think, too little too late!! thats what single player should have looked more like.
bungie should start working new now imo
Commented on 2007-11-19 23:25:48"xbox live, play anyone anywhere anytime "
Bullshut slogon from xbox live launch
as for the "only costs 2 pound a map" sure yeah, but keep been a sheep and take it up the arse if you choose, i for one choose not to be taken for a cunt
Commented on 2007-11-19 23:29:13
Commented on 2007-11-19 23:31:05
Commented on 2007-11-19 23:31:41
Commented on 2007-11-19 23:35:24 In reply to Scarbir
Commented on 2007-11-19 23:40:00 In reply to Jigen$60 for a game is NOT too much, with inflation, game prices are lower than they were most past generations. I personally am willing to pay for NEW CONTENT, as long as they didn't pull this content from the game specifically so they could sell it later. I don't buy all new DLC, I might not even buy this content, but I like the option to do so (unless the community is so small that splitting it could seriously hurt it).
The Guitar Hero content is just absurd and a insult, but I wouldn't even buy one of those games anyways.
Oh, and UT3 isn't going to bomb.. and it's going to come with a lot more content than Halo 3 to start with as well. But you get what you pay for, right.. or.. maybe not?
Commented on 2007-11-20 00:05:47 In reply to JigenHowever, the game shipped with 11 maps, not all of them really "new" maps which most people would agree isn't really enough. To then charge 800 for three is taking the piss, in my view.
In relative terms, it's cheaper here than for those in the US ($10 is 1/6th the game price whereas £6.50 is a bit less than 1/6th of £45) but it's still pricey and when I see long time Halo fans questioning it I think that's pretty telling. Most of those people would fall over themselves to give Bungie a few quid here or there for new content under normal circumstances.
Commented on 2007-11-20 00:22:51 In reply to GriftGFX.
I think it is pretty obvious that you don't get the economics of the situation. Regardless of what the vocal few think, the charge now and release for free later is an optimal strategy. It is win-win for everyone involved. Customer segmentation in this matter is a key component of many industries' business models, especially service, retail and entertainment based businesses. At the end of the day everyone gets the maps for free if they choose that route, so there is very little to complain about here.
Commented on 2007-11-20 00:25:12
Commented on 2007-11-20 00:29:12 In reply to ramses01
Commented on 2007-11-20 00:37:46 In reply to ramses01I'm thankful that this model will continue to fail in the PC market, for the time being.