Slashdot Mirror
Epic, Microsoft Disagree On Gears Content
This past week, Epic's VP Mark Rein spoke with the gentlemen at 1up on the '1up Yours' Podcast. It was ... most informative. It seems that the much-delayed downloadable content for Gears of War is being held up by Microsoft, who wants to charge for the content for the game. "In the effort of promoting a profitable marketplace, however, Microsoft's compromised with the studio by deciding to follow the successful model that Halo 2 pioneered a few years ago: the new Gears of War maps will be available for a to-be-determined fee, and made free a few months from now." The site also has hands-on details for 'Annex', the new (free) multiplayer gameplay type.
The first one is free.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
The problem I have is that most downloadable content seems to be either of the 'here's the stuff that we didn't get to finish before the publisher shipped' or 'Ok, there's 15 maps ready; lock 5 of them off, and we'll put out a 'downloadable content' patch that reenables them in a few months.'
I was flipping through the downloads for Dance Dance Revolution Universe, to see if they had any songs availble here in Canada; DDR Ultramix for the Xbox didn't allow Canadians to buy additional songs. Sure enough, there are, and the downloads are 108 KB. That means they're unlock codes, not new content. That's not right.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
That's what I thought initially, but I seriously doubt anyone who paid $399 for a console, $7 a month for Live, $40 a month for high speed, and $59 for the game is going to balk at a $10 tag on new maps for their favorite game.
:|
What's really shocking to me, after writing the above rundown, is that I am one of those people.
This is why I refuse to play most MMOs (some I refuse to play just because they suck.) I am NOT repeat NOT going to pay for the client AND the service. I'll pay for the game, if it's a game, but only if I know I will still be able to use it when they are no longer running servers. This means that they have to form a covenant with the community to release to us the full source code to the server when they are done running servers. No one wants to do this, so I don't want to pay for the client - it's not a game, it's a game client. I can't play the game without the server, so it's clearly not a game.
If they'd give me the client for free, I'd think about paying for the subscription. At least that way I'm only paying for the service.
There is the argument that paying for the client covers R&D costs, but frankly I don't give a damn. I simply feel robbed when I have to pay for the client and the service. If AOL had charged for those internet access discs, they would have gone away a long time ago.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Has anyone ever been sued for copying a press release? You know those things they release with the sole intent of being copied by newspapers and anyone else who gives a fuck?