Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
XBox (Games) Entertainment Games

MechAssault Debuts Paid Xbox Live Content 77

Posted by simoniker from the money-for-something dept.
Thanks to GameSpot for pointing out that Xbox action title MechAssault has debuted new downloadable Xbox Live content, in the form of "two new multiplayer game types and three new multiplayer maps", but "the new game content and maps will set you back $4.99... the first time that Microsoft has charged... for new, downloadable [MechAssault] content." Elsewhere, EuroGamer has debuted an editorial on this move, suggesting that "if you think about it, premium content could pose a serious threat", seeing many good facets to this kind of add-on, but also worrying that "greedy corporations" might "lock up certain elements of a game and open them up 'for free!' at a later date in an act of faux-generosity", and arguing Microsoft could make it "...an absolute that downloadable content should only ever be content developed post-release."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MechAssault Debuts Paid Xbox Live Content More

MechAssault Debuts Paid Xbox Live Content

Comments Filter:
  • Out of the box, you get nothing but deathmatch type games for multiplayer. To me, the game seemed rushed to meet the XBox Live launch date, and this content being pushed afterwords tends to support this suggestion. And now, aparently MS is trying to treat it like everyone underpaid for the game, by pushing out this "premium" update.
    • Yeah, this sounds awfully like a mini-"expansion pack" kind of deal to me...
      • It sounds a *lot* like a mini expansion pack kind of deal. But what's the big deal?

        I bought MechAssault when it came out, understanding what I was gonna get, based on reviews and the back of the box. I also knew there'd be a CTF and new maps released a couple of months later. All that happened. I was happy. I got what I paid for.

        Why should I care that MS is now charging for additional content? It's not like they're charging me for stuff I was expecting for free.

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Actually, two MechAssault download packs were already released for free. The first included two new mechs for use in multiplayer, along with a new map. The second included capture-the-flag mode, two CTF maps and yet another two mechs.

      It's only this third pack (adding one real new game-type and two rules-based mods, and three new maps) that costs money to download.

      Added into this discussion is the fact that as of right now MechAssault is available for $20 (and under if bought used).

      I can understand P

      • Added into this discussion is the fact that as of right now MechAssault is available for $20 (and under if bought used).

        Precisely. The game is budget-priced and likely not making too much more money for the developers. Why not extend the profitability a little bit? I certainly don't see the problem with this.

      • Besides, in the PC world, they'd call it an 'expansion pack' and charge you 25 bucks extra for it.

        Slightly tongue in cheek, yes. If you felt the first release was rushed, well, it probably was. But they released all sorts of extras, for free, over Xbox Live. If they now want to offer even more extras, at a VERY nominal cost, great.

  • DDR Ultramix just came out, which promised additional downloadable content at release. It's there, three new songs, but you have to pay 5 bucks for them.

  • Makes Sense to Me (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Wednesday November 26, 2003 @07:09PM (#7573519) Homepage
    I think it makes sense to start charging at some point. It's a good thing that they didn't charge too much (I think $1 or $2 would be good, but I don't have a real problem with $5 for the amount of stuff they are doing). But I have a few things to say on this.

    First of all, if companies don't start getting money for this kind of stuff, we'll start to see a situation where a game will get a few update (like MechAssault has) but eventually they'll stop adding anything. Downloaded content doesn't add to sales (this is a guess but I'm pretty sure it's accurate). I mean just because a new map was released doesn't mean I'm going to go and buy MechAssault if I don't already have it. So if the developers don't get compensated, at least some times, it's a losing proposition for htem to keep adding new content. It will keep users happy, but it costs them money.

    Second, MS needs to keep a tight lid on things. While I have no problem with this happening, my fear is that if they're not careful we'll see everything like this. You want a new map? That will cost you $1. You want a new piece of clothing for your character in your MMORPG? That's another $1. I don't mind paying $5 every once in a while for a few new levels and new gameplay modes and such, but it needs to be a rare occasion, because otherwise the publisher just seems like a bunch of greedy jerks.

    Be careful MS, this could easily go both ways.

    • I forgot to add my last point. Oops.

      I also think that if I go out and buy this game today (or soon) I should get the content for free. I understand making someone pay for it if the game was released years ago, but when I buy the game if there is pay content like this out there, it should be free (or already on the disc). Again, this would seem like the publishers are just being greedy.

      • Forgive me, but you're saying that if you go out today and spend $20 for MechAssault, you should get MORE content than people who paid $50? Not only does that not make sense, but it doesn't jibe with your opinion that it's okay for companies to charge money for additional content developed after a game's release.
    • "First of all, if companies don't start getting money for this kind of stuff, we'll start to see a situation where a game will get a few update (like MechAssault has) but eventually they'll stop adding anything"

      I suppose it all depends on the developer. Look at Valve and Blizzard. Blizzard goes and releases a patch for Diablo 2 that practically makes it a new game (revamped skill system, items, etc.). Didn't charge a lick for it. Starcraft comes out and Blizzard releases a new map every week for like
      • Well, with the PC there is alot of user created content. With something like MechAssault, that just isn't there. That's how CS started, but that kind of thing can't happen in MechAssault. There is a large Diablo 2 community too, isn't there? Valve and Blizzard are both doing great, but with the amount of crud that gets pushed on consoles and such, I'm just worried that we might start to see people charging for EVERY update to games, or the publishers will move onto other newer titles and just leave the old
        • also think about what it means for people to support companies that engage in these practices.

          if consumers move with their feet and encourage companies that are more receptive to them instead of those that lock in customers and charge them for all they can tolerate before throwing the game away, then we'll all be better off.

          survival of the fittest gaming company. natural corporate selection in action. ..now if only it would spread to some of the other industries like the airlines and power production..

  • Someone has to pay (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DaveCBio ( 659840 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2003 @07:14PM (#7573549)
    If you want additional content then it has to be paid for somehow. Sometimes companies give it away in hopes that it will drive sales and sometimes they add enough to make it a full blown expansion. This gives them the option to do soemthing in between. Anything that provides an extra revenue stream is a good thing.
    • Yes, but why should gamers have to pay twice? Once for the monthly Xbox service, and then again for the content. As I recall, one of Xbox Live's big original selling points was exactly that you wouldn't get nickel-and-dimed to death. You pay one fee and get it all.

      I guess that business model wasn't working!

    • companies have been doing "expansion packs" for years, and at a great deal more than $5, too.

      Anybody remember how Quake 3 really didnt come with any good multiplayer modes beyond deathmatch? And how they made a paid expansion which included more gameplay modes? And how they werent as good as the free, community created add-ons?

      Hmm, i digressed, but the point is that this is nothing new, and a good deal cheaper than other expansions. The only thing new is this is the first time there has been an expa

  • Who cares if it is downloaded or unlocked? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by EvlG ( 24576 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2003 @07:36PM (#7573715)
    I don't understand why users complain about content being unlocked rather than downloaded. If you paid $50 for the game and were happy about it before, who cares if the content that is added on is unlocked? What's the big deal?

    It seems to me like much the same argument as someone saying "but this Athlon XP really can run as a 3200+ instead of a 2500+. AMD sucks for only selling it as a 2500+".

    • because you already paid once! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mabhatter654 ( 561290 ) on Wednesday November 26, 2003 @08:10PM (#7573927)
      You've already paid once up to $50 for the game! I'd expect the disc to be jam packed full. I don't want to pay to use something I already bought...I'm not a revenue stream AFTER I buy the game! Otherwise, the $50 games will just become "demos" for all the cool stuff you can "unlock" later...see the problem here.
      • It depends; was Mech Assault a good enough game that you wouldn't mind paying for more content? If, for 50 dollars, they released dozens of maps, a diverse set of game types, and a good environment for multiplayer, then additional content might be worth paying for. If the original felt incomplete, it might be a rip-off. But as others have pointed out, now the game is $25USD or so, and another $5 to complete the game is nothing.
        • Yes, paying for additional content online would be OK...but the question was about "unlocking" things on the disk for more money...different beastie. Like posters below said, If it's on the disk already, then I already paid for it...It would be easy to argue in court that "secret" & in-game codes are part of common practice and fair-use...It'd be hard to DMCA you for sharing "cheats"...right now it's common and encouraged...part of the "game"

          Leading to the second part...that unlocking "cheats" is part

      • People will stop buying them then.

        I wonder though, is it illegal to "unlock" part of a game with a crack? I think the companies would have a hard time saying you did something illegal.
      • You paid $50 for the content that was initially available.

        You didn't pay for the content they wanted to upsell you.

        It's very much the same as a software product delivered with other software on the CDROM, allowing you to unlock them by purchasing the license.

        By your argument, then, you have paid for everything on the disc?
        • Last I checked Console games don't have EULA's! There's no "click thru" that says "I agree". It's always been considered [even in court] that what's on the disk is "on the disc" as the game. Look at the current market for "cheat codes" in the form of memory modules, add-in carts, etc...even mod-chipping the console itself is legal by itself [if you don't violate DMCA'd code]

          That's current practice. "cheat codes" are added by the manufacture to just about every console game published nowdays...it's a sta

      • No because the market wouldn't stand for that. Seriously, if you want extra content someone has to pay. Is it your right to have the game supported for free for all time because you bought it?

  • Welcome to capitalism! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kreyg ( 103130 ) <kreyg@shawREDHAT.ca minus distro> on Wednesday November 26, 2003 @08:15PM (#7573958) Homepage
    Where stuff that costs money to make costs money to obtain, and you're free to not pay for things you don't want!

  • MechAssault Praise (Score:2, Interesting)

    by VividU ( 175339 )
    I've been waiting for a long time to sing the praises of MechAssault on Xbox Live. MA is a great fucking game! But it's much more than that. MA on Live will go down in history as a innovator.

    The game play mechanics of MA could'nt be easier. The controls were simple and the rules were obvious: Blow up your enemy mech before they blew you up. But the game play was DEEP! It took me months before I could compete with the top players, even longer before I started winning games in my Timberwolf.

    It was only duri
    • Good post- while MechAssault didn't change my life at all, I did think it was a great game. And, I would be playing it a lot more if I wasn't dedicated to Top Spin right now.
    • It was only during these late-night matches that I realized that we MechAssault players were part of something new.

      What's new about that ? Sounds exactly like any of the other online, first-person shooters (Quake, Duke Nukem, Half Life, ...) which have be around since the mid 90s, each of which has its own community. Quake alone has countless numbers of clans [google.com]. If this a good game that works well online, great, but it's hardly revolutionary.
  • Sure, this premium content costs extra, but don't forget that MechCommander's exploitable overrun bug comes free with the price of the game!
  • I was under the impression that Microsoft charged a flat, annual fee for all XBox Live! services. At least that's what they were advertising.

    • Correct. Your flat annual fee lets you play any xbox live game, with all the built-in stuff (voice chat, cross-game buddy list, and so on) as well as interfacing with 'live-aware' titles, which might do any number of things; upload high scores, show you as 'online' so buddies can send you an invitation to play a different game, and so on.

      Premium content, however...or do you think your monthly ISP bill should also cover your fileplanet subscription?


  • This sort of stuff is the beginning of the end for general PC gaming. If MS succeeds in getting many people to pay for minor addons, why wouldn't *every* game developer A: Switch to console-only development (something I'm seeing already) and B: Fragment the origonal game into pay-to-play modules. Want more multiplayer maps? They're only $2.99 each. Play with the AWP? $0.99.

    I keep seeing more and more games come out for console only. Games that would be great on the PC, like Midtown Madness 2 and
  • When I buy a game it's usually based upon a review, which in turn will be based upon the content available out of the box. If after playing the game for a bit I decide I like it, I'd be quite willing to pay a bit extra to expand it and prolong it's life - rather than taking a chance on a whole new game.
    Up until now I felt that the possibilities of Live were being completely overlooked other than the odd bonus level here and there. How about introducing try before you buy for games? You pick up a game for $
  • PS2 will spank you in this online category if you don't watch it.

    It's outrageous that customers should have to pay further additional prices for downloaded content without releasing an expansion pack.

    Xbox is treading on thin Ice, in the online markeyplace, with this announcement.

    You want people to buy the initial game and the service.

    Dolemite
    ___________________
    • Yeah, Sony sure is looking out for their customers better than Microsoft in this area. Their hard drive still isn't released [outside of Japan], their Xbox Live-like service (optional for third-parties and announced to be in development early this year) still hasn't seen the light of day and they don't offer downloadable expansions at all at the moment given the limitations of memory cards (you'd have to buy a new one every time a couple of new maps were released).

      Spank away, Sony.

      • Sure, neither one is really looking out for anyone but their shareholders. I don't consider either company's online efforts much of anything, personally. Nintendo has it right, despite the Live! fanboys. Let the game companies decide what they want to do. It worked for the PC. Heck, it worked with FREE servers from Blizzard. Amazing how the dollar signs keep flashing over the heads of Sony and Microsoft when it comes to this sort of "experience." Bah.

        I mean, let's pay for the online service AND pay

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close