Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


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

Epic, Microsoft Disagree On Gears Content 72

Posted by Zonk from the can't-we-all-just-get-along dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Epic, Microsoft Disagree On Gears Content More

Epic, Microsoft Disagree On Gears Content

Comments Filter:
  • stuck at work can someone post the content of the article, I need GoW news and I need it now!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by asklepius ( 456552 ) *
      NEW GEARS OF WAR MAPS TO FOLLOW HALO 2 MODEL
      Playing right away will cost you, but eventually they'll be free.
      By Patrick Klepek, 04/09/2007
      Epic Games wants their additional Gears of Wars maps to be free, just like the content they've provided for all their games on the PC side -- but Microsoft isn't down with that. 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 Gear

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 )
      Not that I think C&Ping a press release is going to hurt anyone's feelings, but is it really to much to ask that you people who have locked-down internet access at work to find a proxy and download articles yourself instead of begging others to infringe copyright on your behalf?
      • Because maybe said person using a proxy at work violates a code of conduct and could possibly be fired or reprimanded, and sees that asking someone to "infringe copyright" (especially of a press release) as a minor offense and would much rather perform the latter?

  • Learn from your street vendors! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by RingDev ( 879105 ) on Monday April 09, 2007 @01:56PM (#18666509) Homepage Journal
    The first one is free.

    -Rick
    • Yes, of course... But where can I get that "first one"? They all seem to charge me normal price even the first time.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Xinef Jyinaer ( 1044268 )
      With a company like Microsoft you can't expect much in the department of morals from them. Considering the person already paid for the game itself, and (correct me if I'm wrong [I don't use consoles for gaming often] ) has to be paying for Xbox live to download the new maps. It seems to me that Microsoft is milking people for all the money they can. It difficult for me to see the rationality behind charging money for someone to have access to Xbox live as well as charging them money to well.... download ma

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Elmoogle ( 842051 )
        Actually, from what I understand, "Silver" Xbox live allows you to download content and updates as well as register achievements for free. It's the "Gold" service that allows users to actually play games online that comes with the fee.
        • .. which has been introduced recently. And that's that Gold users tend to get certain demos and extra content up to a month earlier than Silver users. I guess they're trying to emphasis the two tier system. Though god knows how they're going to flog Gold to PC owners.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by rwven ( 663186 )
          Well, there's no point in downloading the new multiplayer maps if you can't get online and play them...unless you plan on 1v1 or something. The people who want this content are already gold subscribers.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Nexcis ( 962706 )
        Im in total agreement. Like in the podcast they talked about how the XBox marketplace should be a free market economy. But since msft controls it, they say what goes. So theyre telling developers that WANT to give FREE content that they cant. As an xbox live member this is complete and utter bullshit to me. If it makes another game look bad, so what? Make a better game, dont try to shovel worthless shit down my throat. If anything, I think that giving the DLC away for free would actually help the com
        • But what are your options?

          Think about this: our current console market is a three player game. And the players are all "evil" in their own ways. Every single one. Let's review:

          Microsoft: Established in this article, as well as through the entire history of the Windows operating system.

          Sony: I think I've personally exposed most of their offences here [superbusnet.com], and that was back when they were destroying Lik-Sang.

          Nintendo: Yeah, sure, they come off as the "noble" company now, but behind that shiny, chubby plum

    • Really? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Channard ( 693317 ) on Monday April 09, 2007 @02:33PM (#18666975) Journal
      The hookers up my way don't seem to agree.

  • Great way to kill a buzz? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    You make a couple million on map fees, and lose a lot of players.

    Maybe that's a good trade for them at this point. I dunno.

    • Re:Great way to kill a buzz? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by snsr ( 917423 ) on Monday April 09, 2007 @02:36PM (#18667027)
      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.
      :|

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Xymor ( 943922 )
        Well, all those things are physical goods or services.
        A new scenario for a game is neither.
        Buying a map isn't different, in my opinion, from buying a rare item or character in WoW, which is ridiculous(also IMO).

  • DLC (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SuiteSisterMary ( 123932 ) <{slebrun} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday April 09, 2007 @02:03PM (#18666591) Journal

    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.

    • Re:DLC (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Applekid ( 993327 ) on Monday April 09, 2007 @04:03PM (#18667945)
      On that note, does anyone remember the old Quake Shareware CD that was in retail stores for like $10 back in the day? It had shareware versions of id Software games that had shareware editions available PLUS unlockable full versions of games. You would 1-800-ID-GAMES with your special number (and pay) and they'd give you an unlock code you type in and you magically had full versions of whatever titles you purchased decrypted off the disk.

      Until maybe a day or two after when crackers decoded the system and published a keygen that let you instantly have every full version game of practically every id Software game from Wolfenstein on for the measely $10 the disc costed.

      Considering all the motivation in the DDR community to rip arcade art, stepcharts, songs, dancer models, scan for secrets, it's surprising they didn't crack those unlock codes and spawn a whole series of XBox Live hacks for other games with "for-fee unlockable" content.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by LocalH ( 28506 )
        As far as I'm concerned, if it ships on the original disc, then it's legal to gain access to it without paying. It was like the "downloadable content" for PSP Mega Man: Powered Up. The downloadable content was actually on the disc, a few people hacked and made it available by distributing some savegames, and Capcom actually had the gall to bitch about it? If it's "downloadable content", then you have to actually make the user download it if you don't want them to gain access to it sooner.
      • Considering all the motivation in the DDR community to rip arcade art, stepcharts, songs, dancer models, scan for secrets,...

        I guess the DDR community doesn't have good hackers. Not surprising, really. Nobody that I know [who has any hacker cred at all] is interested in DDR.

  • Marketplace (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Once again, Microsoft shows it is out-of-touch with its users.

    Why in the world would they think that this idiocy is a good idea? All it does is show the gamer that they are not, despite the $60 price tag, getting the full game. They are getting a fraction of the game, and then being forced to pay more for the "priviledge" of getting the rest of the content.

    I, for one, refuse to pay for my games twice.

    • It shows how well they know it (Score:4, Interesting)

      by EmbeddedJanitor ( 597831 ) on Monday April 09, 2007 @03:06PM (#18667347)
      You'd think by now that any sane people would have walked a long time ago. They'd be pissed of with being screwed and would buy from alternate vendors or take up some other activity. But no, they bitch a bit, then pay up to keep playing and line themselves up for another round of MS cornholing.

      Clearly MS does understand the market and how far you can push it.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dave562 ( 969951 )
        Clearly MS does understand the market and how far you can push it.

        I agree. The fact of the matter seems to be that the pay for "additional" content model will work and the publishers are going for it. Just about the only thing that you can do is stop playing video games if you don't like it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JordanL ( 886154 )
      What I dont understand is why people moan about the price of the PS3, when despite what anyone says, you are getting more value per $ than the 360, yet they have no problem with forking out far more on X360 + Live for what is otherwise a basic experience. How can people whose issue with the PS3 is price honestly justify getting a 360? Pot. Kettle. Black.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        It's the whole TCO argument. People generally like to pay less up front even if it meant they would be paying more in the long run.
      • It doesn't matter how much it costs if the platform doesn't offer the games you want to play. though a price of entry AND an uninteresting game line up doesn't do a platform any favors either.

  • Mark Rein clarifies... (Score:5, Informative)

    by CaseM ( 746707 ) on Monday April 09, 2007 @02:16PM (#18666761)
    This thread contains more insight into the situation from the Epic Games CEO:

    Click here [epicgames.com]

    Full text from his post below:

    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.
    • I'd really like to give Epic a pat on the back for doing the right thing in the situation, but after reading that post a couple of times, I don't think that would be the proper thing to do. Rather I suppose I should air my disappointment in them doing what they did do, which was eventually giving in to Microsoft. Mark is right in stating how Microsoft both built and controls the system, so I won't give them much flak, but at the same time Microsoft is trying damn hard to monetize gaming across the spectrum
  • Man this is getting expensive! First you have the consoles shooting up in prices. Then every periphreal is much more expensive from the controllers to the wifi adaptor. Games are now $60 new. And on top of that you have the whole xbox live thing that is raking in cash re-releasing games that you can download to play on emulators free minus the slick ranking and online features. Am I the only one that thinks the majority of their content is overpriced? Maybe I'm just cheap, but it seems like Microsft is tryi

    • Re:Online Content is a Dual Edge Sword (Score:4, Insightful)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Monday April 09, 2007 @03:16PM (#18667469) Homepage Journal

      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.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ivan256 ( 17499 )

      And on top of that you have the whole xbox live thing that is raking in cash re-releasing games that you can download to play on emulators free minus the slick ranking and online features. Am I the only one that thinks the majority of their content is overpriced? Maybe I'm just cheap, but it seems like Microsft is trying to nickle and dime gamers out the wazoo.

      Here's what you can do.

      Don't buy an Xbox. Don't subscribe to Live. Don't buy the over-priced add-on content. Just don't do it.

      That's all it takes.

  • M$ wants to have the same crap of games for win... (Score:3, Informative)

    by Joe The Dragon ( 967727 ) on Monday April 09, 2007 @03:53PM (#18667867)
    M$ wants to stop the free modes on the windows side as well how long be they force you pay for live gold just to be able to pay more for a mod / map on a pc game?
    • I don't think MS can stop moddable games being released. At worst, only non-GFW labelled games will have mods in the future.
      If they start locking down Windows Vista so that only MS-approved games are released, Windows won't be viable for gaming anymore.
  • Seems like Microsoft is trying to figure out how they can make consoles cost as much as PCs for gaming. Their answer seems to be that since the XBox is a closed platform, they can charge gamers for everything that PC gamers get for free, as well as jack up prices on peripherals that you could buy a lot cheaper for a PC. Give them another year or two and I think the price gap between the PC and the XBox will have closed quite a bit. I don't personally own an XBox, since I haven't found any compelling reas
  • No one complained when Halo 2 maps came with a charge for the 1st few months, and I imagine that after this story has left the front pages of your favorite web sites, no one will be complaining afterwards. The maps are free after a month or two... if you don't want to pay, then don't. You can still have the maps. My main complaint with downloadable content is when games are shipped INCOMPLETE and then charge you for the content that you should have had to begin with. This happened IMO with the 1st GRAW. Th

  • smells foul (Score:2, Insightful)

    by dosboot ( 973832 )
    The problem I have with most downloadable content is that they (the developer/publisher) probably did not polish the game in the first place. If they did that content would have been in the game. Personally I don't think there is such as thing as a "minimum expectation" of what $60 should buy you. Anything but 110% effort into the game is too little. Taking things out of a game to sell later is just bullshit too, whether or not you remove it from the disc.

    In this case I'm a little more forgiving since w
  • I'm pretty excited about this, all the people that pay for the maps can be my beta testers for them. Once all the bugs are worked out, and the map holes are fixed, I can download it for free and have better content.

    Thanks Microsoft!

    This really solidifies my idea of only buying unreal 3 on the PC, I'll get to play the game my way, and I won't have to pay for user created content.

    I can hook my PC up to my 50" just as well as my xbox.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close