Gears of War Maps To Be FREE... eventually that is

[Hardknock]

http://gearsforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=567201&page=2

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.
Mark Rein is offline Reply With Quote

The perfect compromise. All maps should be like this IMO. And now the userbase won't be split since everyone will have them eventually. I might just purchase them now

 

[22psi]

Agreed, that's the perfect way to do paid DLC.

 

[woundingchaney]

I dont really have much of a problem paying for a reasonable amount for additional content as long as it is worthwhile and typically I would say map packs are. Now buying costumes in Kameo or horse armor is a bit over the top.

Very good to see that there is an approach to appease both the publishers and the consumers. Although like most everyone I would love to see these things be free

 

[Aerobahn]

Epic wants them to be free but MS wants to charge blah. I dispise microtransactions.

 

[Rangers]

I'm surprised at how positive reaction has been to this at various forums.

To me, pay first, free later is the same as pay. Because if I like a game, I'll buy the new stuff immediatly. If I dont like the game enough to buy the new stuff immediatly, then basically I dont care at all and will never download them free.

I was somewhat defending MS over this when everybody was at their head. It just surprises me how this capitulation by Epic got everybody to slack off. I just dont see what changed. In fact, I though Epic was going to release the maps free.

Anybody kind of think though, that secretly Rein and Co. aren't all that torn up about this? It's like oh, twist my arm and force me to make money.

Same thing happened to the geometry wars guys, they planned to give it away, MS said they had to charge, they told MS to charge the minimum allowed 400 points. Of course Geo wars went on to sell quite a lot..same idea, I bet in the end they were happy MS made them charge, even if they might not admit it..

 

[expletive]

I'm personally shocked by how outspoken Epic has been about this philosophical disagreement with MS. With business partners like Epic, who needs Sony!

 

[kyleb]

With business partners like Epic, who needs Sony!

Heh, Epic would be better off with Sony seeing as how Sony doesn't seem to have a problem with developers giving away free content.

 

[Qroach]

Heh, Epic would be better off with Sony seeing as how Sony doesn't seem to have a problem with developers giving away free content.

Developers don't have a choice in the matter on consles. Free content is up to the publishers and if they want to host that free content download themselves, or get sony/MS to handle it.

I think a lot of people were making a big deal out of this when it looks like they were heading down a path of paying first with it becoming free later. we're already accustom to this for a few years now and it seems to work pretty well.

 

[kyleb]

Developers do chose whether they want to make extra content for their games and whether they want to be paid for that content or not. Publishers don't just pull content out of their ass, they either stipulate conditions for such content with developers in their contracts or work out deals after the fact; but developers are the ones who either make that content or not.

As for hosting it, since when has the Live marketplace provided any way for publishers to host content download themselves? Best I can tell MS host everything on it's Marketplace, from the pay-to-play stuff to all the free content and demos as well. Regardless, MS is Epic's publisher here, as is Sony the publisher behind Insomniac and Evolution and the content they are giving away.

So what exactly are you rolling your eyes at me? Just becuase you don't mind Gears userbase being fragmented so MS can make some extra bucks and you don't care if Epic or anyone else would rather not do that to their games?

 

[Qroach]

Developers do chose whether they want to make extra content for their games and whether they want to be paid for that content or not. Publishers don't just pull content out of their ass, they either stipulate conditions for such content with developers in their contracts or work out deals after the fact; but developers are the ones who either make that content or not.

I'm not sure what your point is here. I didn't say anything about "making" the content, I'm specifically talking after the fact (which is the current case with Epic). A developer can make all the free content they want for a console game, paid or not paid for. However on "consoles" the developer isn't in control of whether that free content makes it's way to the gaming public.

The developer makes it, and then the publisher has to submit it for approval to the console manufacturer then deal with the issues surrounding delivery of the content. The point I';m making is that this isn't really any easier with sony as you have to go through the same process and the publisher controls this. If you deal with sony, you either have to host it yourself, or perhaps they will offer to host it for you, either way this is all something the publisher has to deal with.

As for hosting it, since when has the Live marketplace provided any way for publishers to host content download themselves? Best I can tell MS host everything on it's Marketplace, from the pay-to-play stuff to all the free content and demos as well. Regardless, MS is Epic's publisher here, as is Sony the publisher behind Insomniac and Evolution and the content they are giving away.

Every since MS opened up live to do what EA wanted. Publishers can host their own servers and also get account information via Xbox live. If you've used any sports games such as 2k sports games you see messages from the development team added all the time. Also roster updates added quite frequently. There's different types of content download. For the most part MS will host the files and setup the system for downloading that content. Either way any publisher on xbox 360 needs to make all sorts of arrangements to make this data available, free or not. As I said before the developer has no control of what happens with the content after it's completed.

So what exactly are you rolling your eyes at me? Just because you don't mind Gears userbase being fragmented so MS can make some extra bucks and you don't care if Epic or anyone else would rather not do that to their games?

I'm rolling my eyes at the over reaction to a technique introduced with Halo 2 and a few other games a couple of years ago. You could say this will splinter the user base, but at the same time sure. Only the people that really want that content are willing to pay for it. hey I want to try the new maps too, but I can wait until the maps packs are free. Regarding epic caring about their game, if you listed to the 1up podcast, even they understand the reasons behind wanting to charge for content and realize that they have to cut MS slack for how big a push they threw behind the game to begin with.

 

[scooby_dooby]

I'm rolling my eyes at the over reaction to a technique introduced with Halo 2 and a few other games a couple of years ago. You could say this will splinter the user base, but at the same time sure. Only the people that really want that content are willing to pay for it. hey I want to try the new maps too, but I can wait until the maps packs are free. Regarding epic caring about their game, if you listed to the 1up podcast, even they understand the reasons behind wanting to charge for content and realize that they have to cut MS slack for how big a push they threw behind the game to begin with.

The fundamental problem is MS pushing their current 'profit first' mentality on everyone else. Sure they are the publisher in this case, and have the right to decide, but they are also pushing this mentality on 3rd party developers as well, so as to not make other publishers look bad.

It's fine that MS has this extremely short-sighted, profit driven strategy (gouge peripherals, gouge DLC, delay pricedrops), it's their perogative and they will suffer the reprecussions in the long run as a result. But I really hate to seem them forcing that on other developers who have a different, more long term, user-centric strategy.

As Epic says, and I wholeheartedly agree, if MS concentrated more on maximising their userbase, rather than maximising current profits, they'll be much more succesful in the end.

As for the precedant of Halo 2, you're right that this is nothing new. But I think DLC has become much more of a hot button issue now that we see content being held back from games (700kb unlock keys unlocking content already on disc), charging for cheat codes (content already available on the PS2/Xbox versions), charging for horse armour and a wide variety of extras that should be included in the game, all on top of the 20% increase in cost to $60/game. There are some really ugly precedents being set here, so it's not surprising that there is so much focus on this particular case.

 

[AlNom]

Well, with respect to the similar pricing/free scheme that they've chosen for Gears now ala Halo 2, I don't see as much of a problem. People now have a choice of whether or not to pay now or later, and it's something that people have seen before.

Paying for cheats is pretty low, but again, it's kind of just up to the end user whether or not they care that much about spending time playing the game or paying up front to get special content that can still be unlocked for the price they paid for the game.

 

[kyleb]

I'm not sure what your point is here. I didn't say anything about "making" the content, I'm specifically talking after the fact (which is the current case with Epic).

And I'm talking about the fact that they made it giving them the right to tell MS they would rather sit on their content then fragment their user base by charging for it. They do have that choice, and that is likely what gave them the leverage to talk MS into the settlemnt they've agreed on. On the other hand, developers like Insomniac didn't have to hassle with such matters as Sony didn't oppose them giving their work away, while MS obviously isn't allowing Epic the same option with their maps.

 

[AlNom]

On the other hand, developers like Insomniac didn't have to hassle with such matters as Sony didn't oppose them giving their work away, while MS obviously isn't allowing Epic the same option with their maps.

Well... who knows, depending on the price, it's probably MS's continuing strategy on conditioning people to the idea of microtransactions. Beyond the you know... 150 MS point avatars and theme packs.

What worries me is that the Halo 2 maps are $2 a piece...for an old game...for the first Xbox. But then for a "new" game for the Xbox 360... yikes. Wait and see I guess...

 

[Qroach]

And I'm talking about the fact that they made it giving them the right to tell MS they would rather sit on their content then fragment their user base by charging for it. They do have that choice, and that is likely what gave them the leverage to talk MS into the settlemnt they've agreed on.

Sure Epic has to right to say whatever they like. However this doesn't change the fact that the developer is NOT in charge of what happens after the content is created on consoles.

On the other hand, developers like Insomniac didn't have to hassle with such matters as Sony didn't oppose them giving their work away, while MS obviously isn't allowing Epic the same option with their maps.

Well for one, it was SONY's decision to allow for the content insomniac created to be released from free. Sony is the publisher... they choose if the content is for free or for a fee. again you're making a big deal out of nothing imo. It's not like epic won't receive something for it. If MS wants to charge for stuff it,s their choice to do so, nobody has to like it.

I also think people are mixing issues here. One issue is releasing content for free on games they publish, (which they do btw) and second if ms "forcing" third party publishers to charge for content downloads. First issue is a moot point since it's pay at first free later (btw the mark rein even said this was what MS proposed). Splitting the user base happens anyway when some people refuse to play on a certain map or under certain game conditions. Only the people that will want to play these new maps bad, will pay for it. I don't disagree with what epic say about growing the user base. However i think people are making a bigger deal then they need to.

Second point is moot because the final decision is up to the publisher and do you see a bunch of publishers lining up with angry faces saying how big terrible MS is for forcing them to make money on content that costs money? The reality of the situation here is EPIC is a fairly "rich" independent developer. They can afford to work on free content. The majority of other companies can't afford to devote time/money to content they aren't getting paid to make. Hence why you don't see any publishers complaining about selling with micro transactions. It's also why you won't see a ton of free content from 3rd party publishers.

What you won't see is the same content on a different platform available for free while having to pay on the 360. That's about the only thing that would piss me off.

 

[scooby_dooby]

First issue is a moot point since it's pay at first free later

It's not a moot point because Epic apparently had to fight for this compromise the entire way, and delay the content several weeks to reach it. A developer with less clout probably wouldn't do be able to do this.

It sounds like Epic flat out refused to release the content if it would be charged for, and MS came back with this solution. It's dissapointing that they would force a developer to go to such lengths as to potentially throw away content rather than deliver it for free.

 

[TheChefO]

...it's probably MS's continuing strategy on conditioning people to the idea of microtransactions...

Indeed.

I think this is the bigger play at hand rather than getting a few bucks per map pack. It's getting people used to buying MS points and using them.

The behind the scenes stuff of who paid for what is an unknown and probably always will be so to argue either way on that front is a bit pointless IMO.

Personally, I'll pass.

 

[patsu]

With business partners like Epic, who needs Sony!

Epic would strongly prefer Sony to stick around.

Without Sony, Microsoft can move up the value chain to offer an integrated and dominating middleware easily (Look at the Windows developer scene).

 

[Rangers]

Epic would strongly prefer Sony to stick around.

Without Sony, Microsoft can move up the value chain to offer an integrated and dominating middleware easily (Look at the Windows developer scene).

Heh, amazing now that the defacto situation is we're worried about MS becoming a games monopoly.

Because fact is, in under two console generations they're on their way..

 

[Qroach]

It's not a moot point because Epic apparently had to fight for this compromise the entire way, and delay the content several weeks to reach it. A developer with less clout probably wouldn't do be able to do this.

It sounds like Epic flat out refused to release the content if it would be charged for, and MS came back with this solution. It's dissapointing that they would force a developer to go to such lengths as to potentially throw away content rather than deliver it for free.

I don't know wher eyou got the idea of epic fighting for the pay first free later when mark rein clearly stated this was a suggestion by microsoft. MS never flat out refused to release anything if it was charged for. You're making a lot of assumptions that I don't think occured.