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

[scooby_dooby]

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.

Epic states this is MS's latest proposal, but we have been hearing rumours of this infighting for weeks now. Epic has always wanted it to be free, while MS is insisting on charging. It seems obvious that Epic must have put their foot down and said they will not release it at all unless there is some free option, it's really too bad they were forced to go to such lengths.

Next time this happens, with a smaller dev, MS will simply strong arm them into charging.

 

[patsu]

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..

I think people are wary whenever MS tries to enter their industry (because Microsoft has tons of money from their PC monopoly, and historically do not play nice).

Right now, Nintendo has captured the imagination of consumers. Sony came back with more impressive showing in GDC than I thought. It is not clear whether MS can be a monopoly at all... but like I said, people will always view MS through tainted eye glasses, especially after this charge-or-no-charge DLC debacle.

 

[dobwal]

Epic states this is MS's latest proposal, but we have been hearing rumours of this infighting for weeks now. Epic has always wanted it to be free, while MS is insisting on charging. It seems obvious that Epic must have put their foot down and said they will not release it at all unless there is some free option, it's really too bad they were forced to go to such lengths.

Next time this happens, with a smaller dev, MS will simply strong arm them into charging.

Why wouldn't MS insist on charging,

Who likes the idea of eating the cost of maintaining and delivering someone else's product with no compensation.

I doubt the logistics of the arguments of giving away free content includes publishers willing to pay MS to host their content, with MS resisting because rather than charge the publisher, MS wants to charge the consumer.

You think Walmart would buy into giving away inventory and shelf space because Kellogs wanted to give away free spoons and bowls.

MS likes the idea of hosting free content just as much as devs and publisher likes the idea of putting their content on DVDs and shipping to each and every of their interested customers at no charge.

 

[Tap In]

I find it humorous (beyond the humor found in people throwing the "monopoly" word around ), that we get so uptight about anyone trying to earn a dollar of profit in this industry. sheesh.. let 'em charge whatever the hell they want, if it's worth it people will buy it, if it's not, they won't. Problem solved.

Personally I have a job to earn an income just for these sorts of ancillary sales. it's called investing in my hobby. I feel that stolen DVD and music downloads have really started to taint people into believing that its their right that intellectually property should be distributed free. Yes I know you paid for the original game and are afraid they are holding back content to charge you with later; to which I say, then don't buy the original game.

Forget trying to remind me that "Epic wants to give it away but MS..." ...I don't care. It's a business and if the publisher wants to make a buck so what. Epic just has a track record of feeding that same "gimme free" culture.

Sony will have its share of pay content too. They all do, it's called business. When they give something for free and I have downloaded PLENTY of free game updates on Live, I consider it a gift. I like the Halo2 strategy .... Pay for a period of time, free after that period.

 

[scooby_dooby]

Why wouldn't MS insist on charging,

Why does Epic release free content?

Both strategies bring in a return as I've already stated. By giving away free content MS is increasing the sell through for GoW2, they are increasing the number/longevity of XB Gold accounts, and they are increasing the fanbase for their console. Epic doesn't release free content out of the goodness of their hearts, they feel it is a succesful business strategy.

I'm not berating MS for charging, it's their content, they are the publishers.

I'm only saying it's an ugly philosophy that I think is counter-productive in the long run. Epic knows what they are doing, they have been making games for a decade, there must be tangible benefits to taking care of your userbase that have benefitted their business.

To me, you have 2 diametrically opposed viewpoints, milk your userbase VS support your userbase and build goodwill.

I will continue to side with Epic in their approach, I think their strategy would be more succesful for MS as a business. If MS concentrated more on expanding userbase, rather than short term profit they will be more succesful (this runs the gammut from everything to delayed pricedrops, overpriced peripherals, and forcing developers to charge for DLC.)

We agree MS has every right to try and force their developers to charge for DLC, they have the right to decide to overprice their peripherals, they have the right to not drop the price on their console until the very last minute. But the question is, are these the right decisions?

I would say no, but given MS's current approach, I'm glad they're making these mistakes, as a marketplace dominated by these money grubbing bean counters is not one I want to see. $180 proprietary HDD's no thx.

MS's one saving grace is their amazing 1st party lineup, I can't complain too much because in the end, they are hooking me up with one helluva lineup.

 

[Tap In]

....
I would say no, but given MS's current approach, I'm glad they're making these mistakes, as a marketplace dominated by these money grubbing bean counters is not one I want to see.

sorry Scooby, but that's funny and somewhat contradictory to your post. It IS a business... every business is "money grubbing". that's just the nature of any marketplace.

It's supply and demand.

 

[scooby_dooby]

sorry Scooby, but that's funny and somewhat contradictory to your post. It IS a business... every business is "money grubbing". that's just the nature of any marketplace.

It's supply and demand.

And there are different ways to run a business. Take a look at the Sony model for example. Stark contrast there. Sony could easily have gone with proprietary peripherals, and made loads of extra profit in the short term. But they didn't, different approaches.

I don't like this approach where a company charges the absolute maximum they can on every item. MS is entitled to do as they wish, I won't be buying those products anyways. But personally I certainly don't want to see the market dominated by a company that holds themselves to that approach.

 

[Diamond.G]

To me, you have 2 diametrically opposed viewpoints, milk your userbase VS support your userbase and build goodwill.

I will continue to side with Epic in their approach, I think their strategy would be more succesful for MS as a business. If MS concentrated more on expanding userbase, rather than short term profit they will be more succesful (this runs the gammut from everything to delayed pricedrops, overpriced peripherals, and forcing developers to charge for DLC.)

We agree MS has every right to try and force their developers to charge for DLC, they have the right to decide to overprice their peripherals, they have the right to not drop the price on their console until the very last minute. But the question is, are these the right decisions?

I would say no, but given MS's current approach, I'm glad they're making these mistakes, as a marketplace dominated by these money grubbing bean counters is not one I want to see. $180 proprietary HDD's no thx.

MS's one saving grace is their amazing 1st party lineup, I can't complain too much because in the end, they are hooking me up with one helluva lineup.

Actually MS did the same thing (expanding userbase) with Windows. Once they owned the Market, they make all these "draconian" protection claims (Windows Genuine Advantage anybody??). I would rather know about the shafting up front then getting the "rufie dropped in my drink" and figuring it out later.

 

[Tap In]

...

I don't like this approach where a company charges the absolute maximum they can on every item. MS is entitled to do as they wish, I won't be buying those products anyways. But personally I certainly don't want to see the market dominated by a company that holds themselves to that approach.

well there you go then.

Again, this "market dominated by" talk is silly, IMO.

There are 3 viable players in the industry now and I expect it to stay that way. this is the most parity that we have ever seen ever and I do not begrudge MS one bit of taking advantage of their head start this way. They possibly will need to adjust it to more along your thinking in the future though as things change. But... again... that will be market driven.

One thing I always hate to do in my business is leave money on the table, so I can see why they are currently doing what they are doing.

 

[kyleb]

There is nothing inherent to the supply and demand which necessitates nickle and dimming customers, plenty of companies do quite well without such grubbing.

 

[Tap In]

There is nothing inherent to the supply and demand which necessitates nickle and dimming customers, plenty of companies do quite well without such grubbing.

maybe, maybe not but it still applies.

if few buy the new content, then it was a mistake, if many do, it was good business. Period.

oh and FTR, I'm not defending MS here, I'd say the same for Sony, Nintendo or anybody that is trying to make a profit off of their work and/or investment in a service or product.

 

[kyleb]

maybe, maybe not but it still applies.

if few buy the new content, then it was a mistake, if many do, it was good business. Period.

That looks like a ridiculously oversimplified argument to me. How did you come up with it and what qualifications do you have to back it?

 

[Tap In]

That looks like a ridiculously oversimplified argument to me. How did you come up with it and what qualifications do you have to back it?

what? besides common sense and the running of my own small business which has rewards and consequences every day based on pricing and supply/demand?

 

[scooby_dooby]

Again, this "market dominated by" talk is silly, IMO.

It's sill right now, but looking ahead a generation or two, it's not silly at all. Maybe MS is showing their true colours right now, and if so they are not attractive whatsoever.

Maybe it's a result of the massive losses they incurred last generation. We won't really know until they start turning a profit, but if this is how they want to do business I would honestly prefer Sony to lead the market, as they ned to be kept in check. They are far too opportunistic for my taste.

Just to clarify - this has much less to do with the Gears maps, and more to do with the overall MS strategy.

 

[Tap In]

It's sill right now, but looking ahead a generation or two, it's not silly at all. Maybe MS is showing their true colours right now, and if so they are not attractive whatsoever.

Maybe it's a result of the massive losses they incurred last generation. We won't really know until they start turning a profit, but if this is how they want to do business I would honestly prefer Sony to lead the market, as they ned to be kept in check. They are far too opportunistic for my taste.

I really think it is a combination of: Xbox1 incurred a HUGE investment/loss AND being early to market is allowing them a window of opportunity here to make some money and they are capitalizing for right now.

Ever hear the saying, you have to make hay while the sun is shining?

 

[kyleb]

what? besides common sense and the running of my own small business which has rewards and consequences every day based on pricing and supply/demand?

Yeah, I was simply interested to see how your business strategies successes compares to Epic's since they've been doing pretty well with their own philosophy.

As for "common sense", that compels me to consider many other factors than what you mention; such as how many new customers the added value of free content might attract, as well as how many current users might be compelled by that value to purchase then next installment of the series where otherwise they might not feel they got their monies worth out of the first game to justify buying the sequel. They are bound to sell plenty of maps, but all the same it is possible that they could bring in even more money by giving them away for free.

 

[dobwal]

Why does Epic release free content?

Both strategies bring in a return as I've already stated. By giving away free content MS is increasing the sell through for GoW2, they are increasing the number/longevity of XB Gold accounts, and they are increasing the fanbase for their console. Epic doesn't release free content out of the goodness of their hearts, they feel it is a succesful business strategy.

I'm not berating MS for charging, it's their content, they are the publishers.

I'm only saying it's an ugly philosophy that I think is counter-productive in the long run. Epic knows what they are doing, they have been making games for a decade, there must be tangible benefits to taking care of your userbase that have benefitted their business.

To me, you have 2 diametrically opposed viewpoints, milk your userbase VS support your userbase and build goodwill.

I will continue to side with Epic in their approach, I think their strategy would be more succesful for MS as a business. If MS concentrated more on expanding userbase, rather than short term profit they will be more succesful (this runs the gammut from everything to delayed pricedrops, overpriced peripherals, and forcing developers to charge for DLC.)

We agree MS has every right to try and force their developers to charge for DLC, they have the right to decide to overprice their peripherals, they have the right to not drop the price on their console until the very last minute. But the question is, are these the right decisions?

I would say no, but given MS's current approach, I'm glad they're making these mistakes, as a marketplace dominated by these money grubbing bean counters is not one I want to see. $180 proprietary HDD's no thx.

MS's one saving grace is their amazing 1st party lineup, I can't complain too much because in the end, they are hooking me up with one helluva lineup.

Epic has the luxury of making strategic moves as an rich independent dev. MS is not only a publisher, but the console manufacturer as well as the service provider for Live thats encompassed into one division thats operating at a lost. Charging for a short period for maps of GeOW is not going to create enough ill will to create a backlash for GeOW2 but charging for maps as well as other DLC for all its published games as well as other pubs and devs will go a long way to getting MS into the black.

 

[Tap In]

...
As for "common sense", that compels me to consider many other factors than what you mention; such as how many new customers the added value of free content might attract, as well as how many current users might be compelled by that value to purchase then next installment of the series where otherwise they might not feel they got their monies worth out of the first game to justify buying the sequel. They are bound to sell plenty of maps, but all the same it is possible that they could bring in even more money by giving them away for free.

all good points that I'm sure they considered when making their decision.

Personally, I just think the more they give away, the more people will expect it and it may not suit the long term profitability. I guess I resent some of the attitude that "it should be free" because some have gotten used to stealing DVD movies and music. (not saying anyone here does that )

again, pay for a time period and then make it free seems most logical.

Epic has the luxury of making strategic moves as an rich independent dev. MS is not only a publisher, but the console manufacturer as well as the service provider for Live thats encompassed into one division thats operating at a lost. Charging for a short period for maps of GeOW is not going to create enough ill will to create a backlash for GeOW2 but charging for maps as well as other DLC for all its published games as well as other pubs and devs will go a long way to getting MS into the black.

good post

 

[kyleb]

Personally, I just think the more they give away, the more people will expect it and it may not suit the long term profitability. I guess I resent some of the attitude that "it should be free" because some have gotten used to stealing DVD movies and music. (not saying anyone here does that )

Of the pirates that I've known anyway, most don't rightly think that movies and music should be free, they just don't care to pay. However, I have gotten used to getting free content for games I've purchased from companies like Id, Valve, and of course Epic; which is exactly why I'm dissapointed to see MS stand in the way of that here.

 

[Tap In]

...However, I have gotten used to getting free content for games I've purchased from companies like Id, Valve, and of course Epic; which is exactly why I'm dissapointed to see MS stand in the way of that here.

I completely understand how you feel. Hell yea, i'd like it to be free. I just paid $10 for extra maps for Call of Duty 3 and evidently, I'm one of only a few who chose to do the same.

My position is only that I never begrudge anyone the right to make a profit on the fruits of their labor or time/money investment (except in times of social crisis where donation would be the humane thing to do if they can afford it).

The market will prove whether it was a fair value or not. IMO.