Yes, they are the publisher, and they funded Gears development and did extensive marketing for Epic, which Tim points out. They're grateful.
But they didn't pay Epic to create the DLC content--the stuff Epic wanted to give away free. If they had, it would be 100% understandable that they ask/demand/push/whatever Epic to release it as payed DLC.
The best way to communicate such is by NOT buying the DLC. I have always been in shock that people buy DRM resticted media from places like iTunes (nice to see that change... at a cost). I am a fan of DLC and will even pay for robust DLC (like full expansions for $20) but the nickle and dime stuff... no thanks.
None of it is priced so unreasonably that the majority will avoid purchasing it (as we have seen with themes, picture packs, cheat codes, horse armor, and all this other stuff). You won't be doing much voting with your wallet in that case, especially with reasonably-priced content as map packs tend to be (with the $15 GRAW DLC being the biggest counter example I can think of, but one among few). If you want to save yourself money, then it's easy-as-pie, mission accomplished. But hoping that enough people would avoid buying it to stop that kind of stuff.... I don't think it's a reasonable hope.
So, like said, it's not paying for DLC that's the issue. It's paying for DLC that should have been free, given that the developer responsible for its existence in the first place, wanted that. The costs to Microsoft would come strictly in the areas of putting up the download on their servers, certifying it, and such. They're not paying a million dollars for Epic to produce it.
My money shouldn't be lining the condoms of anybody except those responsible for taking the initiative and investing in creating the stuff I'm paying for. When Microsoft contracts Epic to make new Gears map, then I'd expect and approve of them charging for it, taking a significant chunk of it, and so on. When guys at Epic start placing some of their OWN budget on creating this stuff, MS isn't involved beyond their indirect relationship having to do with the original development and marketing of the game, and MS never pays a single cent for it... don't you find it a little unreasonable that they're not allowing Epic to release THEIR content for free? Of course, marketplace belongs to MS, and they control final say even if they tell people that developer have the final say. Protecting the value of their other, price-gouging developers such as EA. It would look pretty bad that you have to pay $2 to get a T-shirt for your guy in an EA game, and for nothing more than the time it takes to download, you get half a dozen brand-spanking new maps for the hottest game on the 360, spaced out over several months. So it's understandable why they're doing all of this, but when they start spouting their BS lies about developers having final say (yet we still don't see the free DLC)... that's one of the things that irks me.
To be fair, MS has been gouging on non-core aspects from the get go. Look at the hardware:
Buy a core console unit and then every perephrial is a gouge: Controllers, Remotes, Memory Cards, HDDs, etc.
Buy a game and then...
And MS still hasn't turned a profit with this tactic. I think it would attract more people to their platform if they didn't feel nickled and dimed and had a better entry point.
I should add that besides being annoyed with their decisions, I'm moreso astonished that they're making these horribly inane choices.
As a company, trying to spread adoption of their Windows Live initiative, they're just screwing themselves. They're killing their very own opportunities, as if they're trying to sabotage their own stuff. They've been doing fairly until now, but now, when they have the chance to expand their userbase... see below.
That is BS. At that point a developer gets to choose to either support Windows Live or not. As for a MGS published game the developer has to look at their contract and either a) realize they gave up those rights or b) write them in, else the are out of luck... as are gamers. But MS as the publisher they have other motives, like pushing Windows Live, which a developer bows too when they get the benefits of MGS publishing. You cannot have your cake and ...
Yes, exactly, to support Windows Live or NOT. What they're doing is asking developers to SCREW all non-Live customers to support Live for Windows. Instead of attempting to give more incentives to Live, they're just moving features from the free space to the paid space. Why would developers want to support Live when MS demands they REMOVE features they used to have, JUST so they can put it under the list of features you get with a Live Gold account for which developers aren't going to see any money? Yes, it standardizes things, and that's great. For all the developers below that minimum feature list, this is great. It only adds things. But for the ones who went the extra mile, have LiveGold-like features, they're going to have to cut stuff from their game. For Microsoft's service. It's unbelievable that Microsoft thinks they're going to WIN developers with this system. They realized that making PC users pay for multiplayer just was not going to fly in the PC space. But with less common features as is the case here, they might be able to get away with it. And they're certainly trying.
