EvaUnit02 on 23/8/2008 at 15:14
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I really doubt it. Bungie was able to get it because they're Microsoft's bitch, and Microsoft looks after their own.
Aside from the Cold Storage map, I can't recall any Halo 3 DLC not being premium at any stage. Care to provide some evidence?
The Gears of War map packs might be free now, but they definitely cost a premium at some stage though. The GoW franchise maybe published MS Game Studios, but Epic are hardly MS' bitches now, are they?
EDIT: Oh yeah, Mass Effect. A game published by Microsoft Game Studios originally. After EA's absorption of Bioware/Pandemic, EA bartered back all future publishing rights for that game. Valve wouldn't have the same coffers as EA, but not the same clout? Oh please.
Quote:
Bungie's learned that the hard way- they complained last year that they've been basically forced to become Halocorp. with no room for new IPs.
I seem to recall last year that Bungie, a then wholly-owned subsidiary of Microsoft, becoming an independent studio once again. Care to share a link detailing that they're only allowed to make Halo games?
addink on 23/8/2008 at 15:24
Quote Posted by dethtoll
I have no doubt that getting a free-DLC deal would possibly involve Valve selling their soul in some way, and I just don't see that happening.
Exactly. So why not opt for
no deal?
I know that that is such a top level strategy decision that it will never be made by lower level producers/project managers that are at work here.
Still, Valve doesn't need to do this, no-one will complain if Valve makes a statement in the form of "
We can't do this, because Microsoft wants to make money off it, and we think that's silly".
Microsoft already made their share of money of the TF2 title. Why allow them to further milk a cow that's not theirs?
Valve is not the sad soft wallflower of the industry. They can pretty much do what they want, no-one forced them to make the free TF2 updates, yet they did, they apparently don't need the money. So why give in to Microsoft? If they don't want it, that's fine.
But they gave in.
And that is either sad, or plain commercial thinking.
David on 23/8/2008 at 15:48
What kind of idiot posts a 2.8mb animated gif that adds absolutely nothing to the.... I would say discussion, but it clearly isn't one?
Don't do it again.
Phatose on 23/8/2008 at 16:26
Valve is pretty big in PC land, but they're not a major player in the console world. Microsoft has made it plenty clear for years they intend to monetize updates of this nature, and have clearly demonstrated not only that they can, but that they will. And the market has proven that it works. What on earth would the motivation for anyone involved to just give it away for free?
Then you add in that the PC market clearly shows that once people get used to getting this kind of stuff for free, making them pay for it gets real hard.
Microsoft may not have had a whole lot of choice in the matter. You can bet your britches they've been selling the benefits of Live premium content to developers for some time now. Letting Valve - a relatively minor player in the console space - give away stuff of this magnitude for free is quite likely to piss off the major players who do plan to make money selling expansions like this.
360 owners knew this was their intention from day one. No use bitching about it now, any more then bitching about copy protection or delays or crappy console ports helps the PC gamer. You knew it was a snake when you picked it up.
addink on 23/8/2008 at 19:48
My remarks about Valve were an attempt to explain my earlier comment on Valve not being innocent.
Valve had a choice. And they decided to go along with Microsoft's wishes.
On (
http://www.halflife2.net/2008/08/22/team-fortress-2-updates-coming-to-xbox-360-later-this-year/) halflife2.net they make it seem Microsoft is forcing Valve to charge for stuff that should be free. My point is Valve could have decided not to go along, apparently they aren't strapped for cash, so it's not a do-or-die situation.
Microsoft can indeed prevent them from giving it away, but Valve can't be forced to make and sell a product they don't want to sell.
But other than that point, I don't really care. Come to think of it, I don't know anyone that plays Valve games on the Xbox.
Yakoob on 23/8/2008 at 20:51
I like your blatant ignoring of the fact Valve may actually want the X360 users to have the same content as PC users and if making them pay is the only way then it's the only way. Just as no one is forcing Valve to release the update, no one is forcing the gamers to buy it. Hence, no one gets hurt in this deal vs. not releasing it at all. Touting how Valve should have not released it at all is just your "well, I don't want to pay for it so no one should ever have it :mad: " wankery.
Aja on 23/8/2008 at 20:53
If the update is like 400 points then it's really not a big deal.
But more importantly, who cares about TF2? I've never been able to spend more than a few days max on a multiplayer game. With no goal or endgame, it feels like time-wasting in the purest sense.
suliman on 23/8/2008 at 21:26
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Just as no one is forcing Valve to release the update, no one is forcing the gamers to buy it. Hence, no one gets hurt in this deal vs. not releasing it at all.
Well, last time I checked TF2 was a competitive multiplayer game. Allowing people to purchase additional weapons is unforgivable, regardless of price.
unless, of course, there are seperate servers for each version, in which case ignore this post.
Yakoob on 23/8/2008 at 21:29
Good point Suliman, and I agree. I was thinking you could not play on servers with dlc if you didn't purchase it (after all, you wouldn't have the maps and models). But if it is indeed "pay more = get better gear" then I agree it's bullshit. For a different reason than what addink is saying, but bullshit nonetheless.
addink on 23/8/2008 at 21:34
Quote Posted by Yakoob
Touting how Valve should have not released it at all is just your "well, I don't want to pay for it so no one should ever have it :mad: " wankery.
Thank you for your vote of confidence.
Again the point I was trying to make, at which I apparently fail brilliantly, is in response to the sentiment in dethtoll's link, that Valve is not the innocent victim of the console mafia. They played along. I personally I don't care if they do or don't charge.
I assume Microsoft doesn't charge for downloadable bug fixes and patches, so they could have opted to sneak some content into a patch. But perhaps that would be too obvious.
