Modern Warfare 2 expansion pack is $15.

[Cry Havoc]

http://kotaku.com/5493218/modern-warfare-2-map-pack-also-features-ridiculous-price

5 maps. 2 of them from MW1. $15.

Yep. Activision can suck it. That's ridiculous.

[z0sa]

That's what happens when half of the MW2's out there are downloaded illegally. Gotta make the money back on us "suckers" who still pay for our games.

[Cry Havoc]

That's what happens when half of the MW2's out there are downloaded illegally. Gotta make the money back on us "suckers" who still pay for our games.

:lmao

Wait a minute! I thought you were decrying haters for boycotting this game when it's the "Best-selling entertainment product of all time!"?

So when the game does something positive for notoriety, you rip on people calling out it's flaws. When something negative happens, you blame the pirates. Gotcha.

Just answer me this: How many games that sold 1/100th the number of copies had cheaper expansion packs? How many had packs that were similarly priced and added a huge amount to the story, as well as other missions?

You're right. It's the pirates fault this happened. There's no rampant greed here on the part of Activision. :lmao

[MiamiHeat]

15 bucks for 5 fucking maps?

kiss my motherfucking ass.

it's not about the money, I would love to play on some new maps, but this is bogus.

[IronMaxipad]

Shit sucks anyway.

[z0sa]

You're right. It's the pirates fault this happened. There's no rampant greed here on the part of Activision. :lmao

You missed the point; this sentence proves it.

I agree it's rampant greed on Activision's part - but had 4 million copies not been stolen electronically, I don't think the DLC would be as expensive. Hard to blame Activision or anyone else for being greedy when they're losing literally tens of millions of dollars of sales.

[MiamiHeat]

Hard to blame Activision or anyone else for being greedy when they're losing literally tens of millions of dollars of sales.

This makes the assumption that the pirates can actually afford the game to begin with, or would have even bothered buying it.

Many people download games and play them, but it doesn't mean they are fans of the game or would have gone to the store and purchased a copy.

So, no, they didn't lose all that money. Only a certain percentage of the pirates would have gone to buy the game if they could not D/L it.

[z0sa]

This makes the assumption that the pirates can actually afford the game to begin with, or would have even bothered buying it.

Many people download games and play them, but it doesn't mean they are fans of the game or would have gone to the store and purchased a copy.

So, no, they didn't lose all that money. Only a certain percentage of the pirates would have gone to buy the game if they could not D/L it.

I think you're confusing downloading entire games to be used however you want, for however long you want with Blockbuster or Gamefly. Activision gets their money from such a service as these.

Just because one steals something and doesn't like it doesn't change the fact it has been stolen.

Same goes for if someone can't afford the game, or thinks he might not like it. These things don't give you a right to take it or test it freely.

Since it's been stolen, gotta assume the opposite: that Activision has lost a shitload of potential sales to thieves. So the paying customer takes the hit.

[Xevious]

This makes the assumption that the pirates can actually afford the game to begin with, or would have even bothered buying it.

Many people download games and play them, but it doesn't mean they are fans of the game or would have gone to the store and purchased a copy.

So, no, they didn't lose all that money. Only a certain percentage of the pirates would have gone to buy the game if they could not D/L it.
+1

There's no way to measure what companies actually lose by pirating. Same can be said about mp3s when Napster was running rampant. I had gigs of mp3s that I downloaded illegally, and I can say honestly say that I would not have paid for 100% of those (online or CD) if that was my only option.

That doesn't make it right, but it isn't something tangible that people are stealing and as I said, it's impossible to measure loss. In some cases, too much copy protection pisses off honest customers. How many people couldn't play their legit copy of Half-Life 2 when it first came out because Steam was malfunctioning (all the while, people with hacked copies were playing just fine)? Since then I haven't paid a dime for any Valve products, or anything affiliated with Steam.

[z0sa]

It's not very hard to understand. A game sells 4 million copies, 5 million - more than get sold - get pirated. Activision undoubtedly loses many, many millions when this occurs. They pass this loss back to the buyer.

If even 1 million, or 20%, bought the game instead, it would be a huge increase in profit. They have certain costs they have to pay up front (making games is expensive as fuck, you know that right?), so only after a certain amount of games have been sold do they even start seeing any real money.

The buyers who were on the fence and downloaded instead cost Activision big time. And for a game as hyped as MW2, you should know plenty of the pirates would have bought it.

Over 5 million copies of MW2 pirated, Activision loses over $245 million (http://dlb-network.com/2009/12/over-5-million-copies-of-mw2-were-torrented-this-year/)

[TwAnKiEs]

I agree $15 is a little high, but I have the extra change so I'll buy it :greedy

[symple19]

put that $15 towards Bad Company 2 instead

[Xevious]

Anyone else getting tired of these cookie-cutter war games? Or is it just me?

[resistanze]

It's not very hard to understand. A game sells 4 million copies, 5 million - more than get sold - get pirated. Activision undoubtedly loses many, many millions when this occurs. They pass this loss back to the buyer.

If even 1 million, or 20%, bought the game instead, it would be a huge increase in profit. They have certain costs they have to pay up front (making games is expensive as fuck, you know that right?), so only after a certain amount of games have been sold do they even start seeing any real money.

The buyers who were on the fence and downloaded instead cost Activision big time. And for a game as hyped as MW2, you should know plenty of the pirates would have bought it.

Over 5 million copies of MW2 pirated, Activision loses over $245 million (http://dlb-network.com/2009/12/over-5-million-copies-of-mw2-were-torrented-this-year/)

I really dislike the term "losing money" when a company (or people rationalizing the choices of companies) claim it should've made more profit than they already did. They're making a profit, they're not losing shit.

And piracy happens. Always has, always will. Activision isn't special. Last time I checked, MW2 was the biggest grossing entertainment release in history. Piracy didn't affect that.

To suggest that they're charging more money for the map packs because of piracy is silly. They're not obliged to release any paid DLC and they're not doing anybody favors.

[Mixability]

I'm still trying to finish MW1...

damn grownup stuff!

[DisAsTerBot]

bitch. bitch. bitch. for hating this game sooo much you haters spend alot of time reading about it.

im gettin it.

[Shaolin-Style]

DLC ruins games, especially over-priced dlc.

[z0sa]

I really dislike the term "losing money" when a company (or people rationalizing the choices of companies) claim it should've made more profit than they already did. They're making a profit, they're not losing shit.

And piracy happens. Always has, always will. Activision isn't special. Last time I checked, MW2 was the biggest grossing entertainment release in history. Piracy didn't affect that.

To suggest that they're charging more money for the map packs because of piracy is silly. They're not obliged to release any paid DLC and they're not doing anybody favors.

Is it lame? Yes.

Silly? No. It absolutely makes good business sense. No one can complain about a high price DLC; you don't have to buy it, and over half of players didn't buy their copy of the game anyway.

If you want the "silliness" to subside, convince others (or yourself) to stop downloading their games. Believe it or not, Activision needs your money if they want to stay in business.

[MiamiHeat]

Believe it or not, Activision needs your money if they want to stay in business.

:rollin


do you listen to yourself or is this trolling? you can't be serious :lmao

MW2 the best selling game of all time. poor activision

[z0sa]

:rollin


do you listen to yourself or is this trolling? you can't be serious :lmao

MW2 the best selling game of all time. poor activision

You like stealing from big corporations who don't notice your one theft, we get it.

Over the course of 5 million thefts, it gets noticed.

[MiamiHeat]

wrong again, troll

I bought my copy for the 360, thank you very much

[z0sa]

wrong again, troll

I bought my copy for the 360, thank you very much

Over 1 million people did not.

Activision noticed.

[resistanze]

Is it lame? Yes.

Silly? No. It absolutely makes good business sense. No one can complain about a high price DLC; you don't have to buy it, and over half of players didn't buy their copy of the game anyway.

If you want the "silliness" to subside, convince others (or yourself) to stop downloading their games. Believe it or not, Activision needs your money if they want to stay in business.

The contention that Activision is charging 15 bucks for DLC because of piracy is absurd, sorry. They're doing so because they can - people will buy it. The same reason why they fired the heads of IW and released a buggy ass MW2 -they can. They have the knowledge that their game was the biggest grossing entertainment product on history. I sure bought into the hype.

Doesn't it seem illogical to you to punish paying customers by overpricing DLC content? Wouldn't that encourage piracy, not deter it? I don't think Activision was even thinking about piracy in this decision.

[z0sa]

Doesn't it seem illogical to you to punish paying customers by overpricing DLC content? Wouldn't that encourage piracy, not deter it? I don't think Activision was even thinking about piracy in this decision.

Quite the opposite. Activision can't stop piracy, but they can pass losses from it on to the paying consumer. This has been my contention all thread ...

[resistanze]

Quite the opposite. Activision can't stop piracy, but they can pass losses from it on to the paying consumer. This has been my contention all thread ...

Let's take a look at the 5 most pirated games of 2009 on the Xbox 360, along with the sales of the games.

1) MW2 - 10M Sales, 1M Downloads
2) Street Fighter IV - 1.41M Sales, 0.8M Downloads
3) Prototype - 1.09M Sales, 0.8M Downloads
4) Dirt 2 - 0.65M Sales, 0.8M Downloads
5) UFC 2009 Undisputed - 1.85M Sales, 0.7M Downloads

So piracy only accounted for 10% of the number of MW2 sales from the 360, while it accounted for around 50% for other games on that list.

So I ask again, what makes MW2 so special in terms of piracy that DLC needs to be overpriced more so than other games?

[z0sa]

That's a strong point concerning 360 games, but PC downloads is where MW2 really hurt.

Besides, I admitted it a greedy act by Activision. You just can't blame them or anyone else for it. Don't be surprised if this sets precedent on higher end DLC, even.

[resistanze]

That's a strong point concerning 360 games, but PC downloads is where MW2 really hurt.

Besides, I admitted it a greedy act by Activision. You just can't blame them or anyone else for it. Don't be surprised if this sets precedent on higher end DLC, even.

Well that why I say it's not about piracy, rather a simple act of milking the fanbase. The article stated the price for Xbox 360, not for PC.

You and I are in agreement that it's a greedy act -- so why do you think it has anything to do with piracy?

Because based on those figures I listed, your argument would have to switch to "Activision is overcharging for DLC on the XBOX 360 because of piracy of MW2 on the PC." Some thing about that isn't logically sound.

Don't forget that MW2 sold like 7-8 million copies on the PS3, where piracy is virtually non-existent.

[z0sa]

As straightforward as I can make it: Activision feels they lost tens of millions of dollars in sales to piracy of this game. They can make this back through DLC - players don't need to buy the game to buy the DLC. It's a debatable point, but the point itself stands. It's not a correlation=cause argument, it's simply enough of a correlation to make an argument.

[resistanze]

Well I guess we see it differently. I contend they haven't lost any money, and it doesn't make sense for them to overcharge on one medium because of apparent piracy on a different medium. If that's the case, Activision shouldn't limit this price gouging only for one game - it would make sense business-wise to overcharge DLC for all games they publish.

[balli]

z0sa, I don't know what Activision ever did for you besides bilk you out of cash for sub-standard games, but feel free to stop sucking Bobby Kotick's dick everytime you get the chance.

Every game loses money to pirates. Not all of them are fortunate enough to STILL garner over a billion dollars in sales. This is fucking ridiculous. Even though I'm glad they're bringing Overgrown and Crash back (it would be more worth the 15 if they just gave us five cod4 maps). Hopefully the 3 new maps aren't as shitty as the rest of mw2's.

[duhoh]

we're not talking about piracy, but the overpriced DLC.

no one is forcing anyone to buy that. it's optional.

[z0sa]

Every game loses money to pirates.

Does every game lose 5 million copies to pirates in a mere 45 days? Let's not go there. The piracy of this game is on ungodly, astronomical levels.

I don't know why anyone should repeat how much money or sales they made. I've agreed Activision made a shitload of money.

Activision thinks they should have made a lot more money. I don't have any special feeling for whoever you mentioned or Activision in general and I have yet to defend the price itself, but it's hard to disagree with piracy having a major effect on it.

I think the fact that they're only doing it for MW2 (thus far) helps prove my point. They're not charging more for the games that got pirated a fraction of the times MW2 has.

[resistanze]

Well, like I've repeated several times, when your game is the fastest selling game in history, you are more likely to have more copies of your games pirated.

As I've shown on the list, MW2 wasn't really affected significantly compared to other titles. Unless you're talking in absolutes, which seems illogical to me.

Finally, I can't find anywhere Activision stating or implying that piracy (PC piracy, not 360/PS3 where most sales were made) is the reason for this ridiculous price for Xbox 360 DLC.

[z0sa]

Well, like I've repeated several times, when your game is the fastest selling game in history, you are more likely to have more copies of your games pirated.

Uh, why's that? How does fastest selling correlate to most pirated?

Just because a game sells well, doesn't mean the money that's lost is somehow replaced. You seem to think just because MW2 sold well, it's okay for Activision to lose a couple hundred million and just be nice about passing it down to the buyers.

I thought we all understood here that Activision is a greedy corporation ...


As I've shown on the list, MW2 wasn't really affected significantly compared to other titles. Unless you're talking in absolutes, which seems illogical to me.

I conceded the point, but the problem is that a larger gross amount of MW2's were pirated - it's still a bigger problem for Activision than anyone else.


Finally, I can't find anywhere Activision stating or implying that piracy (PC piracy, not 360/PS3 where most sales were made) is the reason for this ridiculous price for Xbox 360 DLC.

I never said they did. I haven't seen any reasoning at all, though. One assumes it's because they've lost hundreds of millions to pirates and want to make the money back on us suckers who pay...

[resistanze]

Uh, why's that? How does fastest selling correlate to most pirated?

Easy. If we assume piracy affect all games equally (apparently not - MW2 doesn't seem to be as badly affected as others), then we expect a game that sold 20 million copies to be downloaded game that sold less than one million? It's not causative, but it's definitely correlative. The cause is likely because this game is more popular. People don't tend to pirate games like Rogue Warrior and Deadly Premonition, which don't sell well.


Just because a game sells well, doesn't mean the money that's lost is somehow replaced. You seem to think just because MW2 sold well, it's okay for Activision to lose a couple hundred million and just be nice about passing it down to the buyers.

I thought we all understood here that Activision is a greedy corporation ...
Nope, never claimed either. The point I'm making is there are games that 1) Sell far less overall 2) Are affected by piracy significantly more than MW2.

If the rationale Activision used for charging $15 is to recuperate speculative amounts of profits by raping their paying customers, then I no longer have incentive to buy their games. I should've downloaded MW2 rather than buy it from EB.

[z0sa]

Easy. If we assume piracy affect all games equally (apparently not - MW2 doesn't seem to be as badly affected as others), then we expect a game that sold 20 million copies to be downloaded game that sold less than one million? It's not causative, but it's definitely correlative. The cause is likely because this game is more popular. People don't tend to pirate games like Rogue Warrior and Deadly Premonition, which don't sell well.

So that's sales, period, not how quickly something is sold, which is what you said.


Nope, never claimed either. The point I'm making is there are games that 1) Sell far less overall 2) Are affected by piracy significantly more than MW2.

We could go into argument, there, as well. Sims for example. Look how many useless DLC/expansions they have ...


If the rationale Activision used for charging $15 is to recuperate speculative amounts of profits by raping their paying customers, then I no longer have incentive to buy their games. I should've downloaded MW2 rather than buy it from EB.

You and 5 million others..

[z0sa]

I could actually get into the argument that charging anything for DLC is bullshit, since you already bought the game - at least, that's how I feel.

[resistanze]

So that's sales, period, not how quickly something is sold, which is what you said.

I wasn't trying to imply the rate of sales correlated with piracy. I was correlating total sales/popularity. But I guess I could've made that clearer.



I could actually get into the argument that charging anything for DLC is bullshit, since you already bought the game - at least, that's how I feel.

Well it is bullshit for the most part.

Expansion packs? Sure.

Slapping together some maps? Barely.

Customized armor and that other shit? Fuck outta here.

[BlackSwordsMan]

god damn you people paying 15$ for this shit
when developers see that you blind fans buy the dlc they too will raise the price for future dlc to 15$
15$ FOR 5 FUCKING MAPS
fuck mw2

[spurs_2108]

I'm buying It. Its only 15 dollars, if you can't afford that I don't know how you bought the 360 for over 300+ dollars and the game for 60 dollars.

[MiamiHeat]

I'm buying It. Its only 15 dollars, if you can't afford that I don't know how you bought the 360 for over 300+ dollars and the game for 60 dollars.

i specifically said its not about the money

its the content im getting in return for the money


5 fucking maps, 2 of them from mw1.

the entire game cost 60. but 5 maps = 15 dollars? fuck no.

consider that GTA IV had 2 expansions, and each cost 20 bucks, and it added about 15 hours of more single player missions, more side-quests, and 5 new multiplayer modes.

[balli]

I'm buying It. Its only 15 dollars, if you can't afford that I don't know how you bought the 360 for over 300+ dollars and the game for 60 dollars.

It's not a question of being able to afford it. If it cost 10 times that amount I could still afford it.

I just don't wanna grab my ankles while Activision straps on a lubed rubber.

It's very affordable... And utterly overpriced. (like MH & BSM said above, it's the principle and the precedent.)

[resistanze]

I'm buying It. Its only 15 dollars, if you can't afford that I don't know how you bought the 360 for over 300+ dollars and the game for 60 dollars.

I can afford to buy a Big Mac for $100. Wouldn't make me any less of an idiot, though.

[ElNono]

It's not like DLC's are not pirated... this is about milking this shit for all they can...
They can go fuck themselves...

[redzero]

MW2's maps leave a lot to be desired. Hell, I would say that the DLC maps from MW (Broadcast, Chinatown, Creek and whatever that last one was) are better than MW2's maps, and I don't even like any of them.

[DJ Mbenga]

lol people will be defecting to bc2 in big numbers now

[DisAsTerBot]

you're still gonna buy it, or maybe steal it...then talk about how shitty it is and how you've prestiged like 4 times but you STILL can't seem to get into it.....

[balli]

mw2's maps leave a lot to be desired. Hell, i would say that the dlc maps from mw (broadcast, chinatown, creek and whatever that last one was) are better than mw2's maps, and i don't even like any of them.
+1

[Cry Havoc]

Does every game lose 5 million copies to pirates in a mere 45 days? Let's not go there. The piracy of this game is on ungodly, astronomical levels.

Maybe it's because this game made money on ungodly, astronomical levels?

Goodness, z0sa. Do you work for Activision? Are you their PR agent? Seriously, I haven't seen this kind of incompetence in The Geek Zone since I joined Spurstalk.

So let's review. MW2 is thesmo fastest selling game in history, and made more money than any game or movie at launch in the HISTORY OF ENTERTAINMENT.

Their expansion pack is $15 for 3 original maps and two rehashed ones.

The same day? Battlefield Bad Company 2 is releasing a map pack as well.

FOR FREE.

To say NOTHING of the hundreds of other games that are released with free expansion packs. Ever played Team Fortress 2? They have added something like 8 maps, 2 play modes, and a ton of other features. Free. Fallout 3 added several expansion packs -- most of them were $5 more than MW2s, but offered a slew of new content and a huge story arc.

So tell me, what's the excuse here?

And you have the nerve in the past to call other people fanboys.

You are the biggest fanboy I have ever met. You're like a Mac user, only you ADMIT to being raped by a gaming company, and you seem to enjoy it.

Your logic states that if I run out and steal a $400,000 Ferrari, they can claim that I was definitely going to buy that car.

It's even worse logic in this case, since pirates are not actually removing merchandise from Activision or a shelf.

Your incompetence on this topic seriously knows no bounds. Do you enjoy parroting the statements of a company? So you admit they're greedy -- congratulations. So did CEO Bobby Kotick. I've never seen someone so quickly become what amounts to a talking head for a company. Cognitive dissonance run rampant. You're going to defend MW2 to the death rather than admit you're wrong about something.

Your idea that they have to pass losses on to the consumer is an abject fail. Activision is probably the richest gaming publisher in the world at the moment. They are beyond wealthy. So now they're punishing consumers who actually paid money for the game for pirates? Does that sound like a cool move to a company who cares about gamers to you? So why are you defending them?

If they bring out a $400 map pack with 2 new maps and a pet dog, you could defend it on the basis that "ZOMG PIRATES ZOMG", but you simply have a massive comprehension fail here. This is not a correct way to do things, either from an "honest gamer" standpoint, or a method of relative costs to losses.

balli has it right here. If anyone wants to know what Bobby Kotick's dong tastes like, just ask z0sa. I can't believe how huge of a fanboy you are. It's sickening that you defend a megamassive company like Activision for punishing gamers.

This is the "Yes sir, may I please have another" opus for Mr. z0sa here. We should all send him some lube.

[z0sa]

:lol That's a meaningless rant if I've ever seen one.

Activision charges $5 more than usual for a DLC on a game you refuse to play, and you still find some way to complain. You should find something better to do with your time than be bitter over MW2 or its DLC since neither affects you.

As for you calling me ignorant, I could point to multiple "points" in your post that are beyond ignorant.

For example, comparing stealing a $400,000 ferrari to stealing a $60 game. If that's not ludicrous, and symptomatic of borderline retardation or some extreme blinders, I don't know what is.

The majority of people who download a game can afford it - that's a fact. There's not many people who have capable gaming peripherals and the technological know how - oh, and a paid internet subscription - who can't afford $60 for a game they want badly enough they'll steal it.


In case you didn't notice, video games have gone up in price only marginally in the last 25 years but the cost of making them has skyrocketed exponentially in the same time frame. You're definitely getting your bang for your buck.

I love how I haven't yet defended the price once and specifically kept my line of allegiance neutral, yet I've been called a fanboy by you, a famed IW cocksucker before they broke your little heart. Remember telling me Wolfenstein isn't worth the money because better shit, like MW2, was on the horizon - and before either game was out? Pathetic.

[z0sa]

It's not hard to understand why Activision wants to rape its millions of paying customers - they don't get shit from their even more millions of nonpaying ones. Of course they won't tell you that, it's simply an argument I'm entertaining.

ZOMG!! I've got whoever's dick in my mouth now!!111

Why the insults? I make an argument that pirating has a major effect on one game's DLC pricing, using that as the context, and repeatedly it gets taken out of context and projected differently than I ever wrote or implied.

Grow up, learn how to read, stop getting defensive because someone has a different angle on the situation than you do. It's mere opinion and you somehow still find solace in calling me wrong, your opinion is right. It's CODWAW all over again.

[Cry Havoc]

You should find something better to do with your time than be bitter over MW2 or its DLC since neither affects you.

Ignorant on a couple points. Firstly, your statement that it doesn't affect me... on what basis do you assume this? It's obvious that the gaming industry frequently copies itself these days. This map pack is probably going to sell extremely well. What evidence can you offer that I may not have to pay more in the future because MW2 fans will pay any price for their content, however weak it might be?

And on a more esoteric level, idiocy and rampant corporate greed in general piss me off. Especially when people defend them for it and seem to be content that they are being punished for the actions of others.


For example, comparing stealing a $400,000 ferrari to stealing a $60 game. If that's not ludicrous, and symptomatic of borderline retardation or some extreme blinders, I don't know what is.

You're right. Ferrari wouldn't suddenly jack up the cost of their cars because a few are stolen. And if they did, it would be partially understandable, since they are actually losing merchandise that's potentially damaged. Activision is punishing people who did nothing wrong. So go ahead and defend them -- after all, our banks just did the same thing! :lol


The majority of people who download a game can afford it - that's a fact.

I can afford to buy a bunch of things and choose not to. This point is moot.


There's not many people who have capable gaming peripherals and the technological know how - oh, and a paid internet subscription - who can't afford $60 for a game they want badly enough they'll steal it.

As has been explained to you before in this thread -- which you don't seem to have the comprehension powers to grasp -- the assumption that even a fraction of people who pirate a game would buy it otherwise is without merit. You absolutely cannot make a statement that "x" amount of money was lost on a pirated game until you provide evidence that a specific number of people would have bought the game if they couldn't pirate it. Comprehension fail on your part. Take a stats class, z0sa.


In case you didn't notice, video games have gone up in price only marginally in the last 25 years but the cost of making them has skyrocketed exponentially in the same time frame. You're definitely getting your bang for your buck.

Video games SALES have also skyrocketed. Games now routinely sell a million copies per title. Games now also account for more per year than any other form of home entertainment, if I remember correctly. Game companies are getting richer, faster, than ever before. So THEY are getting more bang for their buck as well. And don't forget that games are now cheaper to mass produce and distribute than Atari or the NES ever thought about being.

In fact, League of Legends is completely free to buy and play. And that company is making a huge profit on the game. So give the "Woe is me" routine for Activision a rest.


I love how I haven't yet defended the price once and specifically kept my line of allegiance neutral,

:lol You're clearly neutral in this. You pick a game you like and defend it regardless of what happens. You defended WaW despite it being a copy of CoD4, you even made the statement that World War II recreations were less common than modern day war environments, and now you're on MW2's jock.


yet I've been called a fanboy by you, a famed IW cocksucker before they broke your little heart.

Yeaaaaah, man, my heart is in pieces. That's why I'm still playing and enjoying the hell out of CoD4, with over 90 maps on the server I play on -- for FREE.

It does piss me off that a gaming company chooses to screw over the people that buy from them, and you call them "greedy" at the same time you're defending them to every other person in the thread. :lol


Remember telling me Wolfenstein isn't worth the money because better shit, like MW2, was on the horizon - and before either game was out? Pathetic.

What does this have to do with anything? Wow... it proves you didn't like Wolfenstein. Congrats! So did a lot of people. You bought into hype for a game that wasn't even released! Way to go! :flag:

[duhoh]

let z0sa defend his legit views on a garbage company who cares far more about money than treating the customer right.

it's like pro athletes that loses thousands when they make tens of millions.

meanwhile, let's just move on and not look at what MW2 is doing, and enjoy the games made by publishers who don't shaft the consumer.

besides, $15 is what i would pay for an expansion. however, an expansion pack is far more than a simple dlc. most of these people assume that dlc=expansion pack. that's not the case.

[Cry Havoc]

It's not hard to understand why Activision wants to rape its millions of paying customers

Of course it isn't. They're a company trying to make money. What's hard to understand is how you'll defend/support them in raping gamers. Do you have stake in the company or something? If their stock goes up, do you make money? Understanding their position doesn't make it more acceptable, or necessary to defend tooth and nail like you are here.


- they don't get shit from their even more millions of nonpaying ones.

Yes. Clearly there are more people out there pirating Activision's games than buying them. :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


ZOMG!! I've got whoever's dick in my mouth now!!111

"I'll defend a company's right to rape it's consumers." Paraphrasing a bit here, but this is essentially what you said. If you're defending said activity, you pretty much are taking their cock and loving them for it, point blank.


Why the insults?

Because you're smarter than this. Yet you turn into an idiot for a FPS games that give you a hard on. I think you fall in love with these games and just lose your ability to sensibly see what's happening. You're like a teenage boy with a pretty girl. She puts poison in your drink and you just go on thinking how sexy she looks.


Grow up, learn how to read, stop getting defensive because someone has a different angle on the situation than you do. It's mere opinion and you somehow still find solace in calling me wrong, your opinion is right. It's CODWAW all over again.

Do you notice that you're completely alone in your opinion here, z0sa? Not a single person in this forum is going to agree with you on this. That doesn't give you a second pause to consider that maybe you don't know everything, and your attempts to explain away Activision's position and defend them is relatively idiotic, and demonstrably wrong? 3-4 people have attempted to explain why this move is WRONG on Activision's part, and you keep shoving "ITZ CUZ DA PIRATES!11!one" as your basis for every rebuttal you make.

You can be wrong, dude. You should really think about that.

[ElNono]

The majority of people who download a game can afford it - that's a fact. There's not many people who have capable gaming peripherals and the technological know how - oh, and a paid internet subscription - who can't afford $60 for a game they want badly enough they'll steal it.

That people can afford it doesn't automatically mean they would have bought the game, if, say, they couldn't pirate it. Basically, a pirated copy doesn't necessarily equates to a lost sale.


In case you didn't notice, video games have gone up in price only marginally in the last 25 years but the cost of making them has skyrocketed exponentially in the same time frame. You're definitely getting your bang for your buck.

It's actually the other way around. Technologically speaking, it's a lot cheaper to make a game now than it was 25 years ago. Hardware is a lot cheaper and exponentially more powerful (to the point that you used to need to rent time on high-end hardware in the past, like SGI boxes, where most everything is owned today), there's a much wider range and much improved set of development tools, and lastly, the availability of developer talent is a lot bigger too.
Nowadays, the most expensive parts of a AAA title is marketing and the cost of licensing 3rd party technology (Bink, Havoc, Unreal Engine, etc) for tech that you don't have in-house.

[z0sa]

Ignorant on a couple points. Firstly, your statement that it doesn't affect me... on what basis do you assume this? It's obvious that the gaming industry frequently copies itself these days. This map pack is probably going to sell extremely well. What evidence can you offer that I may not have to pay more in the future because MW2 fans will pay any price for their content, however weak it might be?

What evidence can you put forth that MW2 fans will pay "any" price for their content? Or any fan of any other popular game?

I've already touched on the idea this could set precedent - it very well could. I've also touched on the idea that DLC should be free. I've also touched on the fact MW2 is pirated exponentially compared to other games and while still hugely profitable, Activision would be stupid to not make adjustments in light of this.

Why does my argument offend you so much? Is it because you download?


And on a more esoteric level, idiocy and rampant corporate greed in general piss me off. Especially when people defend them for it and seem to be content that they are being punished for the actions of others.

You see, you misunderstand my position - I'm on your side. It doesn't change the fact hundreds of millions of dollars were lost to piracy and Activision's has to adjust to that. They can't charge more for the games without causing an uproar, but they can charge more for the DLC.

It's just an opinion. It's grounded in facts. I've conceded points on your side of the spectrum. There's no reason to be so defensive.


You're right. Ferrari wouldn't suddenly jack up the cost of their cars because a few are stolen. And if they did, it would be partially understandable, since they are actually losing merchandise that's potentially damaged. Activision is punishing people who did nothing wrong. So go ahead and defend them -- after all, our banks just did the same thing! :lol

Oh, I was unaware Ferrari or banking at large loses hundreds of millions (and that's a generous estimate) to thieves. I bet if they did, they'd be finding some way to compensate.

Why am I even arguing this? If you can't see the basis for my point, you're blind.. disagree all you want, but the facts are there for you to see: hundreds of millions of $$ in losses didn't go unnoticed.



I can afford to buy a bunch of things and choose not to. This point is moot.

Wrong, this point is NOT moot.

Would you steal something you can afford simply because you can do it and probably not get caught?

Would you expect whoever your stealing from to find a way to compensate for thievery if they can't stop it?

These should be rhetorical questions.




As has been explained to you before in this thread -- which you don't seem to have the comprehension powers to grasp -- the assumption that even a fraction of people who pirate a game would buy it otherwise is without merit.


Who did that? :lol I consider it common knowledge and sense that most pirates can afford any one game they download. I can assure you no one has made any sort of fact-based, or convincing argument that pirates are unable to buy any one game they steal.




You absolutely cannot make a statement that "x" amount of money was lost on a pirated game until you provide evidence that a specific number of people would have bought the game if they couldn't pirate it. Comprehension fail on your part. Take a stats class, z0sa.

:lol defending pirates is lame as hell, and all I'm seeing now from you. I'm pretty sure you are a pirate, judging from this response.

And I'm about to show yet another major ignorant logic/comprehension fail on your part:

I don't think any stats class, or more than common sense, is needed to assume the majority of those who downloaded MW2 had a spare $60 they could have bought the game with.

Since we can safely assume beyond any reasonable doubt that pirates have the money for any one $60 game they download, we can also reasonably assume a portion of those who downloaded it would have bought it, especially when a huge number like 5 million is involved.

This is very clear cut logic that cannot be argued.

Let's make the estimate of those who would have bought the game, then, VERY generous: 20%.

That's $250 million in sales. And you expect Activision to simply be cool about not passing that loss back to the buyers?

Get. Fucking. Real.




Video games SALES have also skyrocketed. Games now routinely sell a million copies per title.

Source? I find the average sales of any game being a million to be more than a little farfetched.


Games now also account for more per year than any other form of home entertainment, if I remember correctly. Game companies are getting richer, faster, than ever before. So THEY are getting more bang for their buck as well. And don't forget that games are now cheaper to mass produce and distribute than Atari or the NES ever thought about being.

Do you have any idea how hard it is to break into the mainstream gaming market? I'm not sure you've taken any business classes to go along with your stat classes.

And when games do poorly, consistently, for even a relatively short amount of time compared with most markets, their developers and publishers quickly get axed and shut down.


So give the "Woe is me" routine for Activision a rest.

Jesus you love putting words into other people's mouths.



:lol You're clearly neutral in this. You pick a game you like and defend it regardless of what happens. You defended WaW despite it being a copy of CoD4, you even made the statement that World War II recreations were less common than modern day war environments, and now you're on MW2's jock.

I don't pick games I like. They pick me. I don't connect with publishers at all, and developers only marginally. Just put a good product out there and I'll buy it.




Yeaaaaah, man, my heart is in pieces. That's why I'm still playing and enjoying the hell out of CoD4, with over 90 maps on the server I play on -- for FREE.


It does piss me off that a gaming company chooses to screw over the people that buy from them, and you call them "greedy" at the same time you're defending them to every other person in the thread. :lol

I have yet to defend the price change, Activision's philosophy, or anything else. Speculation and argument over that is completely separate - man this is stupid. learn to goddamn read.




What does this have to do with anything? Wow... it proves you didn't like Wolfenstein. Congrats! So did a lot of people. You bought into hype for a game that wasn't even released! Way to go! :flag:

WTF? My copy of Wolfenstein is sitting on my shelf in view, right now.

Since you can't grasp what I said, let me be clearer: you talked shit about Wolfenstein when I was hyped about it because it didn't look "innovative" or groundbreaking enough for you when so many better titles (you specifically mentioned MW2) are on the way.

IOW, you sucked IW's dick to the last drop and you call me a fanboy? That's a compliment. I know I've been neutral as hell when I'm getting your panties all tied in a bunch.

[z0sa]

That people can afford it doesn't automatically mean they would have bought the game, if, say, they couldn't pirate it. Basically, a pirated copy doesn't necessarily equates to a lost sale.

Yeah, I've covered this and so did the link I provided. Activision lost about $250 million.



It's actually the other way around. Technologically speaking, it's a lot cheaper to make a game now than it was 25 years ago.

I suggest you do some research...

[ElNono]

That said, Activision is free to charge whatever they want for their products. You're free not to purchase their offering...

[ElNono]

Yeah, I've covered this and so did the link the I provided. Activision lost about $250 million.

It's an arbitrary number. You simply cannot determine which one was a lost sale and which one was not. That's the reason every party (Activision, BSA, etc) will give you different numbers every time.


Uh, no. I suggest you do some research...

I'm a former employee of this place (http://www.tiburon.com/)
I've been in the business since the 80's. Part of my current income comes from the sale of videogames...

But, I'll take your word for it... :rolleyes

[IronMexican]

What's up with expensive DLC? Bioware released a $40 DLC for Dragon Age. I was going to buy it for $30 till I saw that shit was 40.

[z0sa]

It's an arbitrary number. You simply cannot determine which one was a lost sale and which one was not. That's the reason every party (Activision, BSA, etc) will give you different numbers every time.

:rolleyes:rolleyes

So you can't assume even a small portion of a such a large number would have bought it?

Fucking unreal.

Just the fact Many millions of people DID buy it, is proof that a portion of those who downloaded would have. It's simple odds.



I'm a former employee of this place (http://www.tiburon.com/)
I've been in the business since the 80's. Part of my current income comes from the sale of videogames...

But, I'll take your word for it... :rolleyes

Just like I'll take your word for it. Oh wait, I won't, since it's pretty commonly known that game cost tens of thousands to make in the 80's and cost you $40 then now cost many millions yet the price has only increased to $60.

Here comes the strawman..

[z0sa]

I don't think any stats class, or more than common sense, is needed to assume the majority of those who downloaded MW2 had a spare $60 they could have bought the game with.

Since we can safely assume beyond any reasonable doubt that pirates have the money for any one $60 game they download, we can also reasonably assume a portion of those who downloaded it would have bought it, especially when a huge number like 5 million is involved.

This is very clear cut logic that cannot be argued.

Let's make the estimate of those who would have bought the game, then, VERY generous: 20%.

Is 20% ($250 million in losses) too unreasonable of a number?

[z0sa]

I just don't see any way, especially technologically speaking, that developing games is "way" cheaper. New technologies and engines can take years, entire office teams and tens of millions of develop - in the 80's, you had 4 guys on computers in a single workroom coding a game, gfx and all.

[z0sa]

Technologically speaking, it's a lot cheaper to make a game now than it was 25 years ago.

MW2 cost $50 million to develop BEFORE advertising - ultimately had a budget of $200 million. (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty18)

That article touches heavily on the fact gaming is catching up with movies as a veritably mainstream media platform.

Your idea that it's "technologically a lot cheaper" is off base unless you have some type of proof other than your former employee ID.

[ElNono]

So you can't assume even a small portion of a such a large number would have bought it?

Fucking unreal.

Just the fact Many millions of people DID buy it, is proof that a portion of those who downloaded would have. It's simple odds.

Well, I didn't say there were none. I merely said that you simply cannot calculate a number unless you go through every pirate and ask them wether they would have bought a copy if they couldn't pirate it.


Just like I'll take your word for it. Oh wait, I won't, since it's pretty commonly known that game cost tens of thousands to make in the 80's and cost you $40 then now cost many millions yet the price has only increased to $60.

Here comes the strawman..

There's no strawman. You're confusing what's invested on games vs the actual cost of development. If back in the '80 you wanted to develop a game exactly like today's MW2, there was nothing stopping you from doing it.
But it would have cost you 1000 times more than today, and you basically won't get the return on your investment simply because a) the most popular consoles at the time, like the NES, couldn't possibly run it and b) the videogame market was not as big or widespread as it is today.
Conversely, if you take a game like Myst, which took two years to develop and many man-hours to render all that stuff, and you wanted to put it together today, it would cost just a fraction to make.

Activision willingly spends millions more today because they understand that they'll recoup many more millions. That's just the economies of scale, nothing more and nothing less.

[z0sa]

Do you notice that you're completely alone in your opinion here, z0sa? Not a single person in this forum is going to agree with you on this. That doesn't give you a second pause to consider that maybe you don't know everything, and your attempts to explain away Activision's position and defend them is relatively idiotic, and demonstrably wrong? 3-4 people have attempted to explain why this move is WRONG on Activision's part, and you keep shoving "ITZ CUZ DA PIRATES!11!one" as your basis for every rebuttal you make.

You can be wrong, dude. You should really think about that.

If you want to call it "wrong", so be it, but "demonstrably wrong"? I don't think so. It's hard to prove speculation "wrong". Which is all I've said. I've gone on and onabout how suckers like MYSELF are the ones getting raped. I don't deny the event is happening - everyone suffers it. But I'm sorry, I can't blame greedy, incredibly rich and evil corporation for being themselves. That's a whole different argument. I blame the people who make them even more greedy - and in this one context, only.

Besides, I honestly don't feel shame for being alone on matters in this forum - how many people insulted me here over WaW without cause just because they liked 4 better? Just about everyone. So it really doesn't matter what numbers this forum has on me..

[MiamiHeat]

Just like I'll take your word for it. Oh wait, I won't, since it's pretty commonly known that game cost tens of thousands to make in the 80's and cost you $40 then now cost many millions yet the price has only increased to $60.



Back then, video games and consoles like Atari did not have as large a consumer base as we do now.

lots more video gamers in the world today, it makes up the difference.

[ElNono]

MW2 cost $50 million to develop BEFORE advertising - ultimately had a budget of $200 million. (http://articles.latimes.com/2009/nov/18/business/fi-ct-duty18)

That article touches heavily on the fact gaming is catching up with movies as a veritably mainstream media platform.

Your idea that it's "technologically a lot cheaper" is off base unless you have some type of proof other than your former employee ID.

Actually, that sounds about right. The ID tech 4 engine they use costs a 5% royalty off the cost of the product. At $550 million racked in, that would amount to nearly $27+ million to ID software alone (exactly what I was pointing out).
Tack in Bink and Havok licensing fees plus Microsoft and Sony royalties and you're looking at the bulk of the costs.
Obviously, it didn't cost ID dozens of million dollars to write their engine, but as long as economies of scale are large enough, it works out great for them.

[z0sa]

Actually, that sounds about right. The ID tech 4 engine they use costs a 5% royalty off the cost of the product. At $550 million racked in, that would amount to nearly $27+ million to ID software alone (exactly what I was pointing out).
Tack in Bink and Havok licensing fees plus Microsoft and Sony royalties and you're looking at the bulk of the costs.
Obviously, it didn't cost ID dozens of million dollars to write their engine, but as long as economies of scale are large enough, it works out great for them.

Although I see the meaning behind your post, I find that to be a lot more "viable" and pretty much no "cheaper". I understand companies make more even though they spend much more. More profit doesn't mean things got cheaper.

[ElNono]

Although I see the meaning behind your post, I find that to be a lot more "viable" and pretty much no "cheaper". I understand companies make more even though they spend much more. More profit doesn't mean things got cheaper.

Well, we're not going to agree, and that's ok.

That said, this whole DLC thing has very little to do with piracy and everything to do with trying to milk every possible cent they can. DLC's are pirated both on the PC (http://www.rlslog.net/borderlands-the-secret-armory-of-general-knoxx-dlc-reloaded/) and Consoles (http://www.rlslog.net/borderlands-the-secret-armory-of-general-knox-dlc-xbox360-fyk/)...

[z0sa]

Well, we're not going to agree, and that's ok.

How could we? Games go from being underground, having little press and costing thousands to being compared with movies, receiving huge press and costing tens of millions yet you claim things have gotten cheaper. :huh


That said, this whole DLC thing has very little to do with piracy and everything to do with trying to milk every possible cent they can. DLC's are pirated both on the PC (http://www.rlslog.net/borderlands-the-secret-armory-of-general-knoxx-dlc-reloaded/) and Consoles (http://www.rlslog.net/borderlands-the-secret-armory-of-general-knox-dlc-xbox360-fyk/)...

Milk every possible cent they can, true. I'm sure losing at least $250 million in 45 days - the most for a single game in the shortest timespan, AFAIK - has something to do with making them more greedy than ever, too.

I agree on the one hand, agree on the other.

[ElNono]

How could we? Games go from being underground, having little press and costing thousands to being compared with movies, receiving huge press and costing tens of millions yet you claim things have gotten cheaper. :huh

Development costs have gotten cheaper, this is a fact. You just see a bunch of zeros thrown around and go ahhhh, ohhhh, soooo expensive. The fact that they spent 75% of their budget on marketing tells you all you need to know about costs.
You're still confused on total amount invested vs actual development costs.
But I already tried to educate you on the subject and you declined, so I'll just stop.


Milk every possible cent they can, true. I'm sure losing at least $250 million in 45 days - the most for a single game in the shortest timespan, AFAIK - has something to do with making them more greedy than ever, too.
I agree on the one hand, agree on the other.

The DLC system was implemented before the application shipped. Meaning that whatever amount of loses in whatever amount of days have absolutely no bearing with providing the DLC. As far as pricing goes, I'm sure they did what most of these companies do: Get a focus group or two and find out how much they would be willing to spend on the DLC. They're not looking to recoup anything from pirates with this thing, considering the DLC will be available for download shortly, if it isn't already available.

[z0sa]

Development costs have gotten cheaper, this is a fact.

No it's not. I've tried to educate you on this basic idea of "more profit doesn't mean costs went down", but you refuse to listen since you flashed your former employee ID and that must mean you're right.

:lmao Things have *not* gotten cheaper. THAT's a fact.

You're not just stupid, you can't read if you disagree. If you feel like being stupid, that's your right.

However, it's completely unfounded to say researching technologies has gotten cheaper.

Completely.

Once again, more profit does not equal less cost - or cheaper, IYW. They are spending much, much more to develop game technology now than they did in the 80's - but their profit margin allows them to do this.

I won't make any further attempts to educate you, either, since I'm not sure you can read this sentence.





The DLC system was implemented before the application shipped. Meaning that whatever amount of loses in whatever amount of days have absolutely no bearing with providing the DLC. As far as pricing goes, I'm sure they did what most of these companies do: Get a focus group or two and find out how much they would be willing to spend on the DLC. They're not looking to recoup anything from pirates with this thing, considering the DLC will be available for download shortly, if it isn't already available.

I thought you were in the gaming industry? Someone in the industry would know:

a) that prices for developing gaming and technology have skyrocketed exponentially since the 80's. In no way, shape, or form has developing games or their techs gotten cheaper.

If you've got some links that demonstrate the contrary, feel free to show them. Otherwise, stop with the BS. Nothing you say can change a fact, regardless of your former employer.

b) that DLC's are much, much cheaper to develop than an actual game, are generally never mass produced due to their very nature (downloadable content), yet cost consumers 15-20% of a full game's price. Since you receive profits from game sales, you should know popular DLC's reap much higher profits per unit in comparison.

IOW, people downloading DLC actually is an area Activision can much easier live with. It's almost pure profit past the first 1000 downloads (estimate).

[balli]

Here you go z0sa (so your vag doesn't chafe):

http://secure.condomania.com/productinfo.asp?number=EN-INTENSE

[z0sa]

Here you go z0sa (so your vag doesn't chafe):

http://secure.condomania.com/productinfo.asp?number=EN-INTENSE

This oozes originality and cleverness

[z0sa]

I love a good debate, and in that spirit, I truly can accept the fact I'm wrong when I am indeed off base.

So I have decided to put my theory to the test.

While it's no guarantee of truth (or even an answer) coming from a paid puppet, I am emailing Activision about the price increase and inquiring specifically about the exponential amount of piracy and whether it had any effect on the change.

Hopefully I get an answer, and one direct enough to base conclusions upon. I'll post both the email itself and its answer at the appropriate time.

[ElNono]

Once again, more profit does not equal less cost - or cheaper, IYW. They are spending much, much more to develop game technology now than they did in the 80's - but their profit margin allows them to do this.


Who are 'they'? It's not Activision, who is a publishing company. If anything, it's Infinity Ward, who sub-licensed tech from different companies to put the game together.

What you're getting confused is in licensing costs vs development costs.

A distinction I made in my very first post in this thread, and where I correctly pointed out that most of the incurred 'costs' where in sub-licensing tech because they didn't have it in-house.

Our company is one of 'they'... We have developed and licensed video game technology for companies like Midway a few years back. Just last year we developed and licensed video game tech used on a multitude of mobile video games.

Quick trivia, do you know what arcade video game this source code header is from?


/*================================================= =====================*/
/* TITLE: KONG */
/* Function: kong specific routines */
/* */
/* First Edit: 7/22/93 */
/* Project #: 551xx */
/* Programmer: Dennis Harper */
/* */
/* COPYRIGHT 1993/1994 ATARI GAMES CORP. */
/* UNAUTHORIZED REPRODUCTION, ADAPTATION, DISTRIBUTION, */
/* PERFORMANCE OR DISPLAY OF THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM OR */
/* THE ASSOCIATED AUDIOVISUAL WORK IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED. */
/* ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. */
/* */
/*----------------------------------------------------------------------*/



I thought you were in the gaming industry? Someone in the industry would know:

a) that prices for developing gaming and technology have skyrocketed exponentially since the 80's. In no way, shape, or form has developing games or their techs gotten cheaper.


Wrong. The cost of licensing tech has increased, as it always has been a royalty. As the game market grew, so did the royalty to be paid.
This is completely different from the cost of developing the actual underlying tech. The only thing that has grown is amount of content (which is different from the tech). But again, the costs associated with that also have gone down considerably over the years. It's a lot easier to find and hire game artists and the costs of things like motion capture have also gone down over time as the technology has improved and gotten cheaper.


If you've got some links that demonstrate the contrary, feel free to show them. Otherwise, stop with the BS. Nothing you say can change a fact, regardless of your former employer.

You need to start reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_engine
Especially the 'History' and 'Recent trends' parts. I'll just highlight two portions from there:

Later games, such as Quake III Arena and Epic Games's 1998 Unreal were designed with this approach in mind, with the engine and content developed separately. The practice of licensing such technology has proved to be a useful auxiliary revenue stream for some game developers, as a single license for a high-end commercial game engine can range from US$10,000 to millions of dollars, and the number of licensees can reach several dozen companies (as seen with the Unreal Engine). At the very least, reusable engines make developing game sequels faster and easier, which is a valuable advantage in the competitive video game industry.

Additionally, more game engines are being built upon higher level languages such as Java and C#/.NET (e.g. TorqueX, Blade3D, and Visual3D.NET) or Python (Panda3D). As most 3D rich games are now mostly GPU-limited (i.e. limited by the power of the graphics card), the potential slowdowns of higher level languages become negligible, while the productivity gains offered by these languages works to the game engine developers' benefit.[8][9] These recent trends are being propelled by companies such as Microsoft to support Indie game development on more platforms, such as Xbox360 and Zune using the .NET Framework and XNA for graphics and audio rendering. It is becoming easier and cheaper than ever to develop game engines for platforms that support managed frameworks.


b) that DLC's are much, much cheaper to develop than an actual game, are generally never mass produced due to their very nature (downloadable content), yet cost consumers 15-20% of a full game's price. Since you receive profits from game sales, you should know popular DLC's reap much higher profits per unit in comparison.

IOW, people downloading DLC actually is an area Activision can much easier live with. It's almost pure profit past the first 1000 downloads (estimate).

No argument from me that DLC's have a higher ROI for the publisher. However, keep in mind users must already own the game in order to use it.

[z0sa]

We're arguing semantics now..

[ElNono]

We're arguing semantics now..

lmao

[z0sa]

lmao

Indeed, it's pretty laughable that you can't just say you're wrong instead of changing the entire context of our argument to make yourself right...

Games are not cheaper, developing their engines is not cheaper, licensing them is not cheaper... if you want go on comparatively scaling them on profit margins or by cost of license, go ahead; that doesn't make the actual development costs of games in any way, shape, or form cheaper. I think I proved that with the $50 million MW2 costed BEFORE advertising..

Games went from costing thousands to tens of millions. Don't know why it so difficult for you to understand why that does not fit the definition of "cheaper", especially when you respond with that in the argument you did..

It is, indeed, arguing semantics at this point... you clearly said one thing in the context of my argument, now you change the context to fit your what you said.

That's why I already told you I get the meaning behind your post, but you're still 100% wrong in the context you answered.

[ElNono]

If MW2 would have made only $50 million in revenues, as opposed to $550 millions, what you call 'development costs' would have been roughly $5 million, BEFORE advertising.

For the exact same game. With the exact same engine. And the exact same content.

That's why you never mix development costs with licensing costs. They're two completely unrelated things.

[z0sa]

If MW2 would have made only $50 million in revenues, as opposed to $550 millions, what you call 'development costs' would have been roughly $5 million, BEFORE advertising.

For the exact same game. With the exact same engine. And the exact same content.

That's why you never mix development costs with licensing costs. They're two completely unrelated things.

I grouped these things for simplicity.. this isn't anywhere near the argument I wanted, or want to partake in.. you seem honestly informed on the issues, even though dropping company names is lame as hell, which is why I say this is semantics.. we're arguing over the meaning of a piece of my argument that we both agree on, just have differing terminologies.

[ElNono]

I grouped these things for simplicity.. this isn't anywhere near the argument I wanted, or want to partake in.. you seem honestly informed on the issues, even though dropping company names is lame as hell, which is why I say this is semantics.. we're arguing over the meaning of a piece of my argument that we both agree on, just have differing terminologies.

And I've been pointing out since the get go that you're indeed using the wrong terminology. But you prefer to argue instead of simply learning.

I have no problem with you believing whatever you want. But when you try to make an argument about my day to day business, and it's ass backwards, then I'm obviously going to attempt to correct you.
It's not personal. I know it happens all the time with people that are simply not familiar with the ins and outs of this.

I simply stand by my first post on this topic, which is the one that spurred this discussion. I think I was clear enough then:

Nowadays, the most expensive parts of a AAA title is marketing and the cost of licensing 3rd party technology (Bink, Havoc, Unreal Engine, etc) for tech that you don't have in-house.

[z0sa]

And I've been pointing out since the get go that you're indeed using the wrong terminology. But you prefer to argue instead of simply learning.

The problem is with the context. It's easy to confuse someone, even if you're extremely "clear", when you don't pay attention to the context... it's also confusing when you start a totally different discussion without me knowing where you're going..

[ElNono]

The problem is with the context. It's easy to confuse someone, even if you're extremely "clear", when you don't pay attention to the context... it's also confusing when you start a totally different discussion without me knowing where you're going..

I apologize then, I'll try to be more clear the next time. :toast

[cool cat]

$15 for 5 maps. $3 a map is pretty average for DLC.

A little map pack history

Call of Duty: WaW map packs are $2.50 a map if you include the zombie map.

Halo 3 Mythic map packs are $3.33 a map.

Gears of War 2 map packs range from $2.14 - $3.33 a map.

As I looked through other games, $3 a map is not some crazy horrible unheard of number that a lot of people are claiming it to be.
And the great thing about DLC if you don't want to pay for it, THEN DON'T BUY IT. :greedy

[resistanze]

Aren't two of the maps fucking recycled from MW1? You really think I should have to pay a premium for those?

Shit, all the songs I purchased from Rock Band were compatible for Rock Band 2. I know that's too much to ask from money-grubbers like Activision, but don't act like selling me old maps is doing anyone favors.

[cool cat]

Aren't two of the maps fucking recycled from MW1? You really think I should have to pay a premium for those?

Shit, all the songs I purchased from Rock Band were compatible for Rock Band 2. I know that's too much to ask from money-grubbers like Activision, but don't act like selling me old maps is doing anyone favors.

Really your going to compare multiplayer maps to a music game? Again if you don't want to pay for it then don't buy it, are people really that stupid that they can't understand that?

[Heath Ledger]

Zosa your a load that should have been swallowed. That is all.

[resistanze]

Really your going to compare multiplayer maps to a music game? Again if you don't want to pay for it then don't buy it, are people really that stupid that they can't understand that?
No shit if I don't like it I'm not going to pay for it, Captain Obvious. I'm pretty sure that's what most people in this thread said. People can express their opinion whether they think it's a rip-off or not -- it's a forum.

Or according to you, I should just say "If you don't like our opinions, GTFO of this thead!"

[TwAnKiEs]

In a Samara voice, " Seven days!!!!!!"

[cool cat]

No shit if I don't like it I'm not going to pay for it, Captain Obvious. I'm pretty sure that's what most people in this thread said. People can express their opinion whether they think it's a rip-off or not -- it's a forum.

Or according to you, I should just say "If you don't like our opinions, GTFO of this thead!"

What a tool, I never said GTFO of this thread. You’re a moron that wants to complain about a map pack in a video game. Keep doing it, maybe if you do it enough people will care what your opinion is.

[resistanze]

What a tool, I never said GTFO of this thread.
Yeah, you're really fucking slow.


You’re a moron that wants to complain about a map pack in a video game. Keep doing it, maybe if you do it enough people will care what your opinion is.
You're complaining about people complaining about a map pack in a video game. Considering this thread was originally pointing out the outrageous price of the map pack, I don't know how you found yourself here.

Why don't you just buy the map pack, fuck off and be happy? This thread doesn't concern you by your own admission.

[cool cat]

Yeah, you're really fucking slow.


You're complaining about people complaining about a map pack in a video game. Considering this thread was originally pointing out the outrageous price of the map pack, I don't know how you found yourself here.

Why don't you just buy the map pack, fuck off and be happy? This thread doesn't concern you by your own admission.

What the hell is your reading comprehension really that bad?

I never said you shouldn't complain about the map pack. I actually said the complete opposite "Keep doing it, maybe if you do it enough people will care what your opinion is."

The thread is about the price of the map pack, I came in talking about the price of the map pack. That’s how I found myself here, if you can't follow that logic then I’m sorry you are really stupid.

You think I want to buy a $15 map pack? If enough people don't buy it when it comes out then the price will drop. My original post made two points based on fact, the price per map is not the highest ever and if you don’t like it don’t buy it. Ok, point two is more advice but whatever.

[resistanze]

What the hell is your reading comprehension really that bad?

I never said you shouldn't complain about the map pack. I actually said the complete opposite "Keep doing it, maybe if you do it enough people will care what your opinion is."

The thread is about the price of the map pack, I came in talking about the price of the map pack. That’s how I found myself here, if you can't follow that logic then I’m sorry you are really stupid.

You think I want to buy a $15 map pack? If enough people don't buy it when it comes out then the price will drop. My original post made two points based on fact, the price per map is not the highest ever and if you don’t like it don’t buy it. Ok, point two is more advice but whatever.You're obviously trying to disorient me with stupidity, so I'll just end it here.

[cool cat]

You're obviously trying to disorient me with stupidity, so I'll just end it here.

No, you are just a stupid tool who puts words in people's mouth when they didn't say them.

[Cry Havoc]

You think I want to buy a $15 map pack? If enough people don't buy it when it comes out then the price will drop. My original post made two points based on fact, the price per map is not the highest ever and if you don’t like it don’t buy it. Ok, point two is more advice but whatever.

Actually you came into the thread attempting to disagree with those who are pissed off at the price.

So no, you aren't really making sense with this huge about-face.

[Trainwreck2100]

i7vYmq6XMlc

[LnGrrrR]

Eh.. it's a little pricey, but then I think about Halo, which charges 10 bucks for three maps, and pretty much makes it mandatory to dload the maps if you want to play in any ranked games online...

If MW2 makes those maps mandatory to play online, I'll be pissed.

[resistanze]

Actually you came into the thread attempting to disagree with those who are pissed off at the price.

So no, you aren't really making sense with this huge about-face.

Can't you read? He wasn't disagreeing with you, he was simply saying "don't buy it if you don't like it," in case that wasn't obvious enough.

And he wasn't called you an idiot personally, just people who generally complain about the price of this map pack.

Stop twisting his words.

[cool cat]

Actually you came into the thread attempting to disagree with those who are pissed off at the price.

So no, you aren't really making sense with this huge about-face.

Actually I came into the thread to correct the misconception that the map pack price was "some crazy horrible unheard of number that a lot of people are claiming it to be".

Bungie and Epic and probably more have had map packs that cost more per map. Guess what, I didn't buy those map pack either. I got some of the Halo ones when they went free and the rest on the ODST disc. Although thinking about it now, doesn't Microsoft sets the price for Bungie and Epic DLC. I don’t' know but that would make sense why the price is so high.

I don't disagree with anyone who is pissed off at the price as resistanze said your own personal opinion.

Look at every one of my posts and I never said stop complaining. I said twice "Don't buy it" as resistanze has stated that’s obvious. So if you want to get mad at me for stating the obvious then that’s your problem. Now I did call resistanze a moron for complaining about the price but that was a personal attack to zing him about no one caring about his personal opinion. As for that I apologize to resistanze, I took offence to being misquoted and I will move past the personal attacks.

Last but not least, unless you are going to hook me up with 1200 mircosoft points, I will not be getting this Map Pack.

[Cry Havoc]

Actually I came into the thread to correct the misconception that the map pack price was "some crazy horrible unheard of number that a lot of people are claiming it to be".

Bungie and Epic and probably more have had map packs that cost more per map. Guess what, I didn't buy those map pack either. I got some of the Halo ones when they went free and the rest on the ODST disc. Although thinking about it now, doesn't Microsoft sets the price for Bungie and Epic DLC. I don’t' know but that would make sense why the price is so high.

I don't disagree with anyone who is pissed off at the price as resistanze said your own personal opinion.

Look at every one of my posts and I never said stop complaining. I said twice "Don't buy it" as resistanze has stated that’s obvious. So if you want to get mad at me for stating the obvious then that’s your problem. Now I did call resistanze a moron for complaining about the price but that was a personal attack to zing him about no one caring about his personal opinion. As for that I apologize to resistanze, I took offence to being misquoted and I will move past the personal attacks.

Last but not least, unless you are going to hook me up with 1200 mircosoft points, I will not be getting this Map Pack.

Dude, I'm so mad at you. Raging. You wouldn't believe.

[Cant_Be_Faded]

lol first person shooters

[cool cat]

Dude, I'm so mad at you. Raging. You wouldn't believe.

:downspin:

[spurs_2108]

Does anyone know how big the DLC file will be?

[TwAnKiEs]

Xbox.com is blowing up cuz everyone who DL the map pack cannot play it becuase they didnt release a title update for it. :lmao:lmao:lmao

The maps load as if they are hacked (well WONT load but shows in the playlist as such).

Good job Suckrosoft :rollin:downspin:

[MiamiHeat]

yeah this fucking sucks. i had my day planned for this shiznit

[balli]

z0sa still thinks it's worth it.

[resistanze]

Xbox.com is blowing up cuz everyone who DL the map pack cannot play it becuase they didnt release a title update for it. :lmao:lmao:lmao

The maps load as if they are hacked (well WONT load but shows in the playlist as such).

Good job Suckrosoft :rollin:downspin:

:lol How do you forget shit like that? It's not like proofreading your own work.

[z0sa]

z0sa still thinks it's worth it.

Go ahead and don't say I said shit I never said, you incomprehensibly stupid, self hating fuck.

[balli]

lol

[FalleNxWiZarDx]

WTF, the maps not working or what?

[TwAnKiEs]

WTF, the maps not working or what?

Here is what you get until MS releases an update that reckognizes the maps as unlocked :greedy

http://i42.tinypic.com/dlgnd2.jpg

[MiamiHeat]

its already fixed, i am online and playing as we speak

the new maps and the 2 old ones are awesome :)

[TwAnKiEs]

sweet... it wont let me add to my Q from the internets, so I will have to wait til I get home

Add me Heat GT TwAnKiEs (if you havnet already) :toast

[FalleNxWiZarDx]

cant wait to get home!!


add me! my gamer tag is FalleNxWiZarDx (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/member.php?u=18928)

lets beat on some lil kids

[ATRAIN]

sweet forgot about this shit

[Muser]

Bailout fucking sucks, and the game keeps giving me it.

Also why the fuck can't I just play TDM on the new maps..

[LnGrrrR]

For anyone who wants to play, I'm ShoutedSilence on there.

[ATRAIN]

Did they fix the pave low not counting for killstreaks?

[ATRAIN]

Also I heard they were tweaking one man army?? What does that mean?

[balli]

No, they didn't fix the pavelow. All they did to OMA was add a couple seconds to the reload time. No offense, if you're known to do it, but apparently IW thinks unlimited noob-tube rounds are fair game.

[ATRAIN]

No, they didn't fix the pavelow. All they did to OMA was add a couple seconds to the reload time. No offense, if you're known to do it, but apparently IW thinks unlimited noob-tube rounds are fair game.

It is fair game, you are vunerable when you are changing. There are a lot of things in the game that are crap IMO. The Famas is super powerfull and Thermal snipers are for pussies. If you think about it any perk has its advantages and disadvantages. :) I didnt take offense just think its funny how people bitch about every class i use. If I use oma and knoob tubes with danger close they cry. If I use my thermal RPD with stopping power and Scavenger for unlimited rockets im cheap? Or if I run lightwieght marathon commando with models im a pussy? Or running ninja, coldblooded with a heartbeat sensor cause I suck. Ive heard it all and I laugh.

[z0sa]

It is fair game, you are vunerable when you are changing. There are a lot of things in the game that are crap IMO. The Famas is super powerfull and Thermal snipers are for pussies. If you think about it any perk has its advantages and disadvantages. :) I didnt take offense just think its funny how people bitch about every class i use. If I use oma and knoob tubes with danger close they cry. If I use my thermal RPD with stopping power and Scavenger for unlimited rockets im cheap? Or if I run lightwieght marathon commando with models im a pussy? Or running ninja, coldblooded with a heartbeat sensor cause I suck. Ive heard it all and I laugh.

Balli is just doing the crying he's supposed to do. You'll be seeing it next CoD game, as well.

[Muser]

What is it with the Pavelow? I got it in an emergency airdrop, it got me one kill and I got my Stealth Bomber.

[ATRAIN]

What is it with the Pavelow? I got it in an emergency airdrop, it got me one kill and I got my Stealth Bomber.

Yeah I played on of the new DLC maps yesterday and im trying to finish off my choppers challange and called in my attack heli, got a few kills got the pavelow then called it in, got more kills and gave me my chopper gunner so maybe they fixed it.

[TwAnKiEs]

I hate the Pavelow thing... you have to kill someone first before the pavelow does to get it to count against your KSR.... Gay I have not tried it though since the update

[ecksrobecks]

i can't believe over 2 million people actually bought this