Modern Warfare 2 expansion pack is $15.

[z0sa]

It's not hard to understand why Activision wants to rape its millions of paying customers - they don't get 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 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 re ation 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!

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 le. 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,

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 sucker before they broke your little heart.

Yeaaaaah, man, my heart is in pieces. That's why I'm still playing and enjoying the 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.

Remember telling me Wolfenstein isn't worth the money because better , 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!

[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 from their even more millions of nonpaying ones.

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

ZOMG!! I've got whoever's 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 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 le 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!

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? 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.

defending pirates is lame as , 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. ing. Real.

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

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.

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 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.

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!

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 about Wolfenstein when I was hyped about it because it didn't look "innovative" or groundbreaking enough for you when so many better les (you specifically mentioned MW2) are on the way.

IOW, you sucked IW's to the last drop and you call me a fanboy? That's a compliment. I know I've been neutral as 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
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...

[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 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.

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

ing 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
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...

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.

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?

ing 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.

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 and Consoles...

[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.

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 and Consoles...

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.

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.

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/product...ber=EN-INTENSE

[z0sa]

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

http://secure.condomania.com/product...ber=EN-INTENSE

This oozes originality and cleverness