map packs piss me off...

nosnipe

nosnipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
1 (67%)
okay so i was playing cod:waw and notice that half the games i needed to download and buy the new map packs if im serious about playing the game, but why charge for them when they pc version of the game gets those maps for free, i understand charging for DLC for single player but not multiplayer maps.

why do we as gamers put up with map packs and having to buy them. :bomb:
 
the mp side of the game is fun but i couldnt see myself buying any of the map packs at 10 bucks a pop so i traded the game during the recent gs trade deal since i dont see any of those packs going down in price anytime soon.
 
Well, you don't have to go through a lot of hoops if you distribute it on the PC, which is why content is generally cheaper or free.
 
Stop crying. If you were serious about playing the game you would plunk down the few bucks for the maps. You are obviously not serious about the online aspect of the game so why bitch about something you really aren't interested in to begin with?

Map packs extend the life/fun/gameplay of many games. I LOVE new maps for games I actively play. Even though I still love to play the game, the new additions make it feel new again.
 
Console gaming does not compete with PC gaming. If it did, imagine all it would entail....free maps for games...community made maps ensuring a never-ending flow...an end to yearly iterations of games with the rise of expansion packs...free online play for all...customizable user interfaces...potential new character skins and new weapons...

Of course, there's still the downsides....complete destruction of game resale...needing to upgrade hardware more often...developers being afraid of releasing stuff due to rampant piracy...or developers engaged in a never-ending war over protecting their IP while not farking over the customer...

When it comes to Map Packs, my primary objection to them are games that break one or more game modes whenever you don't have a map pack. Your game should never work "less" because they decided to release (and charge) for something "more".
 
[quote name='Malik112099']Stop crying. If you were serious about playing the game you would plunk down the few bucks for the maps. You are obviously not serious about the online aspect of the game so why bitch about something you really aren't interested in to begin with?

Map packs extend the life/fun/gameplay of many games. I LOVE new maps for games I actively play. Even though I still love to play the game, the new additions make it feel new again.[/QUOTE]

you do realize each map pack is $10 for cod waw right? 3 map packs x $10=$30 plus tax and even if you get them for $5 on here that's still $15 for 3 maps. what you could do if you don't have the map pack just vote to skip or back out of the lobby. simple as that, problem solved.
 
[quote name='intoxicated662']you do realize each map pack is $10 for cod waw right? 3 map packs x $10=$30 plus tax and even if you get them for $5 on here that's still $15 for 3 maps. what you could do if you don't have the map pack just vote to skip or back out of the lobby. simple as that, problem solved.[/QUOTE]


So what? I've probably spent $100+ on music for Rock Band but when I play online i can only play what the 4 of us playing have in common which isnt always very much. If you were honestly big time into a game you wouldnt care about $10 extra every so often to extend the gaming experience. I know I didnt think twice about modern warfare maps or any of the halo 2 maps back in the day. hell, MW2 isnt out yet and I already know 100% for sure i will buy whatever add-ons they put out day fucking 1. Too many people bitch about how much this shit costs and dont think about what you are getting for your money. $60 game plus $30 in map packs is not even one night out to dinner and a movie with the wife(unless you are a cheap shit) but is potentially a year or more of great gameplay depending on the game you are playing. Everyone cries so fucking much about this shit but forget that it costs money to dedicate people to continue the gaming experience for a finished game while working on a new game. You think they should just spend their money and time and always hand it out for free?
 
Map packs are not the problem. It's when developers require you have the map packs to play the game. Bungie has especially pissed me off in this regard. Modern Warfare had map packs, but they don't ban you from lobbies, they just remove those maps from the options available. Or look at Gears of War, they have map packs, but they set aside lobbies for those who want to explicitly play those maps, and even throw them in the normal lobbies if everyone has them. But to do what Bungie and other companies do, either force you to pay for the maps or get rid off the game altogether, should be reprehensible.
 
[quote name='Malik112099']$60 game plus $30 in map packs is not even one night out to dinner and a movie with the wife(unless you are a cheap shit) but is potentially a year or more of great gameplay depending on the game you are playing. [/QUOTE]

I believe "cheap ass" is more of an appropriate term as this is cheapassgamer. If you're fine stupidly wasting $10 every month on a game you already own, then go ahead moneybags. But don't go ahead creating accounts on websites dedicated to proud noble cheapskates. Next time you want to kill some time, do us all a favor and drive your Jag into a brick wall.
 
Let's all be cool.

I see both sides of this argument. If you really love a game, then five or ten bucks to ENHANCE it isn't much. However, when companies no longer care about the consumer, and just the cash they are raking in, it can be frustrating. For me, sure it would be nice to have all the maps on COD, but it's just not realistic compared to playtime. Halo maps are day 1 buys because I play the game so often, and it helps the developer make more games I will love to play. In short, both sides are valid, but it depends on playtime/cost. If its low, buy, Buy,, BUY!!! If it's not, well, then I hear Gamestop has an excellent trade-in program.
 
Eh, if a game has to rely on multiplayer to keep people's attention, then the single player part must be pretty boring to begin with.
 
map packs are expensive but are worth it depending on the game. I bought all the cod waw maps for the zombies and ive played so much of it. But then shit like RE5 already has options within the game that are locked..and then they make you pay to unlock something that is already on the BR? wtf? shit like that pisses me off.

some are worth it but i really wish they werent so pricey. I think 5 - 7 is a fair price. 10 is what some downloadable games costs and its just for a few maps.
 
Although I never got into the game, I really admired Unreal Tournament 3 for allowing community downloads/mods and trying to bring a PC experience to the console. I spent sooo many hours playing PC games like Wolfenstein, Doom, Duke Nukem, Quakeworld, the original GTA, ect.. due to the vast supply of user generated content in the mid 90s that was available at will. It really is a shame that companies (Activision explicity) will go out of their way to make a really great game only to limit it's potential to cash in on it time and time again. But that's just the way it goes as long as people pay, download, and support the practice.
 
Yeah they're a huge rip off. After I started playing TF2 I haven't bought a single map pack (not that I bought very many before that) because any map pack seems like a huge rip off compared to what Valve gives out for free.
 
its like the first map is just to tease you and force you to buy/ DL the next maps and you have no choice but to do so in able for yout to continue the game.
 
I got four of the five main expansion packs for Fallout 3, and the All Fronts Collection for Gears of War 2; both for free.

Being a CheapAss, I couldn't justify spending $60 on this content, so I just worked the system; buy low, and trade-in or sell to break even [or profit].

I got the content for free; just needed some work. :)
 
I don't really mind paying for DLC like maps usually, I see it more of as, I prefer playing the 360/PS3 over the PC so I have to pay for these things instead of getting them for free. It's just one of the platform differences to me. Though, in some cases, I really hate having to pay for the stuff (L4D Crash Course, looking at you) since they really should have made that free. But that's Microsoft's fault, not Valve's.
 
[quote name='jd_james_427']I believe "cheap ass" is more of an appropriate term as this is cheapassgamer. If you're fine stupidly wasting $10 every month on a game you already own, then go ahead moneybags. But don't go ahead creating accounts on websites dedicated to proud noble cheapskates. Next time you want to kill some time, do us all a favor and drive your Jag into a brick wall.[/QUOTE]


Buying map packs to extend a game is cheap. Cheaper than buying a whole new game. Cheaper than going out all the time (by brother in law spends god knows what every time he hits the bar). If I have to skip starbucks twice this month or Wendy's so that I can extend a game for $10 bucks at a time for who knows how many hours then it is worth it to me. If you think paying for $10 maps = driving a Jag, you shouldn't even own a $300+ gaming console.
 
[quote name='Bluth Superfan']I never buy them because it fragments the community. Waste of money.[/QUOTE]

That is the reason I hate them. In MGO, less than half the people buy the new map packs, so everybody is pretty much still playing the original five maps that came with the game even though they released like four expansions now.
 
[quote name='Lieutenant Dan']I'm with the OP. I'm also proud to say I've never purchased a map pack. Vote with your wallet.[/QUOTE]

Voting with your wallet in the video game industry (especially with big titles) is like voting Democrat in Texas...
 
I don't even bother with map packs. I already spent $60 plus on the game. I don't want to spend another $30 for the complete experience. I'll just buy a couple different games with that money.If I didn't buy the game after the first few months it was out, I'll just wait until a GOTY edition comes out with all the maps on there. I bet most of the time it's just shit they left out of the game so all the suckers can bend over and pay for it later.
 
all very valid points , i hate when devs already announce map packs even before the games are out though , like the maps already they just want to be able to change more for them , that is what i feel this is becoming and i think that is wrong
 
[quote name='Malik112099'] If I have to skip starbucks twice this month or Wendy's so that I can extend a game for $10 bucks at a time for who knows how many hours then it is worth it to me. [/QUOTE]

Someone who acts like giving up Starbucks is a huge sacrifice has no business on a forum for cheap asses.
 
[quote name='jd_james_427']Someone who acts like giving up Starbucks is a huge sacrifice has no business on a forum for cheap asses.[/QUOTE]

I didnt act like it was a sacrifice at all. I mentioned it in a way that would make you think that not going to starbucks twice would extend your game for possibly weeks if not months.

Pretty weak attempt to mar my arguement by attacking me instead of staying on topic.
 
Yeah, because maps completely change the gameplay and alter the experience. Whereas $10 can get me an entire new game with 100+ game hours. If your stupid and wasteful enough, I see how your argument makes sense. But if you actually have to budget, you might want to reconsider going to Starbucks at all you fucking yuppie.
 
Map packs piss me off as well but I've bought two. So far, I've only spent 2000 MS points on the first Call of Duty 4Map Pack 1(got it when it was half price) and the All Fronts Collection (got a deal on the points). Both were worth it at the time since I played (or play) with alot of friends and family and I think I got my money's worth. There's not another game out there that I would spend space bucks on though.
 
[quote name='jd_james_427']Yeah, because maps completely change the gameplay and alter the experience. Whereas $10 can get me an entire new game with 100+ game hours. If your stupid and wasteful enough, I see how your argument makes sense. But if you actually have to budget, you might want to reconsider going to Starbucks at all you fucking yuppie.[/QUOTE]


I dont have to budget. Also, thanks for the pointless personal attacks instead of actually making a valid point in a discussion based on opinion.
 
[quote name='Malik112099']I dont have to budget. Also, thanks for the pointless personal attacks instead of actually making a valid point in a discussion based on opinion.[/QUOTE]

If you don't have to budget money then you don't know the value of money. The topic at hand is whether or not map packs are worth it. You say they are because you can afford it. Us true cheap asses know that they are not because we can not afford to blow what could be a days worth of food on 3 maps.

Is that easy enough for you to understand?
 
[quote name='jd_james_427']Us true cheap asses know that they are not because we can not afford to blow what could be a days worth of food on 3 maps.

Is that easy enough for you to understand?[/QUOTE]



If you have to weigh eating for a day vs downloading some maps you shouldnt have a fucking current gen video game console.

Is that easy enough for you to understand?
 
[quote name='Malik112099']If you have to weigh eating for a day vs downloading some maps you shouldnt have a fucking current gen video game console.

Is that easy enough for you to understand?[/QUOTE]

My scorecard has Round 1 going to Malik. :applause:
 
[quote name='Malik112099']If you have to weigh eating for a day vs downloading some maps you shouldnt have a fucking current gen video game console.

Is that easy enough for you to understand?[/QUOTE]

1. You assume I purchased my console at full price, something a true cheap ass would never do.

2. Who is resorting to personal attacks instead of discussing the topic now?
 
I wish Map packs were cheaper, and came with more maps, but if your heavily into an online game they can still be worth it.

I played COD4 online nearly every day since it came out. By time the first map pack came out, I was pretty sick of the default maps so I was more than happy to get some new ones, even if I had to pay for them. When you consider the amount of hours/days/weeks I've played COD4, then the map packs were more than worth it.

I don't feel the same about single player addons though. I loved Fallout 3, but havent bought any of the expansions, because I'm only going to play them once.
 
Paid DLC on consoles here to stay. Developers figured out pretty quick that they can put out 80% of the content of the game they made and we will pay $10-$15 each for the last 20% of the game in incremental bites.
 
[quote name='Puffa469']I wish Map packs were cheaper, and came with more maps, but if your heavily into an online game they can still be worth it.

I played COD4 online nearly every day since it came out. By time the first map pack came out, I was pretty sick of the default maps so I was more than happy to get some new ones, even if I had to pay for them. When you consider the amount of hours/days/weeks I've played COD4, then the map packs were more than worth it.

I don't feel the same about single player addons though. I loved Fallout 3, but havent bought any of the expansions, because I'm only going to play them once.[/QUOTE]

I agree. When map packs are well incorporated with a games lobby system (MW, Gears of War - for example) then it can be well worth it. But when developers (such as Bungie) limit the multiplayer experience by adding on maps, fuck 'em.

I have not yet, nor do I plan to ever buy single player DLC. The only one I could think would be even worth it was the Shivering Isles and Knight of the Nine for Oblivion. To me, single player DLC's thus far have been more of an afterthought than an actual extension to the campaign. Look at Mass Effect, releasing some DLC arena combat a few weeks ago, when in 3 months they're releasing a sequel. I mean, really? What jackass is wasting money on DLC for an already 100+ hour game when the sequel is just around the corner?

What is also infuriating is when games, such as RE5, come coded with DLC, but still make you pay for it. Why do I have to spend money on a game I just purchased to play multiplayer, when all it does is unlock code already on the disc?
 
The reason that companies need to sell these map packs (or want to, at least), is because first of all, Microsoft doesn't let them put much free content up because it's not making anybody money.

Also, the PC community isn't nearly as big as the console community, so they have more chance of selling them there than on the PC.
 
[quote name='jd_james_427']1. You assume I purchased my console at full price, something a true cheap ass would never do.[/QUOTE]


A TRUE cheapass would game 1 generation behind (which a LOT of people do) where everything can be easily had for pennies on the dollar as oppossed to the current gen which boasts $60 headsets, $40 - $250 games, $200 - $400 consoles, $50 controllers, DLC, etc. You are not a true cheapass. You, sir, are a whiny bitch.
 
I too have never paid one dime(and never will) for DLC for games I already own, be it map packs or whatever other ridiculous shit the game companies put out.

If those cheap sob's didn't put it in the full retail game and expect me to pay EXTRA for it, my opinion is fuck that.

And don't even get me start on Warhawk, which doesn't even have a single player mode. It's totally fuckin' ridiculous that so many companies this gen seem to rely HEAVILY on their multiplayer mode(s) to 'extend' the life/value of their games.

If you put in a compelling single player game, the multiplayer facet should be a nice extra and nothing more.
 
[quote name='Malik112099']A TRUE cheapass would game 1 generation behind (which a LOT of people do) where everything can be easily had for pennies on the dollar as oppossed to the current gen which boasts $60 headsets, $40 - $250 games, $200 - $400 consoles, $50 controllers, DLC, etc. [/QUOTE]

HA, if those are the best prices you can find for current gen consoles, you are truly not a cheapassgamer.
 
[quote name='IAmTheCheapestGamer']And don't even get me start on Warhawk, which doesn't even have a single player mode. It's totally fuckin' ridiculous that so many companies this gen seem to rely HEAVILY on their multiplayer mode(s) to 'extend' the life/value of their games.

If you put in a compelling single player game, the multiplayer facet should be a nice extra and nothing more.[/QUOTE]

For quite some time now gamers have been calling for a separation of campaign and multiplayer. The feeling is that for big budget games that offer both (Halo, Gears of War, MW...etc.) should sell a campaign version for $30 and a multi for $30 instead of one combined $60 package. This has mostly come from multiplayer gamers who are sick of paying for a campaign they never plan to beat, although some are just the opposite.

And look at what RE5 did, 60 for the campaign, and then latter made you pay for multiplayer if you wanted it. And look how much multiplayer biased 2K so now Bioshock 2 is being forced to sell out to the Halo crowd more than sticking to its roots. But then there are still series out there (Assassin's Creed, Mass Effect) that refuse to sell out to a cheap multiplayer that does nothing to contribute to the overall experience, that still sell in the market because they stay faithful to the campaigners out there.

Everyone wants a game tailor made to fit them. DLC is popular because it allows the player to further detail the game to their liking. The problem is, they do it often at too high of a price. The other problem is, you cannot remove aspects of a game you dislike for reimbursement. The moment a game releases an option to sell back the campaign/multiplayer for half the price, then we will have reached progress.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top