Microsoft wants you to pay for Gears Map packs but Epic doesnt want you to!!!!

[phranctoast]

Microsoft forcing fees? Marketplace Phil. 101 with Epic and Microsoft

Posted Apr 9th 2007 10:34AM by Alexander Sliwinski
Filed under: PC, Microsoft Xbox 360, Action, Adventure, Business
In the most recent podcast of the 1UP Yours show Tim Sweeney and Mark Rein from Epic Games (Gears of War, Unreal Tournament) sat down and talked about Xbox Live Marketplace and a host of other topics. But the quote that stuck in people's heads was when Tim Sweeney implied Epic would like to give Gears of War maps away for free on Xbox Marketplace (like they did the original maps), but Microsoft won't let them.

Sweeney said, "We already released two [maps] and we have four more maps that we've built. We've been wanting to give them away for a long time but actually Microsoft has been pushing back on us for that. They're trying to build this business model around selling additional content for games and that's a valid idea, but definitely we would like to release more stuff for free, and we haven't been able to do so -- yet. Which is unfortunate, there's a lot of good business reasons for releasing free content for a game."

This naturally sparked some heavy debate on the Evil Avatar forums. Joystiq spoke with Mark Rein over the weekend and he laughed at how out of context the conversation was taken. He asked people to listen to the podcast before they weighed in. He says there are simple business philosophies separating Epic and Microsoft.

After our conversation, Rein posted a statement on the Evil Avatar forum, sending a copy to Joystiq, which said in part, "Quite frankly Xbox Live Marketplace isn't our store. It's Microsoft's store. Like any retailer they have the right to figure out what goes on the shelves of their store and what price they sell it at. They spend the money to operate the store and deliver the content. They've also spent billions of dollars to create and build Xbox and subsidize it's the price so you can afford it and we can make games for it. As our publisher, they also invested tens of millions of dollars marketing Gears of War, and have done an awesome job for us, so they have a right to a good return on that investment."

Rein says both Epic and Microsoft want to make money, they just have different philosophies on how to do it. Epic believes in giving content away for free, building the user base of their product by adding value after initial purchase. A model they've learned extremely well from being involved in the PC market for years. Microsoft believes in charging up front, and in the case of Xbox Marketplace, they have a store to run and infrastructure to pay for -- this doesn't mean the GoW maps won't be given away for free later like the Halo 2 maps. Rein believes it's their job to advocate for their product to maximize users and profits. It's Microsoft's job to maximize their profits on Xbox Marketplace so that both companies benefit. Rein understands Microsoft has a store to run on their console, makes sure to say they "aren't evil" and can't fault them for trying to make money -- he likes money too.

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/09/mi...and-microsoft/


I find this whole situation ridiculous since live users already have to pay for the service.

[jorg]

well there a perfectly good solution releas on ps3/blu-ray and just use the extra space for more maps

[JTK]

Originally Posted by phranctoast

http://www.joystiq.com/2007/04/09/mi...and-microsoft/


I find this whole situation ridiculous since live users already have to pay for the service.

This goes hand in glove with stories I'm seeing show up all over the place, like in recent issues of Game Informer for example.

Folks, this is all typical MS. No one should be surprised at this point.

[phranctoast]

Just wait until all games that are "made for windows" require a live account and a subscription to play online. Thank you very much f'in MS... theres a reason I hate this company.

[DV92Camaro]

MS is all about control.

[Blackraven]

I don't wanna pay heavily for these things.

heck, they MS didn't even slash the price of their XB live GOLD service to at least 50%. No way I'm paying for online play (not when PS3 and Wii have FREE online play).

I hope Epic wins the stand over the greedy console division of MS.

[Nismobeach]

Epic should come on over to the winning team. I'm sure a PS3 port of Gears of War would look fantastic on the PS3 and would also be quite a bit longer to boot.

[powerSURG]

wow that is lame and GOD it would suck if they forced "live" on games for windows... they (games for windows) are the only reason i use windows. I hesitate to buy a mac because of gaming with friends.

I read somewhere that the licence to gears of war and gears of war 2 belonged to M$, so we won't be seeing Gears anytime soon...

[ra1024]

Originally Posted by phranctoast

Just wait until all games that are "made for windows" require a live account and a subscription to play online.

They have no way to control games written for Windows. This will never happen to games they don't own or have control over. The only thing they could do is force this on game developers that use their MS game SDK. If they did, developers would likely switch to another product or do their own network coding. Don't worry, PC games not made by MS are safe from this abomination.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by phranctoast

Just wait until all games that are "made for windows" require a live account and a subscription to play online. Thank you very much f'in MS... theres a reason I hate this company.

I'm not that big of an online gamer anyways. If it ever comes to that, and I suspect it probably will, then that's when my online gaming will be minimized that much more.

And this is why I continue to be baffled in the worst way possible when I see other companies (like Apple) basically cede and forfeit that entire market to MS outright.

I like some of the initiatives on paper about the whole "Games for Windows" setup, but is there any doubt in anyone's mind what that really is going to be about ultimately? Your post hits the nail on the head, but I guess everyone's ok with MS ruling over PC gaming outright, unchecked, and unchallenged.

Wonderful.

There's a LOT of money in PC gaming. Talk about an area that needs more competition!

[partridge]

MS are all about control and using that control to maximise profits.

If MS can find some way to persuade gamers to pay for Windows Live gaming, then they will; in fact if games are going to be available for PC and 360 using the 360 pad, then as a paying 360 gamer wouldn't you be miffed that your PC mates are playing the same game for free...?

MS are trying to sew up the online gaming arena by linking Xbox Live on 360 and Windows PC's.

I much prefer the Sony option, the onus is on them to provide content that I want to pay for, rather than charging me regardless of whether I play online or not.

[JTK]

Originally Posted by partridge

MS are all about control and using that control to maximise profits.

If MS can find some way to persuade gamers to pay for Windows Live gaming, then they will; in fact if games are going to be available for PC and 360 using the 360 pad, then as a paying 360 gamer wouldn't you be miffed that your PC mates are playing the same game for free...?

MS are trying to sew up the online gaming arena by linking Xbox Live on 360 and Windows PC's.

I much prefer the Sony option, the onus is on them to provide content that I want to pay for, rather than charging me regardless of whether I play online or not.

I love PC gaming but I'm very troubled and concerned about what I feel are obvious ramifications that are going to happen since everyone's basically decided to forfeit and yield computer gaming over to Microsoft outright.

[Jaren613]

Originally Posted by ra1024

They have no way to control games written for Windows. This will never happen to games they don't own or have control over. The only thing they could do is force this on game developers that use their MS game SDK. If they did, developers would likely switch to another product or do their own network coding. Don't worry, PC games not made by MS are safe from this abomination.

Companies like Ubisoft and Valve are already heading that way.

I was reading an interview that came out a few days ago on IGN about Half Life 2. They were talking about how they already have the 360 playing online with PCs and that they know they can do it with PS3s/PCs as well, but they are still not finished. They then came out and said that the PS3 will never link up w/ the 360.

Since Microsoft's online is much more robust, if they were to implement online gaming w/ PCs that would lead me to believe that they would choose the 360 to link with them over the PS3. If that happens I can see people that play HL2 online (or other future Valve games) on their PCs to be forced to pay as well, to make it even. They have already been talking about doing it over at Ubisoft with the Rainbow Six series. I could even see Valve charging PS3 users money independently for their servers.

Microsoft took something that has been free for 2 decades and somehow got millions of people to think that it is worth paying for. I'm starting to believe that Microsoft could sell us fresh air.

[TBoneCapone]

Originally Posted by JTK

I love PC gaming but I'm very troubled and concerned about what I feel are obvious ramifications that are going to happen since everyone's basically decided to forfeit and yield computer gaming over to Microsoft outright.

My Question is this: Why are people concerned about XBOX live's cost when PC Gamers pay sometimes up to 20 bucks a month to play ONE game. Think about it. I happen to like XBox Live and while Epic was cool enough to want to share thier new materials, can we blame Microshaft for knowing a way to collect an easy buck?

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by Jaren613

Since Microsoft's online is much more robust

Is there any Xbox game that can handle 40 players on-line like RFOM. Even joining and setting up large games happens very fast. And that is a first effort on a new system.

Since Live was started 7 years ago with the original Xbox surely if it was more robust it would be able to at least keep up with the PS3 in that regard?

Gears of Wars has a maximum of 8 players and it's my understanding you want fewer for a lag free game. RFOM is FIVE times that number without problems.

How is Live more robust? Not flaming you just trying to understand why people say things like that when the evidence seems to suggest otherwise.

Much the same way people started saying the PS3 was sooo expensive without talking about the fact that MS charged for on-line or that everything was an extra and you ended up paying more than the PS3..people saying Live is more robust seems to be more of the same.

The facts don't seem to match my observations.

[The Don]

Originally Posted by TBoneCapone

My Question is this: Why are people concerned about XBOX live's cost when PC Gamers pay sometimes up to 20 bucks a month to play ONE game. Think about it. I happen to like XBox Live and while Epic was cool enough to want to share thier new materials, can we blame Microshaft for knowing a way to collect an easy buck?

because it's a game console and not a PC...

the PS3 is aimed at playing games and movies....with personal options on the side IE:installing Linux and using it as a computer....

you can buy the PS3 to be able to partially turn it into a PC, just like you buy a PC and opt to play games on it...

one is the service you intended, and paid for...the other is a perk, something MS obviously knows nothing about..

[powerSURG]

Originally Posted by Jaren613

I'm starting to believe that Microsoft could sell us fresh air.

Well said. I own both systems and go online with both. However, PSN is free! Yes there is more content on XBL, but I don't use 90% of that extra content and certainly do not get $50 per years worth. I just play with buddies. I'm just waiting for my term to expire and that'll be the end of XBL for me, since i can now play on PSN for free and still have options in the PS Store.

[powerSURG]

Originally Posted by ps3andlovinit

Gears of Wars has a maximum of 8 players and it's my understanding you want fewer for a lag free game. RFOM is FIVE times that number without problems.

Just to add a little... RFOM is server based. Which is one reason there is no lag. XBL is user based... it chooses one of the 8 players to be the host... !?!?!

Why do they charge me to play on XBL when they aren't providing the gaming servers??? XBL silver should allow game play (free) and XBL Gold should be for the extra crap I never use.

[Jaren613]

Originally Posted by TBoneCapone

My Question is this: Why are people concerned about XBOX live's cost when PC Gamers pay sometimes up to 20 bucks a month to play ONE game. Think about it. I happen to like XBox Live and while Epic was cool enough to want to share thier new materials, can we blame Microshaft for knowing a way to collect an easy buck?

Here's the thing TBone, the only games that PC gamers pay for are MMOs. If the 360 ever got an MMO, they would have to pay their fees for Live PLUS the fees for MMOs. MMOs charge because they have to be maintained constantly with customer service and security people. So in essence, while everyone else who gets them only pays the publisher's fees, Xbox owners have to pay publisher fees plus MS fees.

And the only thing I meant by more robust was more popular with a bigger user base. I one hundred percent agree with you about the 40 men online though, I used that argument a while back, but people don't seem to understand how well the online is put together for RFOM.

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by powerSURG

Just to add a little... RFOM is server based. Which is one reason there is no lag. XBL is user based... it chooses one of the 8 players to be the host... !?!?!

Why do they charge me to play on XBL when they aren't providing the gaming servers??? XBL silver should allow game play (free) and XBL Gold should be for the extra crap I never use.

That's why people like to be the host..they actually tend to be better off and win a larger percentage of games because even though they are the host it's the OTHER guys that suffer when their host bogs down.

Because they are ripping people off. Pay them money to download paid content. What a deal. Pay them money to NOT provide an infrastructure. A service that sucks in comparison to the PSN for playing GAMES - while they get a free ride on your back...

So again where is this superior and more robust Live? Don't see it. So why do people keep repeating it like it's a fact? It's like saying HD-DVD has more disc capacity than Blu-ray. Is that true? No.