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

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by Jaren613

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.

As far as MMO's - Sony is providing dedicated servers without charging so it's not a given that it's even necessary to be charging for those either.. For example, Google probably has the largest server infrastructure in the world and they fund it in other ways. MS wants to charge everybody for a weaker system without investing money in it themselves.

Ok, thanks for clarifying. I think many people DO understand PSN is more robust..they just want to keep promoting Live as being better despite evidence to the contrary. Let's not forget that SOE was doing this stuff before Xbox Live existed. Another myth that Live was first.

Again that wasn't directed at you just trying to separate the fiction from the facts.

[powerSURG]

^^ I completely agree with you. I read an article comparing PSN to XBL. What did they point out as superior?

1. Acheivements
2. Cross game messaging
3. Background downloading (older article, can't find link but i think it was EGM)
4. Leaderboards

I mean seriously... This is worth $50 a year? Before i got my ps3 it was worth it, because i could play games with my friends. However, I don't need it anymore. I have seen the light.

[Jaren613]

Originally Posted by ps3andlovinit

As far as MMO's - Sony is providing dedicated servers without charging so it's not a given that it's even necessary to be charging for those either.. For example, Google probably has the largest server infrastructure in the world and they fund it in other ways. MS wants to charge everybody for a weaker system without investing money in it themselves.

Well usually the cost for MMOs come from staff. Servers are one issue, but an MMO game is constantly updated and they constantly add new things. There has to be a team of people to be on the game 24/7 for complaints and to control cheating/griefers. There has to be tech support in case a glitch or server crash occurs. Those are the reasons you usually pay for MMOs independantly, because the game company has to pay workers around the clock to keep them running.

I would love for it to be free though. It doesn't sound like Sony plans on charging us for Warhawk! But I don't know how often that will be updated, it just sounds like an online only battle game. Still can't wait for it.

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by powerSURG

^^ I completely agree with you. I read an article comparing PSN to XBL. What did they point out as superior?

1. Acheivements
2. Cross game messaging
3. Background downloading (older article, can't find link but i think it was EGM)
4. Leaderboards

I mean seriously... This is worth $50 a year? Before i got my ps3 it was worth it, because i could play games with my friends. However, I don't need it anymore. I have seen the light.

It's interesting .. I see those things as being more for the small but vocal hard-core gaming crowd...I don't think they are that meaningful to people who don't live their lives in gaming. Getting on-line for free and having a quality experience is more important to the average gamer - which is the larger audience. We paid for a year with the original xbox and it just wasn't worth keeping it going.

Those items are all solvable or already solved with software updates..I don't think getting 40 players for Gears will be so easy because the basic model seems to be different.

[powerSURG]

Originally Posted by Jaren613

Well usually the cost for MMOs come from staff. Servers are one issue, but an MMO game is constantly updated and they constantly add new things. There has to be a team of people to be on the game 24/7 for complaints and to control cheating/griefers. There has to be tech support in case a glitch or server crash occurs. Those are the reasons you usually pay for MMOs independantly, because the game company has to pay workers around the clock to keep them running.

I would love for it to be free though. It doesn't sound like Sony plans on charging us for Warhawk! But I don't know how often that will be updated, it just sounds like an online only battle game. Still can't wait for it.

WHOA! I don't play World of Warcraft, but I do know the monthly fee is unjustified. A couple months ago i was told there were 6 million WoW subscribers... Sure, they have expenses, but 6 million by the $15 per month??? That's roughly $90 million per month. I'm not a financial analyst/expert, but I'm not stupid either. I'm sure it doesn't cost them $90 million per month for maintenance and upgrades. I'd be suprised if it costs them 1 million per month. I'm sure they'd be just fine with charging their users $1 per month. Especially now that they have made their initial investments back.

[Jaren613]

Originally Posted by powerSURG

WHOA! I don't play World of Warcraft, but I do know the monthly fee is unjustified. A couple months ago i was told there were 6 million WoW subscribers... Sure, they have expenses, but 6 million by the $15 per month??? That's roughly $90 million per month. I'm not a financial analyst/expert, but I'm not stupid either. I'm sure it doesn't cost them $90 million per month for maintenance and upgrades. I'd be suprised if it costs them 1 million per month. I'm sure they'd be just fine with charging their users $1 per month. Especially now that they have made their initial investments back.

Ya, now think of it in terms of MS, making about $50 a year on millions of 360 owners, and they have no servers to uphold and no 24 hour workers to pay, at least not at the scale of MMOs.

And ya, Blizzard is making a shitload of money off of WoW.

[partridge]

It's weird though isn't how this idea that Live is the best online gaming experience there is, and yet I've had little trouble playing RFoM or Motorstorm online, and it's free. My buddy list tells me when someone I know is playing, and what game they are on, I can send messages, etc. What more do I actually need? As an occasional online gamer, achievements and the like are of no interest at all, and I could care less who is ranked number 1.

Xbox Live is all about the minority hardcore online gamer, that isn't me so why should I pay?

In all honesty I probably wouldn't pay if Sony introduced fees, but I am happy to pay for decent online goodies because it's my choice.

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by partridge

It's weird though isn't how this idea that Live is the best online gaming experience there is, and yet I've had little trouble playing RFoM or Motorstorm online, and it's free. My buddy list tells me when someone I know is playing, and what game they are on, I can send messages, etc. What more do I actually need? As an occasional online gamer, achievements and the like are of no interest at all, and I could care less who is ranked number 1.

Xbox Live is all about the minority hardcore online gamer, that isn't me so why should I pay?

In all honesty I probably wouldn't pay if Sony introduced fees, but I am happy to pay for decent online goodies because it's my choice.

Yep. The Live is better is coming from the hardcore gaming xbots repeating it over and over and MS marketing. For actual gameplay the playstation on-line is much better. A couple of my son's 360 friends jaws dropped with RFOM - they seriously thought he was lying about that many players being on lineuntil he dragged them over to experience it. He just got sick of them saying he was full it. Up until that point they had been repeating the same false message because they didn't see how it was possible given Live was supposed to be so much better. Wrong.

[victorvondoom88]

Originally Posted by ps3andlovinit

Yep. The Live is better is coming from the hardcore gaming xbots repeating it over and over and MS marketing. For actual gameplay the playstation on-line is much better. A couple of my son's 360 friends jaws dropped with RFOM - they seriously thought he was lying about that many players being on lineuntil he dragged them over to experience it. He just got sick of them saying he was full it. Up until that point they had been repeating the same false message because they didn't see how it was possible given Live was supposed to be so much better. Wrong.

Yeah isn't it something. I always get the "you need to play gears of war online the deathmatchs are sick."
I say "8 player deathmatchs isn't that cute,you should come over and get a taste of 40 player deatmatchs."

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by victorvondoom88

Yeah isn't it something. I always get the "you need to play gears of war online the deathmatchs are sick."
I say "8 player deathmatchs isn't that cute,you should come over and get a taste of 40 player deatmatchs."

You can see the sinking feeling as they realize they've been had What the screen is tearing either? But how can that be..

[Shin-Ra]

At first I thought the PC Xbox Live guff was just about Windows Vista marketing, giving gamers a reason to update when there's so many reasons not to like poorer Vista driver performance.

But I think they're attempting to make PC gaming like another console platform - one that they own without any competition. Get to a point where they're making more money on every PC game sold because various online elements are Microsoft-made. I don't know if they're charging third parties to use PC Live features now but you bet they will in the future. Say byebye to cheaper PC games as the cost is passed on to the consumer for what's really no better than what PC games have had for years.

[ps3andlovinit]

Originally Posted by Shin-Ra

At first I thought the PC Xbox Live guff was just about Windows Vista marketing, giving gamers a reason to update when there's so many reasons not to like poorer Vista driver performance.

But I think they're attempting to make PC gaming like another console platform - one that they own without any competition. Get to a point where they're making more money on every PC game sold because various online elements are Microsoft-made. I don't know if they're charging third parties to use PC Live features now but you bet they will in the future. Say byebye to cheaper PC games as the cost is passed on to the consumer for what's really no better than what PC games have had for years.

That's why you see and will see more of the big companies like EA etc creating their own network gaming systems - they don't want to be trapped by that scenario - because yes they know that is MS's game. Use one monopoly to create another one.

So what's the difference between a 360 and a P.C.? Not much. Constantly changing hardware = more bugs = more expense = upgrades on a shorter cycle. Not interested and neither are most of your occasional gamers.

[jbuttler007]

Everyone just wants to make that extra dime. That's what businesses do. Don't be suprised.

[TBoneCapone]

Originally Posted by jbuttler007

Everyone just wants to make that extra dime. That's what businesses do. Don't be suprised.

Yeah no doubt, speaking of.....does anyone know when the new release will be available for purchase. Yes I am a sucker, but it is my favorite game of all time!!!

[MasterXeus]

Originally Posted by TBoneCapone

Yeah no doubt, speaking of.....does anyone know when the new release will be available for purchase. Yes I am a sucker, but it is my favorite game of all time!!!

Not sure when it will be available, but I'm guessing once they agree on charging or not charging for the download
I also heard that they might go along the lines of Halo 2 If you want the new maps now you'll have to pay for it, but after a few months it will be free download.

[MasterXeus]

http://xbox360.gamezone.com/news/05_03_07_09_40AM.htm

Looks like my guess turns out to be right.

If you want the new maps now you'll have to pay. If you can wait until Sept. 3, 2007 then you can download them for free. I don't know about you but I can wait.

[Garconis]

Well worth the money. I got them. As Tony the Tiger would say: "They're Grrrrrrrrrrrrreat!"

[TBoneCapone]

Originally Posted by MasterXeus

http://xbox360.gamezone.com/news/05_03_07_09_40AM.htm

Looks like my guess turns out to be right.

If you want the new maps now you'll have to pay. If you can wait until Sept. 3, 2007 then you can download them for free. I don't know about you but I can wait.

Wait and you will lose out IMO. These maps really are great like my man tony the tiger said above. They ass a lot to the play so you don't get bored and the maps are BIG!

[MasterXeus]

Originally Posted by TBoneCapone

Wait and you will lose out IMO. These maps really are great like my man tony the tiger said above. They ass a lot to the play so you don't get bored and the maps are BIG!

How will I loss out if I wait?

$10 isn't a big deal for me, but I don't believe I should have to pay for something that Epic was going to give for free, until MS step in. MS wanted the money (I'm sure Epic is getting there share too) but I already pay MS every year to play online.

Even if this wasn't the case, To me Gears of War is an ok game. It's not something I would go spend more money on. I'm very picky when it comes to buying D.C. I bought all the Oblivion add-ons and Marvel U.A. Heroes and Villains packs (Have to have Magneto and Hulk ) and that's it. I only like buying D.C. if it will add to a single player or co-op online part of the game, adding multi-player battle maps isn't something I care too much about.