Gamers OK With CoD DLC Prices, Says Treyarch

[Vrach]

I have to admit, the guy has a point.

If the price was too high, people wouldn't buy it. That fact that people buy the hell out of it suggests that the price is fine. Y'know, for a given value of "fine".

Still... $15 for 5 maps. That leaves a decidedly bad taste in the mouth.

Eaarrggg...

Yeah... they would. Overpriced doesn't mean people don't buy it. That said, he's probably using the definition of overpriced as "so pricy people don't buy it" rather than "priced higher than what it's really worth". And if you wanna argue the first is a better definition, than I suppose you're one of the people who think 5000$ shoes are fine. So yeah, forgive me for not respecting that line of thought.

I mean, seriously, 5 maps? Give the people a map editor, you'll get 5 good maps within a month or so for free from the community. To professional designers, building those 5 maps for multiplayer is pretty much a joke, there's an incredibly low investment cause you already have all the tools and know what already works within the game (see Metrics on Extra Credits) and seeing as we're talking CoD here, it's not like they're building some huge maps, it's relatively small stuff.

 

[Rack]

I can see why he'd say that DLC is correctly priced if people are prepared to buy it, but it does leave them open to another company using a more customer friendly pricing structure.

 

[Zeema]

they shud let you pay for selected maps

I only want the Map Packs For the Zombies but not the Multiplayer Maps

 

[Notthatbright]

And of course paying $15-$20 for map packs is one of the many reasons I have no respect for the HALO/COD crowd.

But its not a big reason. Paying for those maps is a cost of playing. Most people who buy that DLC are already paying for Live, and other stuff. To not pay for them would mean they'd be kicked out when the map came up, and they'd not be able to play with the other people who did buy it. So they endure.. yeah its addiction, but I could think of worse things to be addicted to. Like Farmville, or Microtransactions (I'm looking at you, TF2)

 

[ProfessorLayton]

Ugh... the fact that people buy this is not good. See, when people buy this, it sets an example for other devs that says they can overprice DLC. But for some reason... people still buy it. It makes no sense. Borderlands gave extra story missions for $10 each and while I only got Zombie Island, that was easily a couple extra hours onto the story and it was a whole lot of fun and completely worth it. Gears of War 2 gave you every single map they ever released and a deleted scene for $20. Left 4 Dead 2's DLC was free (for PC) and they added several different campaigns. TF2? Come on. That game isn't even remotely close to when it started and every single update has been free.

I can't believe people still buy overpriced DLC. If you don't pay for it, they will release it for cheaper. But then again, they could release $100 map packs and people would still buy them.

 

[RobCoxxy]

No we're not okay with it. It's just there's a lot of assholes with money to burn.

I genuinely think you should only really be paying for DLC that's as gratifying and actually storyline/gameplay expanding as Lair of the Shadow Broker, not four/five maps.

Fuck.

 

[tzimize]

He's right, it is a fair price. In this day and age, the price point for FPS map packs is about $3 per map (unless you play TF2, then it's free because Valve wouldn't do anything to piss off the whiny PC fanboys).

Call of Duty map packs give you 5 maps for $15, Halo map packs give you 3 for $10. The Call of Duty ones are not only a batter deal, but they aren't required to enter ranked playlists like the Halo ones.

Quit bitching, people.

Whiny PC fanboys? :| I wish you were here when the PC scene was ablaze with mods and developers released the tools to play with their game because they knew it added value, and more people bought the original game. If we whine its only because things could be SO much better...

Then fucking do something about it. Make a game of your own, release modding tools, free DLC, no DRM, whatever.

NP. You got a billion dollars lying around doing nothing? I'm not a creator (at least not of games) I'm a consumer. I'm just sad there is less to consume than before, and what is there is garbage. Compare the latest map pack of whatever to action-halflife for example. Makes me a sad panda.

 

[CrazyCapnMorgan]

Treyarch's Josh Olin says that addicts have gotten used to the comparatively high price of Call of Duty DLC.

Calumon: That money could get me Breakfast, lunch and a snack! :O

Tell ya what, Cal, for that money, I'll get you, me and Jack a pizza and we could discuss how gaming has pretty much been commercialized ever since corporations found out how lucrative people wanting their stimuli de jour could be. There's almost no substance to games anymore - only getting your money for doing the least possible amount of work.

 

[Squilookle]

Treyarch's Josh Olin says that gamers have gotten used to the comparatively high price of Call of Duty DLC

O RLY? Well guess what, Josh, I've 'gotten used to' playing better games that don't have 'call of duty' in the title.

Honestly, Treyarch used to be so modest, being the quiet younger brother to Infinity Ward's older brother blurting out spouts of ego. Now they are the ego spouter.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

I think people are being ripped off. Until I see a notable improvement on the standard of DLC (or future games by the same company) I won't accept this bullshit pricing. The time and effort put into the CoD map packs is minimal. Once all costs are taking into account, I suspect they break even (in regards to paying the development team) after the first 400 purchases. I'd say once 1000 are sold they have enough to pay off their slots on PSN, steam, Xbox live or whatever.

So where does the other few million sales go? It's definitely not going back into production or development, as the games haven't changed an iota since Modern Warfare.

I'm not arguing out of some false sense of entitlement. I do not get satisfaction out of their map packs (or map packs in general) for the price they are sold at, and it upsets me that these people take crazy amounts of cash off of oblivious people, and don't even do them the service of improving their game. (When was the last major balance change in Blops or MW2?) They can't justify the cost other then "We can fool people to buy it, by making it seem like their missing something"

Most people playing CoD on consoles don't realise they are getting much less for their cash. I don't consider myself a fanboy in any sense of the word, but PC players have had such DLC for free (usually coming down in patches, rather then downloading from a site). Granted times have changed and costs have risen in the industry... but the quantity has also dropped (and the quality is piss poor). I wish these people could see that they could have more if the wizened up to this "fad".

 

[Gunner 51]

Personally, I don't think COD DLC is good value for money, for what it is. Ten quid may not seem like much if you have a good salary, but like Tesco's slogan - every little helps.

If Activision really tried, they could release map packs for free like EA did with BFBC2. (And make the money up elsewhere - a loss leader, if you will.)

If things went badly wrong, they could always make a new game with a little innovation and imagination. So long as Bobby Kotick hasn't killed it with his "take the fun out of making video games" policy.

A little imagination brought the world Singularity - not a bad game by any means. But with a touch more polish and more than one type of bad guy - it could have been something really special.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that is takes effort to earn money - yet Activision are content to churn out DLC and make money. Unfortunately, you can only rest upon one's laurels and rely upon the latter for so long.

 

[D_987]

If Activision really tried, they could release map packs for free like EA did with BFBC2. (And make the money up elsewhere - a loss leader, if you will.)

They could, but would be incredibly stupid for trying to do so with such a clear money-maker already on the table.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that is takes effort to earn money - yet Activision are content to churn out DLC and make money.

So you're pretty much arguing against your own point mid-sentence?

Most people playing CoD on consoles don't realise they are getting much less for their cash.

I disagree, I think it's clear that they see Call of Duty maps as worth more than other DLC packs with arguably more content. If someone only plays Call of Duty new maps are great - some fresh variety, new locations to discover - I see no reason why you beleive they are getting "ripped off" because they derive more enjoyment from something than yourself.

Ugh... the fact that people buy this is not good. See, when people buy this, it sets an example for other devs that says they can overprice DLC. But for some reason... people still buy it.

Because they don't see it as overpriced? It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

It makes no sense. Borderlands gave extra story missions for $10 each and while I only got Zombie Island, that was easily a couple extra hours onto the story and it was a whole lot of fun and completely worth it.

These map packs, for CoD addicts [and there're a lot of them] will be played for a lot longer than a few hours.

I can't believe people still buy overpriced DLC. If you don't pay for it, they will release it for cheaper.

Of course, but since the quality to price ratio seems just for most people the DLC will continue to sell in drones.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

And of course paying $15-$20 for map packs is one of the many reasons I have no respect for the HALO/COD crowd.

But its not a big reason. Paying for those maps is a cost of playing. Most people who buy that DLC are already paying for Live, and other stuff. To not pay for them would mean they'd be kicked out when the map came up, and they'd not be able to play with the other people who did buy it. So they endure.. yeah its addiction, but I could think of worse things to be addicted to. Like Farmville, or Microtransactions (I'm looking at you, TF2)

You don't HAVE to buy them. The Reach DLC isn't needed to play all the playlists, and the map packs for Call of Duty aren't needed to play the game. You can opt out of the DLC altogether and you can still play the multiplayer. Same thing goes with any other multiplayer game you care to mention. It just means that your range of maps is limited compared to those who already bought the DLC. Doesn't mean you're kicked if you don't have them.

 

[Nifty]

Olin can go swivel. Recently picked up the Undead Nightmare Collection from XBL for 1000 points, me and my chums have just lapped up the extra multiplayer (not to mention the single player) content and feel more than satisfied. That's some bonafide value right there.

Now I can't speak for every person who bought First Strike but I was sick of the sight of Kowloon, Stadium and Discovery after less than a week and I just can't justify forking out another £11 for content that'll be hit and miss at best.

 

[Nightfalke]

I bought the first map pack for MW2, played the maps, hated them, and never bought an overpriced map pack again. I also stopped playing MW2 when the next map pack came out because it was impossible to play multiplayer without it.

I like FPSs, and I generally like online multiplayer (with the player chat turned off for the most part), but basically forcing me to buy an overpriced DLC to get a decent gaming experience without interruption sucks.

 

[Woodsey]

He's right, it is a fair price. In this day and age, the price point for FPS map packs is about $3 per map (unless you play TF2, then it's free because Valve wouldn't do anything to piss off the whiny PC fanboys).

Hilarious; company does something decidedly better, and you still berate them for it. All their DLC is free by the way, not just TF2's.

OT: Its a rip off. Just because people pay for it doesn't make it a good deal, nor does it mean they're OK with it; I'd imagine its more down to peer pressure then much else.

Still, people let them get away with it, so if you play the game its your own fault.

 

[Jack and Calumon]

Treyarch's Josh Olin says that addicts have gotten used to the comparatively high price of Call of Duty DLC.

Call of Duty DLC costs just as much as a new game, and what do you get? A few maps. I can guarantee that people aren't use to it, they're addicted to it. Some people have a serious Call of Duty problem, skipping school or work for it, constantly talking about it, and shunning those who don't find it a good game. They don't buy it for however much it is because they think that's a fair price. They buy because they feel they need to. They want more Call of Duty and are willing to pay any price for that.

The sooner the Call of Duty cloud vanishes the better. All it would take is one bad game, one TRULY bad game that everyone can agree is bad, then sales will fall. Somehow, I don't see that happening, unless the split development of Modern Warfare 3 between 3 studios is screwing things up.

/rant

Way to generalise the fuck out of the community.

It's the only way I can see how 5 maps for $15 being worth it, when other games that are also just as great such as TF2, Left 4 Dead give them out for free (at least, they try to with Left 4 Dead on Xbox, but Microsoft won't let them) and other games release DLC that has better value such as Metal gear Online which can give you GENE, MEME and SCENE expansion packs for $18 which gives 10 new maps and quite a number special characters you can play as to vary how you play the game. Battlefield Bad Company 2's Vietnam pack gave 5 maps, new weapons and vehicles in a completely different setting for the same price as Call of Duty's map packs. Call of Duty just gives you 5 new maps and says get on with it.

As for my generalisation, yes, perhaps I am quite a bit, but when I told my friends who were discussing COD that there was a new Map pack coming out soon, they actually cancelled a party they were going to have so they could get it. I'm sure they were not the only people in the world who are that obsessed with this game. Hard to forget such an image, when they had no idea what was even on it or when it was coming out, and they cancelled plans so they could save money for it.

I'm going to counter this myself by saying I may be a little biased due to how I felt about Black Ops when I played it on my PS3. I felt I was playing an unfinished, sloppily put together game. A re-skinned Modern Warfare 2 with more bugs and connection issues that previous Call of Duty games I had played did not have, and then when I complain, Treyarch tells me that it's just a few players? Does a few count as 16'000 confirmed people, at the very least, who were unhappy with what we were given? Then they paste the god damn message about Xbox party chat not available in a game type on the PS3?

Yeah, there's a good chance I'm being biased, but then again, I felt the DLC was overpriced in Modern Warfare 2 as well, so we can call this even.

Calumon: Jack's mad. : (

 

[Ironic Pirate]

Treyarch's Josh Olin says that addicts have gotten used to the comparatively high price of Call of Duty DLC.

Call of Duty DLC costs just as much as a new game, and what do you get? A few maps. I can guarantee that people aren't use to it, they're addicted to it. Some people have a serious Call of Duty problem, skipping school or work for it, constantly talking about it, and shunning those who don't find it a good game. They don't buy it for however much it is because they think that's a fair price. They buy because they feel they need to. They want more Call of Duty and are willing to pay any price for that.

The sooner the Call of Duty cloud vanishes the better. All it would take is one bad game, one TRULY bad game that everyone can agree is bad, then sales will fall. Somehow, I don't see that happening, unless the split development of Modern Warfare 3 between 3 studios is screwing things up.

/rant

Calumon: That money could get me Breakfast, lunch and a snack! :O

Wait, where the hell are you getting new games for the price of a map-pack?

I think people aren't necessarily fine with price itself, but when everyone who is (including many of their friends) gets it, they feel pressured to buy it. And CoD seems designed to make those without the newest map-pack feel excluded or shamed. For example, when in a party it tells you that you can't play the maps because a certain member of your party hasn't payed for them, and it does this in bright red letters IIRC.