Gamers OK With CoD DLC Prices, Says Treyarch

[Sud0_x]

Y'know why people bought them for WAW? Because if you didn't it was freaking impossible to have an uninterrupted play session without being booted for not having a map. Y'know why we pay for it now? The price in Oz is $24 now, our currency is worth more than the US but we still get the price jacked up for DLC, why? Because fuck Australians, that's why, or at least the only reason we're given, I don't care that the American price is reasonable, I want to know why I'm getting taken behind the chemical sheds by their DLC prices, don't get me wrong, I understand the game prices at retail, there is shipping prices and retailers profit margins and profit margins for the developer to think about, but DLC has none of those problems, it's a license to print money but we still have to pay $10 more than the US for ours. /rant

You actually answered your own question my man.
Game pricing in Australia has nothing to do with shipping and retail... It does, however, have plenty to do with profit margins. I was once naive and also thought that our lowly currency overtaking the US dollar meant instant savings for us Australians. Wrong. You know that big digital distribution age people think we're heading into? Well that's fucking scary, not only because we're behind on bandwidth but because, as it stands, despite digital copies costing nothing to reproduce, a game that costs 50 or even the high price of US$60 still costs us AU$90
(Which is still marginally better than the $100-$110 we're slugged for new releases at retail)
The reason for all of this is actually the same as the story behind the article, they do it because they know they can get away with it. I mean why would they lower their prices when this standard has been set for years? It's from an age when the world was a much bigger place, the only excuse for it now is that it doesn't make sense from a business standpoint.

Importing via online outlets, including shipping, is still cheaper than buying from your local store or downloading a digital copy (without resorting to piracy).
In this day we're still stuck in the world of snail mail? Seriously I thought we were a developed country. Video games and Australia have some serious fucking peace to make.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

Gamers OK With CoD DLC Prices, Says Treyarch

They're even more OK with Valve DLC prices.

 

[DaHero]

I'm fine with the CoD prices, since I don't pay for them and all. Never have enjoyed these multiplayer based crack-lined FPS games. It's got to be drugs, losing every match isn't fun.

 

[Easton Dark]

I've recently learned that Killzone 2 DLC maps are just as expensive as CoD maps, but atleast Killzone's come with new weapons, trophies, etc.

 

[Fusioncode9]

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

Brand new games cost 60$ not 15$. Before Modern Warfare 2, every dlc was 10$, later it has been changed. I don't think 15$ is that bad considering if you like the multiplayer than you can get hours of fun out of the content. I mush have spent anywhere from 15-20 hours just on that zombie map from the first map pack. Besides that same thing can be applied to MMOs. People spend 15$ a month and get an addiction and yet that's ok but 15$ dlc isn't? My point is that 15$ isn't that much as long as you enjoy the game because a few maps can be stretched out to hours of fun. And I'll buy Escalation so I can have my zombie fun.

 

[Jack and Calumon]

Brand new games cost 60$ not 15$.

Downloadable games are still new games. Amnesia, Scott Pilgrim, Stacking cost just as much when they were released. Don't need $60 to get a new game.

Calumon: But you do need money in order to pay buy things! Jack won't let me go shopping with him any more because of that... : (

 

[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.

I know that. TF2 is the closest thing Valve has to Call of Duty, so that's where I made my comparison.

Is it better? Yes. But Valve has other sources of income and can therefore afford to make a shit-ton of maps and such.

Does Activision have enough? Undoubtedly, yes. They just haven't gotten it through their thick skulls that it's better to do it free or really low priced.

I'm not berating Valve at all. I'm berating the PC fanboys, who will ***** and moan at the slightest provocation. Valve's customer base includes PC fanboys, therefore they don't want to piss them off.

Why would you expect people to not moan if they started charging for things unnecessarily?

360 "fanboys" spend their time bitching and moaning that they don't get the Valve DLC for free (half of whom blame Valve).

Oi, I take offence to this! I'm not a fanboy, I only play my L4D2 on the xbox because my girlfriend hasn't got L4D2 on her PC yet, and those that blame valve are those that are just sucking MS off =-="

Fuck - here comes the ban hammer when I get reported for that =-="

I put fanboys in quotations for a reason, you know.

 

[Wicky_42]

I buy expansions, not simple map packs, even with a couple of gimmicks. I wouldn't mind that they're doing it if they weren't clamping down on the mod scene - of course, they have to do that else the glut of fan-made content would mean that their over-priced map packs would look even worse than they already do.

 

[[Insert Name Here]]

They're lucky that Zombies is included. Only way I can justify selling my first born child for some maps.

 

[Idocreating]

I paid 60 bucks for a 8 hour single player campaign, a new zombie mode, 16 multiplayer maps, new guns, new perks, new equipment, more balance, and new modes like combat training and wager matches.

Now you want me to pay 30 bucks for 10 new maps.

No.

This sums up my opinion in a nutshell. The DLC alone isn't bad value for money, it's the DLC ontop of the woefully small amount of content the game shipped with that makes it such corporate greed.

 

[Nobby]

I'm a gamer and I'm not OK with CoD and Halo ripping the crap out of gamers for a few shitty new maps.

 

[jackanderson]

Mr. Olin, my rebuttal:

£11.49 for 5 MAPS??!!!

 

[Gunner 51]

Spoiler

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?

There's a difference between making money and earning money. Making money by screwing consumers is ultimately unproductive, they will resent a company that does this and the minute a better offer comes on the table - the consumers will jump upon it. This may benefit a company in the short term but it leaves a company's reputation in the gutter and the punter less likely to buy from them in future.

But earning money through making a small profit and offering the consumer value for money is the most ethical (IMO) way to go about things. It may not give you the massive profits of shafting one's customers, but it does ensure brand loyalty.

Giving people map packs for no extra charge for those who purchased their games new would not only ensure good value for money, help stave off second hand sales but also make life just that little bit harder for the pirates. (If they're such a pain as the publishers claim - this means the devs can offer something the pirates can not.)

The publishers are thinking too short term and shafting their customers. They could make more money potentially by treating their customers better.

 

[Baneat]

Whatever, just stop shoving it in my face because I didn't buy it every time I play (All server filters save when you load the game, apart from "Hide DLC maps" - hm, suspicious no?)

 

[Zannah]

Am I the only one wondering why Treyarch is so hellbent on ruining their own franchise? (Not that after Blops MP there's much left to ruin, but still...)