Map Packs: Pros and Cons

[Arnoxthe1]

A lot of games with online multiplayer love to do map pack DLC. And at first glance, a map pack looks like great DLC. New cool environments to play in that can be churned out in reasonable intervals. But there's an obvious problem with this that I think most people are not really paying enough thought to.

That problem is online where the people who haven't bought the required map packs for a particular playlist are segregated from the people who have. In online multiplayer, this is very undesirable for both the developer and the player. The developer doesn't want to make his playerbase feel unwanted and the player obviously doesn't like being left out just because they didn't spend some required amount on top of the $60 price they paid for the game.

But this isn't an easy problem to fix. Map packs are indeed cool DLC but sometimes that cool DLC can become more of a hindrance than a benefit to the player. So what's the solution? I'll let you fine ladies and gentlemen decide.

 

[MysticSlayer]

Well, the most obvious solution that makes people feel included is to give them away for free. Of course, that runs into the issue of developers/publishers not making money on their work, and that presents multiple issues, not the least of which is that they'll be very unwilling to do it.

A few things that might work, though, are:

1. Give a trial period of the map pack where people can play on the new maps for X amount of time before they are forced to buy it in order to play on it longer. This will take a little bit of the risk out of buying them, as people can determine whether or not they like the maps beforehand. Not to mention, it could allow people to continue playing with friends who bought the map pack, at least for a limited time. If they can't enjoy the game afterwards, then it might be time for the group to move on to another game if they want to continue playing together.

2. Allow parties to decide what happens when they run into a map that one of the party members doesn't have. Does that party member just get dropped, or does the whole party leave the lobby/server and get transferred to or start looking for a new one. This allows people to decide how it affects them and their friends, no to mention it might give greater incentive to those who don't have the maps to buy them, at least if they are self-conscious about somewhat ruining people's fun.

3. Reasonably price the map packs. I'm pretty sure all of us are familiar with at least a few games that have way overpriced map packs. $15 for only three new maps and two old ones. $10 for a single game mode that is only available on less than 75% of the maps. That stuff needs to go if they want everyone to be on board with buying the packs.

 

[Windcaler]

Map packs are a good idea on paper but not so great on execution. Looking at my primary FPS game (battlefield 3) the various maps that have been added to the game have split the community. If I want to have an open house on my server I usually have to run basic maps because a lot of people just dont have the maps from Karkand, Close quarters, or endgame DLC. In a smaller context I have some friends I like to play the game with but they dont have all the dlc either so we cant play on some of my favorite servers. We have to rely on randoms a lot of the time which turns out poorly because of abusive admins, steamroll matches, or troll servers.

Overall I spent $100 on battlefield 3 to date. $60 for the game and then $40 for battlefield premium which got me all the DLC together (and lets be honest thats a pretty good deal). Not everyone can do that. Frankly I think that if DICE want to continue doing these kinds of DLCs they need to be cheaper. $1 per map would be great IMO. $15 for a handful of maps...not so much.

That said, because maps can split the community I think they should be free or extremely cheap. DLC can be expanded with weapons, skins, and other aesthetic choices that have no bearing on the gameplay. I would even be fine with maps being purchased with some kind of in game currency you earn in game (or you could pay real money on top of that as as shortcut) because it would open it up to everyone who put in the work

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Great responses here. Hm...

My solution is simpler and yet not at the same time. Basically, my solution is all maps in a playlist can be played by anyone but not offline at all until they've bought the map packs. Now, you might think that this would take away the incentive to buy the packs but hold on here. I think the key is to have a very strong offline multiplayer mode(s) and functionality. That way, people will have incentive to pay for the map packs but won't be segregated from everyone else if they choose not to.

 

[DazZ.]

Map packs are by far the worst thing to ever come out of this whole DLC thing we have everywhere now, and I haven't bought a game that has them and will never buy a map pack.

Not only for all the reasons stated about dividing the community but they took away map making tools from a lot of games so that they could sell them, which is retarded.

There is a system in CS:GO however that I think is the best way to do it.
All maps are free, can be run on any community server and made by the players. However there is a pass you can buy where it lets you play some of these custom maps on Valve's own servers. These maps are voted by the community and rotate every few months, and most of the money for the pass goes to the community map makers. When a new pass comes out it's a whole set of new maps, and the old pass I guess is redundant, so it's like a subscription or just pay when you can (they go on sale towards the end of the time) to help out the map makers. You can also invite any of your friends onto those servers who don't have the pass.
That way, everyone gets all the maps, everyone can still play with their friends and the community people who put a ton of effort in to make a really good map get some money for their trouble.
This system requires dedicated servers as well but what FPS shouldn't have dedicated servers...

 

[Yopaz]

Great responses here. Hm...

My solution is simpler and yet not at the same time. Basically, my solution is all maps in a playlist can be played by anyone but not offline at all until they've bought the map packs. Now, you might think that this would take away the incentive to buy the packs but hold on here. I think the key is to have a very strong offline multiplayer mode(s) and functionality. That way, people will have incentive to pay for the map packs but won't be segregated from everyone else if they choose not to.

The problem with this solution is that it's great for the consumer, but not the publisher which is to say that I like this idea, but EA doesn't and in the struggle between what EA and I want EA will always win.

Honestly I'm not sure about this. The idea is great on paper, but its use could do with some improvement. I guess a price reduction could work, make it low enough for us to be able to buy it without thinking about how much money we'll have to buy dinner for afterwards, but yet enough to make a profit. It's complicated with the overinflated view on how much money they actually need to accomplish this though.

I guess it would be an idea to sell map tools and make the maps created by users free. I've played a lot of good community maps in CS and Hidden so it might work, but I don't know.

 

[Eve Charm]

Eh as much as I hate to say, this is where ME3 wins with making money and map packs. The map packs and new weapons are free, but there are still the pay RL money for weapon boxes option. So you get old players back in and even more easy to tempt them to drop a few bucks back on the game with boxes or hell the other single player dlc that came out. Same would work for junk that sells vanity items.

 

[Clowndoe]

Tripwire Interactive came up with their own solution. Maps are free, how could they sell them considering they gave out mod tools already. They're now selling the expansion Rising Storm. This adds the Pacific theater to an Eastern front game, which threatened the same thing. The solution was to merge the installs, for one, so both show up in the same lobby, and servers transition seamlessly from one to the other. If a player on the server doesn't have the expansion, he can still play, albeit only as a rifleman (the only good class anyway if you ask me) and without getting XP.

 

[Smooth Operator]

I understand the idea for post launch support, but in this case it is sadly all bad for users.
Even in the most honest attempt where it's priced for what it's worth, where they didn't gimp the main game in order to sell you more, where they don't just recycle the same maps, and where mod support wasn't chopped for the purpose of locking you into a single content provider ... you end up at the unfortunate circumstance where legit players paying full price will suddenly get locked from their community because they didn't pay an extra charge, and then another and another,... that is a horrible thing to do to your player base.

The best way to go so far is to turn the map packs into another game sale spike with free content updates, that way you still technically get the money back and everyone playing will love you for it, not to mention your game stays in the loop and you are more likely to have repeat customers.
Or if you do need to charge money then do belated large updates so the community gets a good reason to spend some money again.

 

[Britisheagle]

Eh as much as I hate to say, this is where ME3 wins with making money and map packs. The map packs and new weapons are free, but there are still the pay RL money for weapon boxes option. So you get old players back in and even more easy to tempt them to drop a few bucks back on the game with boxes or hell the other single player dlc that came out. Same would work for junk that sells vanity items.

Agreed, this is the best way to do it. Another way would be similar to Gears of War 3 were some were free, some weren't. This way, during a ranked rotation of maps, paid DLC maps were less likely to come up as there was more of a pool to chose from. That being said, those who did get the DLC could specifically play them if they so please.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Well, I'm also a big believer in old-skool expansion packs. Something I think 343 especially should think about for their next Halo games. So not only are you getting extra maps, you're getting a lot of extra content in general on top of that so there's much more of an incentive to buy.