Microsoft Adds a Price Tag to Left 4 Dead's DLC

[Legion]

Oh noes, Microsoft has decided to do something it has every right to do! Come on, people. I know having to pay for DLC you didn't know was going to have a price at all is annoying, but it costs Microsoft money to make AND distribute the DLC. And that cold hard cash has to be made back somehow. They're running a respectable business and money invested has to be made back. It's the way these things work.

You are also missing the point. It's not the fact that DLC costs money, it's that it only costs on the 360, PC gamers get it for free so those who bought it on the 360 are getting punished for their choice of platform (which is harsh considering they are both owned by Microsoft).

If everyone paid then Microsoft would be simply ripping people off, in this case they are screwing over half the customers by letting the other half have something for free.

Also, in this case it is somewhat different. Remember that the L4D2 boycott was based around the idea that Left 4 Dead was promised new content because it was a small game. It's a bit insulting to turn around and say "Don't worry, we are still making more for the game which we made too small, but um... we are going to charge you more for it."

I know it was MS's decision (allegedly, Valve could be just as greedy) but it is still slightly hypocritical and it adds credibility to the Boycotters argument.

 

[KSarty]

Oh noes, Microsoft has decided to do something it has every right to do! Come on, people. I know having to pay for DLC you didn't know was going to have a price at all is annoying, but it costs Microsoft money to make AND distribute the DLC. And that cold hard cash has to be made back somehow. They're running a respectable business and money invested has to be made back. It's the way these things work.

So then how does Valve manage to make AND distribute it at no cost?

 

[jboking]

Big deal, we have to pay $7 for new DLC. I'm a rich SOB, I have $250 in my wallet alone so it doesn't bother me too much. Besides, Microsoft knows we're going to buy the DLC anyway regardless of the price they put on it so relax; save the price moaning for MW2's price tag.

...No shit? Why else would they charge for something that is free on another system? They know your going to buy it anyway and they are exploiting the fact.

 

[yosophat]

Oh noes, Microsoft has decided to do something it has every right to do! Come on, people. I know having to pay for DLC you didn't know was going to have a price at all is annoying, but it costs Microsoft money to make AND distribute the DLC. And that cold hard cash has to be made back somehow. They're running a respectable business and money invested has to be made back. It's the way these things work.

So then how does Valve manage to make AND distribute it at no cost?

Ah the miracles of the digital age; since Valve sells more digital copies instead of hard disks production cost are reduced significantly.

 

[KSarty]

Oh noes, Microsoft has decided to do something it has every right to do! Come on, people. I know having to pay for DLC you didn't know was going to have a price at all is annoying, but it costs Microsoft money to make AND distribute the DLC. And that cold hard cash has to be made back somehow. They're running a respectable business and money invested has to be made back. It's the way these things work.

So then how does Valve manage to make AND distribute it at no cost?

Ah the miracles of the digital age; since Valve sells more digital copies instead of hard disks production cost are reduced significantly.

Its DLC, there are no hard disk copies. Valve developed this DLC and is distributing it themselves for PC through Steam for free, so how does allowing Microsoft to distribute it on Live add a $7 price tag?

 

[Evilbunny]

But, they released the survival pack for free...I guess I don't understand how big business works.

 

[AdambotLive]

OT, valve are faithful to PCs and probably forever shall be.

Off-topic, to the boycotters: you wanted DLC, go get it, PWNED!

 

[moose49408]

Oh noes, Microsoft has decided to do something it has every right to do! Come on, people. I know having to pay for DLC you didn't know was going to have a price at all is annoying, but it costs Microsoft money to make AND distribute the DLC. And that cold hard cash has to be made back somehow. They're running a respectable business and money invested has to be made back. It's the way these things work.

So then how does Valve manage to make AND distribute it at no cost?

Because Valve is a group of video game artists, and Microsoft is just a group of businessmen... Ok, so that statement was only half serious, but I can't help feeling that that isn't at least a little bit of what is going on here.

 

[Dottie]

news just in,Microsoft is gonna make a new attachment for the xbox that makes you pay 50 cents every time you boot your system.

 

[CrazyCory564]

I really hate to break it to you guys, but this is how the world works. You want something? Pay for it. It you're not willing to pay for it then you don't want it that bad.

 

[Bigeyez]

M$ always tags on prices to DLC they know will be popular. This type of thing is definitely not new.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

More reason never to play (ported) games on the Xbox.

 

[oppp7]

The sad thing is that people will still dl it...

Though technically, there's nothing saying they have to make DLC free. It's using their servers and costing them money. I'm not going to buy it, but I can understand why they wouldn't want to give away freebies.

 

[IrrelevantTangent]

Oh noes, Microsoft has decided to do something it has every right to do! Come on, people. I know having to pay for DLC you didn't know was going to have a price at all is annoying, but it costs Microsoft money to make AND distribute the DLC. And that cold hard cash has to be made back somehow. They're running a respectable business and money invested has to be made back. It's the way these things work.

You are also missing the point. It's not the fact that DLC costs money, it's that it only costs on the 360, PC gamers get it for free so those who bought it on the 360 are getting punished for their choice of platform (which is harsh considering they are both owned by Microsoft).

If everyone paid then Microsoft would be simply ripping people off, in this case they are screwing over half the customers by letting the other half have something for free.

Also, in this case it is somewhat different. Remember that the L4D2 boycott was based around the idea that Left 4 Dead was promised new content because it was a small game. It's a bit insulting to turn around and say "Don't worry, we are still making more for the game which we made too small, but um... we are going to charge you more for it."

I know it was MS's decision (allegedly, Valve could be just as greedy) but it is still slightly hypocritical and it adds credibility to the Boycotters argument.

Hey, I'm just as upset about it as you are. My main console of choice is the Xbox 360, so I'm personally getting shafted. I'd love it if the DLC was free like it is on the PC, but I'm not so sure that it costs money just because Valve/Microsoft's being greedy. I know, I know, it may be a little naive of me to put my trust in a game company, but the DLC costs money, and no amount of wishful thinking on my part's going to change that. I can rationalize it however I want, but it doesn't change what's already happened. If it makes you feel better, you can of course hold the opinion that this was a little hypocritical of Valve or Microsoft, but I don't personally feel the same way.

 

[oppp7]

As for Valve/Steam vs Microsoft, Microsoft has to pay for servers for Xbox Live. $5 a month is not enough for it (according to WoW and every other MMO...), so they need to charge for every little thing they can.

As for Valve/Steam, I'm not sure about what they do for money. Don't really use Steam or those games on computers.

 

[Robert632]

well then, maybe microsoft demanded the sequel that caused a boycott.

 

[Royas]

I guess that Valve should have worked out that in a contract BEFORE releasing L4D on the 360. It's not like MS has all the power here, they don't have the only game in town. Valve just didn't think ahead, didn't understand the mentality of the people they were dealing with, and didn't exercise due diligence in this case. Bad Valve, worse Microsoft.

 

[CyberKnight]

I could get into the whole PC vs. 360 debate, but it's probably a little too tangential.

I loved Left 4 Dead, but I haven't played it in months. I just don't see the point in paying $7 for half a campaign for an older game when a new one is coming out in two more months anyway -- and knowing they're charging for something that's free on the PC just makes me not want to buy it even more.

I get the feeling Microsoft doesn't understand the concept of free promotions. Even taking the "free on PC" side out of the equation. It seems like giving this away for free would be a much smarter move, because it would stir up interest in the franchise, get people playing the zombie-killer again, just in time for the next iteration to be released.

I thought the same thing about Fable II. It seemed to me that it would make sense to release the Pub Games for free, get something Fable II-ish into people's hands with no cost to get them interested. The hook there would be, "Hey, you've played this free game and earned all this gold; how would you like to take this gold into a real game and do something with it? Buy Fable II!" Instead, they charged for it, essentially making it something extra that only people who were already committed to the Fable franchise would pick up. (Yeah, it was free with preorders, but again, only someone who had already committed to getting Fable II would get this extra thing.)

They could be doing the same with themes or Avatar extras. But instead, they're so focused on milking money out of customers and putting a price tag on everything. It's borderline insulting.