Question of the Day, August 13, 2010

[MasterV]

No to any extra cost to play a game, shooter or otherwise. Games are more expensive and lighter on content than they used to be and I won't be paying for "extra" content that should've been there from the start. Remember, PC gamers, when this extra conent was called a "patch" or a "map pack" and it was free?

 

[Dioxide20]

I wouldn't pay for any of them.

The only thing I would pay for is weapon packs. Things that I could unlock along the way to the highest rank. But if the had it set up like Combat Arms, where you purchase a gun and its useable for the next 60 days, I would never do it.

 

[obisean]

I love how 78% of us say they would never pay for this sort of thing, and yet the MW2 community on here is strong. Some of you are down right bandwagon jumping liars trying to avoid the shark tank.

FYI: I don't even own MW2, so I really can say no and do so with pride. Proof: http://www.steamcalculator.com/id/obisean

I wouldn't pay for any of them.

The only thing I would pay for is weapon packs. Things that I could unlock along the way to the highest rank. But if the had it set up like Combat Arms, where you purchase a gun and its useable for the next 60 days, I would never do it.

Does Combat Arms not offer the option to unlock the guns through gameplay? Usually when I hear of something like "unlock for x time frame" it's so that people who are just starting out/haven't played for a bit can get going on a F2P and not get their asses kicked. In which case I don't entirely fault them, though I've never done that myself as I haven't played any F2P shooters other than Battlefield Heroes beta for about an hour.

 

[SilverUchiha]

I'd only pay for GAME content, not content that compares me with other players and that horse-shit. I'd love to pay for more maps, characters, modes, enemies, weapons, etc. But it would have to be packaged together (like for $10, you get 5 new maps, 5 new characters, maybe 1 new game mode... you get what I'm saying).

The stuff up there is just a waste of cash.

 

[icyneesan]

I wouldn't pay extra for any of these except if virtual goods is just another word for DLC weapons, gear, and extra maps and modes

 

[cheftacular]

I might pay for some content for some shooters, but it'd have to be something spectacular. No, wait, I moved to where the internet is 56kbps so I'd be better off buying Cheetos.

 

[2xDouble]

I can understand a lot of the hate on paying for stuff. Buying in-game items is just classism, leaderboards and such are included for free in most games anyway. But think about this, if there was a monthly tournament that had a $5 buy-in (or something), they could offer cash prizes to the winners! Even if it's < 20% of the take, that's incentive enough, don't you think (as long as more than 5 people enter)?

*sigh* you're right. they won't. they totally should; everybody wins here. besides, there are gambling laws here in the U.S. that can be cited to block this sort of thing... A man can dream though...

 

[William Dickbringer]

tournament fees only if there's a good prize like 50% of the fees collected not for bragging rights or stupid things like pens

 

[The Noble Shade]

I'm already paying 60 bucks for their games, and 50 bucks a year for Xbox Live; it would be insulting for them to charge for what should come standard.

 

[Amp]

5G - Payed £100 to help support the Activision War Machine!

I mean seriously, do they not get enough from sales!?
They own one the biggest selling games to date!

 

[Snotnarok]

I've never payed for updates like these, ever, so why the hell would ANYONE pay for them? They've always been free.

 

[Nurb]

Most everyone selected "I wouldn't pay for any of these."

Yet enough seem to be willing to pay to make micro-transactions more and more abused.

Doesn't anyone remember when small content packages of one or two weapons or pieces of armor were FREE between expansions as a show of thanks for gamer loyalty to the developer? Hell, xbox live had every download for free when they were luring in customers.

Screw microtransactions, and screw any developer stupid enough to be purchased by EA, BlizzAck, or Ubisoft. Those massive publishers buy up all the large developers so there's no competition from independants anymore.. the independants are all outclassed and outshined by mega-AAA games and a poorly programmed graphics engine. "Graphics don't matter" is something we just tell ourselves to pretend we aren't always drawn to green/grey/brown "gritty realism" that requires a 500 card to barely get the engine to crank out decent fames at max settings

 

[Anacortian]

...but I have bought stuff on my WoW account. My wife REALLY thought that Griff was cute.

 

[TIMESWORDSMAN]

I like online shooters, My siblings like online shooters, My very limited circle of friends (4 at previous count) also like online shooters. So if a well polished tournament system was available for a affordable price,($10 or less) I would buy it.

 

[Naheal]

I can't afford to pay for that sort of content. Not when Valve is giving away the same sort of thing, only better, and more often, for free.

Perhaps tourney play with cash prizes?

 

[V8 Ninja]

I can't afford to pay for that sort of content. Not when Valve is giving away the same sort of thing, only better, and more often, for free.

This. God bless Valve.

 

[Blackmagic1515]

Nothing. I don't play shooters so I won't waste money on them.

 

[Denamic]

Achievements and virtual goods (new maps, guns, whatever) should already be in the game.
Tournaments and ladders can be handled by third parties.