And why is anyone playing FPS on a console anyway? Same people who put a 2 foot high spoiler on the back of a honda civic.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Microsoft Forces Valve to Charge For L4D DLC on 360?
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
And why is anyone playing FPS on a console anyway? Same people who put a 2 foot high spoiler on the back of a honda civic.
PrincessFrosty
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- May 6, 2009
- Messages
- 5,905
No, they cannot do what they want. The platform is owned by Microsoft and is entirely propiatary, Microsoft can charge any developer any price they like to let them distribute games over their platform, this is the nature of consoles.
My understanding is that the console developer takes royalties on all games and DLC and it seems like Valve managed to make some kind of deal to make the first DLC release free, now it's going to cost them money to distribute it and they have to make that money back by charging the gamers for it.
86 5.0L
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 13, 2006
- Messages
- 7,085
its funny you mention this, when I was on vacation in Ensenada, almost every restroom charged 5 pesos(.50 cents) to go in
butterfliesrpretty
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2002
- Messages
- 2,482
really? because blizzard does it like that
Same here, Valve are hardly the first developers to complain about developer treatment on XBL. That and they have built up ridiculous amounts of goodwill from me for keeping the PC relevant as a gaming platform, something that Microsoft seems determined to ruin at the expense of the 360.
Blizzard is using it per application per need. Your assuming that all XBOX 360 DLC will have a steady amount of leechers and seeders, of course being a console seeding could be forced, but this may affect game play.
You could also say that the bitorrent will not run while you are in-game, but for a console that is most of the time. Some people leave their consoles on all the time, but not always exit their games.
If this is such a great idea, then why doesn't Sony do it with the PS3 instead of passing the bill onto the developers and also onto the consumer? (Playing Devil's advocate here since I own both and a gaming PC)...
Also on a final note, no one really knows how well the update system works for Blizzard in terms of saving bandwidth, they have never been honest on their "live / current" subscription numbers and I doubt they would be on this. They were also the first company to use bitorrent integrated into their patcher and finally, WoW has a large number of players all connecting on a daily basis, console gamers aren't always so reserved to one game for extended long periods of time...
Long story short if Valve wanted this to be free they would flip the bill for it, unless they didn't go through with it a while ago (after they announced it), Sony does this to developers on the PS3 after a release grace period of 30 to 90 days...
You can't honestly blame Microsoft for this... You could blame the similarity between DirectX 9 and 360 development setup, but why would Microsoft continue to invest in DirectX advancement if the wanted to "kill" off PC Gaming. Seems counter productive, even if future DirectX models are just testing beds for future console development...
Put the blame where it belongs, the developers... I'm going to play Devil's Advocate one more time here, the PS3 being the least like DirectX when it comes to developing makes porting games over more difficult leaving little to no possibility of cemented PS3 exclusives from ever coming to PC without a huge investment (not like most of these Developers haven't received a return on their current investment in the PS3 exclusivity, right?)
Once again, PC Gaming is dieing because the consumer has become content between the differences in performance between the two, the lacking need of a DIY social network for the games you love, or the third party application need for mic support and you can see why many refuse to take the "upgrade" to PC Gaming... And sadly I am more of a PC Gamer than a console gamer, but "I feel" that these are valid points to make.
Agree. Apparently M$'s lust for money has blinded them who really keeps those consoles flying off the shelves. I say Valve and all other game companies should pull out of the proprietary console market.
lol, true that. There is no such thing as a true "console gamer". It's like somebody riding a scooter beat a crotch rocket. The real gamers are on computers.
I hope Valve has learned a lesson. Hopefully they didn't learn to charge for every little thing, but instead learned they really just need to abandon the console market. The handcuffs (bear traps?) must be pretty heavy for companies to actually want to be in that market. At least with the PC market you are pretty much free of all the bullcrap restrictions.
OMG, Really? That is when I would start pissing on the floor instead, or arc the stream over the door.
around where I live, I've calculated the cost of flushing a toilet to to 63 cents including sewer usage. If I charged my tenants 50 cents for every time they flushed the toilet, I'd still be taking a loss.
all those calling out greed, how much of your time do you really spend on charity work?
Where the hell do you pay $0.63 for two gallons of water and sewer access? The most expensive place I ever lived was like $0.002/gal for water and a flat $12 a month for sewer.
As for this article, I agree with those saying they should have bought it on the PC anyways!
As for this article, I agree with those saying they should have bought it on the PC anyways!
Well lets see. I posted this link on page one, yet no one has refuted it so far. Article is dated 08-21, and is straight from the mouth of God as far as TF2 is concerned.
http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/54340
Gotta love that last bit, and its so true valve doesn't need some idiot certifying anything that comes from Bellevue, its insulting.
One thing that some seem to be forgetting here, is what Microsoft's motivation would be.
They host a market (marketplace). With the expectation that content producers can charge for products (DLC, entire games etc). They benefit from this as do the content producers. How if some individuals come in and offer a large amount of content for free, that might start to "color" the consumers, change their expectations. They might start to expect content for free and/or be less willing to pay. So in order to protect the marketplace they have created, they will likely be resistant to this, keep most things for pay just to maintain consitency.
Look at the current situation in the iPhone market with people complaining about the expectation for $1 (and generally "low priced") iPhone games/apps. The public has started to expect this and now many content publishers aren't happy, because they feel like they should be able to charge more.
I'm not saying it's "right" (from a consumer advocate's point of view, the less we pay the better, free included), but it does make a certain sense from Microsoft's position.
So they can "pressure" developers, possibly even "incentivize" them to toe the line. It's kinda dirty, but it is there party and so they control the shots, whether we like it or not. :/
They host a market (marketplace). With the expectation that content producers can charge for products (DLC, entire games etc). They benefit from this as do the content producers. How if some individuals come in and offer a large amount of content for free, that might start to "color" the consumers, change their expectations. They might start to expect content for free and/or be less willing to pay. So in order to protect the marketplace they have created, they will likely be resistant to this, keep most things for pay just to maintain consitency.
Look at the current situation in the iPhone market with people complaining about the expectation for $1 (and generally "low priced") iPhone games/apps. The public has started to expect this and now many content publishers aren't happy, because they feel like they should be able to charge more.
I'm not saying it's "right" (from a consumer advocate's point of view, the less we pay the better, free included), but it does make a certain sense from Microsoft's position.
So they can "pressure" developers, possibly even "incentivize" them to toe the line. It's kinda dirty, but it is there party and so they control the shots, whether we like it or not. :/
Well Valve has proven that providing free DLC makes them lots of money. Every time had an big update and did a free weekend, they saw revenue from TF2 sky rocket.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/02/19/gabe-newell-valve-are-very-rich-its-awesome/
Its a good business model for them, but because it doesn't fit MS's model they won't allow it. It isn't about making money off the small amount of content and resources put into the DLC, its about selling units of the game it was made for.
I can do this all day going back and forth but it seems many believe in the way most companies have been nickle and dimming you on the rrod platform is the only way they can make money.
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2009/02/19/gabe-newell-valve-are-very-rich-its-awesome/
Its a good business model for them, but because it doesn't fit MS's model they won't allow it. It isn't about making money off the small amount of content and resources put into the DLC, its about selling units of the game it was made for.
I can do this all day going back and forth but it seems many believe in the way most companies have been nickle and dimming you on the rrod platform is the only way they can make money.
We all have to realize the other scary fact that even I hate to admit... Console gaming is where most developers get their green. Though Valve has a good track record as a PC Developer lets be honest here, if they really wanted to show a stance they would not develop for the 360, just like they have taken with the PS3 (for other reasons).
The reality here is that the install base is currently larger on the 360 and the volume of copies it can push for even a PC dominate video game developer. If things were so cushiony in the PC realm then I am sure Valve wouldn't go any further then licensing ports out to third party developers only (as they did in the past)...
The point is, if they don't like it, they should boycott the release, eat the money, piss off their publisher, do something that is truly a stance to remember. The other reality is that Valve seems to admit that this is how MS does things, that it isn't a surprise to them, it just pisses them off.
All Valve is doing is trying to get the consumer to do the hard work, have us complain and try to move the mountain that is MS... Unfortunately as stated by aggies11 the consumer on Live feels no need for things to change, either they are the type that buys DLC or they are not, they still don't rage on about it endlessly in unison in front of MS HQ...
I love Valve's work, but I call bullshit on this, knowing this ahead of time and not liking it, they should have never developed L4D2 as a multi-platform game... And stated these reasons as such, as I said do something that shows some balls and will get the Live gamer fans out of their chair on the phone / internet to complain... It's a shame but I see nothing but politics here, you curse the enemy during the day and sleep with them at night, only because it's convenient for you.
The reality here is that the install base is currently larger on the 360 and the volume of copies it can push for even a PC dominate video game developer. If things were so cushiony in the PC realm then I am sure Valve wouldn't go any further then licensing ports out to third party developers only (as they did in the past)...
The point is, if they don't like it, they should boycott the release, eat the money, piss off their publisher, do something that is truly a stance to remember. The other reality is that Valve seems to admit that this is how MS does things, that it isn't a surprise to them, it just pisses them off.
All Valve is doing is trying to get the consumer to do the hard work, have us complain and try to move the mountain that is MS... Unfortunately as stated by aggies11 the consumer on Live feels no need for things to change, either they are the type that buys DLC or they are not, they still don't rage on about it endlessly in unison in front of MS HQ...
I love Valve's work, but I call bullshit on this, knowing this ahead of time and not liking it, they should have never developed L4D2 as a multi-platform game... And stated these reasons as such, as I said do something that shows some balls and will get the Live gamer fans out of their chair on the phone / internet to complain... It's a shame but I see nothing but politics here, you curse the enemy during the day and sleep with them at night, only because it's convenient for you.
Was the answer they came up with after they promised the updates earlier and still none were availabe for Xbox 360. I still believe the promised DLC never came on the xbox and declared not available at all for PS3.
What I don't understand is other games had large ammounts of DLC available for free. Example Tom Clancy Rainbow Six
http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/games/media/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802555307d6/?of=3
Black Players Pack 700MB Free
Red Player Pack 700MB Free
Tom Clany GRAW 2
http://marketplace.xbox.com/en-US/games/media/66acd000-77fe-1000-9115-d802555307f0/?of=3
GRAW 2 Throwback Pack 2 600MB Free
GRAW2 Throwback Pack 500MB Free
Valve can do whatever they want really, but using the excuse that "free" is not availble "due to size limits" does not match with the examples above that are free on Xbox live.
SixtyWattMan
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Aug 4, 2008
- Messages
- 4,466
I forgot the sarcasm tags I guess.
I completely agree with you, despite not agreeing with Valve's approach. Only thing I disagree with is the fact that PS3 developers incur a cost past a grace period release for bandwidth consumed on DLC... It's quite ironic but as time continues I am sure you will developers passing this onto the consumer, so Sony is just using them as the scapegoat where Microsoft is openly putting the consume in this spot...
So I disagree with you, change "rrod platform" to "those console platforms" and your point makes perfect sense.
Parmenides
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,578
Yay!
+1 for PC games
-1 for console games
....
Ok, fine I'm slightly bitter that gaming is heading to the direction of consoles and not PC's..... I'm not trying to start anything. Do not take the bait... there is no bait.
+1 for PC games
-1 for console games
....
Ok, fine I'm slightly bitter that gaming is heading to the direction of consoles and not PC's..... I'm not trying to start anything. Do not take the bait... there is no bait.
Paraphrased from an earlier post I made:
The thing is that Microsoft hasn't taken the lead in terms of improving online gaming services for the PC while simultaneously killing PC game development; it has been up to Valve with Steam and Blizzard with their upcoming (and awesome looking) Battlenet 2.0 to take the lead. GFW is a mess, useless to most gamers out there. The fact of the matter is that the PC is being actively neglected by Microsoft as a gaming platform to the detriment of PC gamers (I'll get to that in a second), and if it wasn't for Valve or Blizzard then the platform would be in serious trouble. The proof is in how much marketing muscle, internal game development, and overall priority Microsoft puts between the 360 and the PC.
PC gaming isn't a priority for Microsoft for several reasons. The main one is that they stand to profit more from a consumer if they ditched Windows for gaming and they bought 360s instead. Windows sales do not equal more profits from consumers for several reasons, partly because most already own Windows (the consumer OS market is pretty saturated), and mainly because the lion's share of Microsoft's profits come from enterprise sales, not consumers. Most consumers are locked in with the majority of PCs running Windows anyways; that sale is already made and there is little else to gain from them aside from maybe Office and a mouse or keyboard.
There is greater potential profit from that same gamer by collecting a license fee on every 360 game sold (Microsoft doesn't get that from PC games), selling overpriced high margin accessories like $150 hard drives and $50 controllers, DLC, movies, Netflix partnerships, etc etc. It is potentially much more profitable than just selling that same gamer a single Windows license (which they probably already have unless they are the small percentage using OS X or Linux instead) and then calling it a day.
And the proof piles up every month, it sucks. Axing the PC version of Alan Wake and making it a 360 exclusive was business as usual as far as I'm concerned. There is no reason for this except to push more people onto the 360 platform.
Listen, I love the 360, I'm coming up on 9000 gamerpoints myself, but Microsoft actively sabotaging the PC as a gaming platform at the expense of the 360 is serious bullshit. As much as I love the 360, I love the PC as a gaming platform even more.
Note that not only does Microsoft currently have zero PC games in development, they have also managed to kill every great PC developer that they have acquired.
FASA? Dead!
Bungie? Split!
ACES? Dead!
Ensemble? Dead!
To be clear, Microsoft is willing to sacrifice PC gaming so that gamers go buy 360s as well. Making Alan Wake a 360 exclusive only further confirmed that for me.
Thankfully we have Valve (Steam is what GFW should have been) and Blizzard keeping the PC relevant as a platform, otherwise we'd be right screwed. Consoles have big sales and less piracy, absolutely, but the PC is a ubiquitous platform that plenty of developers are still doing very well with. I just want to see PC game development from Microsoft, more leadership in terms of making Windows a better gaming platform (GFW and the game browser are pathetic compared to what they do on the 360), and fostering internal PC game development. Again, this is coming from someone that loves the 360, but I can't abide by MS deliberately sabotaging the PC (which I love even more) in the process of pushing the 360, that is some some serious bullcrap.
I don't completely disagree with you, but I don't think it's Microsoft's responsibility to fully uphold the PC Gaming industry. Just the fact that they are still furthering the development of DirectX shows some commitment. Let's face it, PC Sales numbers have been getting quite low for most "none" Call of Duty / Valve titles.
Microsoft has an obligation as an OS developer to keep gaming relevant on the PC, with further enhancement and development to DirectX they are doing just that. Sure they could do more, but as many of the PC exclusive online features PC gamers enjoy most become standard on current and future generation consoles, the holy grail of PC gaming besides visual performance and higher resolution has gone out the window, in the end the consumer has say in this by purchasing the version of a game they want the most. The majority of consumers have picked the console version over the PC version of every game, and developers have decided to adapt their business model from innovation to competitiveness to stay a live in a market that is rapidly pumping out new games for almost every genre... EA is also partially to blame for this stream lined process of gaming development leaving other developers to pick up similar development standards to keep in the game. There just is too many factors here to put the blame of the PC gaming decline on one single entity, regardless of how much money they have or how much they are involved...
Long story short the real blame falls on the developers, and I never attacked Valve for their stance in the PC market. What I called BS on was the fact that they seem to have known about Microsoft Live's model for DLC and still made promise after promise for more and more free content. I guess they thought if they kept lying to themselves Microsoft would budge, now they put the blame on them... It's business as usual, just from a Developer we all know and love.
Due to Valve's success with Steam they can afford to offer free DLC (expansions) and reap the benefits of putting their games on sale as well, this is their model and it works because this is their service and there is no middle man.
I also don't think Microsoft should have to pay the bill for bandwidth on every free DLC made, this is something Sony also does not do with their "free" PSN service... Let's face it people, nothing is free. Right now it is just a debate of support for which of the two you love and having the one you hate or like the least pay the bill so you can get free DLC...
I on the other hand think there are other approaches to this and neither require the involvement and angry consumers in regards to these free DLC on console concerns. The decline of PC Gaming can be over turned by the involvement and interest from the majority of consumers... But these two arguments require different approaches and should really have not been combined into this debate.
Inacurate
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 520
Totally off the mark in my opinion if you assume one thing to be true: Valve offered to handle the bandwidth on their own servers or by paying for it. We do not know what type of negotiations went on between the two companies.
If you accept that as true and attempt to argue the "Forced or not?" debate, you have nothing to use but "Valve is greedy!" - Which is easily countered by the continued fact that they release content, updates and other items that are certainly classified as DLC on the PC all for free.
I made a post about this over at Shacknews too when the story broke, in it I said I think Microsoft is trying to protect the mentality that consumers have about paying for DLC. Since their business model seems to rely on DLC for sustainability, while Valve's does not.
It goes past just that too however. When Valve puts out something that could be considered DLC, it is worthwhile. It is full of marked improvements, additions and features. How often do we hear about DLC on XBL that is a single map? Or some costumes or weapons, or how about the ability to just play multi-player?
As I said in my post at Shacknews, Valve should have done everything to the point of submitting the content to Microsoft for certification. Then when Microsoft told them "Hey, you ARE charging this time and that is that!" Valve should have released a statement saying we have this done and already available for PC gamers, ready to go for XBL but Microsoft wants us to charge for it. Tell them how you feel about that.
That would have been awesome.
Without having a tape or original copies of the e-mail or however the said conversation process took place we will never know for sure.
As I said in a previous post, if this concerns Valve (as it should since it goes against their business model), they should take a stance and not release any future games on the 360 or at least no DLC and make it known for the reasons above.
I completely agree that would have been awesome and I wouldn't be seeing it in the same exact light I am right now.
Just like how Valve boycott's PS3 development, they took a stance, but it really didn't matter because the PS3 install base is much smaller to profit from.
My argument is that Valve is lazy and since they are one of the most verbal (and still most respected) game developers out there, they are trying to change things through just their words alone. It's almost as if they expect the consumer to rally to their side and raise hell over this... Obviously there will be a good bit of gamers who will, but most of them are loyal Valve fans on the PC end.
Considering how upset they are about this (or seem to be), I hope to see more than just words from them in the future.
I'm not taking Microsoft's side, I just expect more from the once ballsy Valve. But hey, with L4D being 2 months away, it's their party and they will cry if they want to.
Actually I don't think it really goes against their model as far as the xbox is concerned because they don't have steam there to offer a free weekend resulting in selling copies like they do on the PC. So that increase in sales would be minimal being it would be retail only I presume.
Valve has also stated the obvious fact that they don't want to do pay for dlc for a MP game as it would divide the community into haves and have nots. Something they think will kill the longevity of the game, and only serve to divide the community.
I think valve would have made it free because it was on pc, and for the stated reasons above.
I agree with this. If people get quality DLC for free, then it will undermine the desirability of the rest of the for-profit DLC market.
By setting an effective price floor, MS has biased consumer expectation to less than what it might be in a more open and competitive market.