Black Ops Annihilation: Hours of fun or £10 too much?

almanac2015 on 28 Jun '11 said:

I'm no longer into COD so don't own black Ops. But if I did they can f**k off if they think I'd pay £10 for a couple of maps.

wrightandrewjame on 28 Jun '11 said:

I've never bought a map pack, generally because I rarely play online enough as it is, but if you play it often enough I can't see that £10 is that much really. It's not even 4 pints at your local (barely covers 3 at mine). That's a trip for one to the cinema or a brand new DVD. Cost to hours of enjoyment for the map pack isn't that bad. It's all about what you see as value for money.

Imaduck on 28 Jun '11 said:

Good post wright

jim2wheels on 28 Jun '11 said:

I've never bought a map pack, generally because I rarely play online enough as it is, but if you play it often enough I can't see that £10 is that much really. It's not even 4 pints at your local (barely covers 3 at mine). That's a trip for one to the cinema or a brand new DVD. Cost to hours of enjoyment for the map pack isn't that bad. It's all about what you see as value for money.

Open your eyes and look behind you. It's a shafting, and people are taking it. Single player is next in line, so anyone burying their heads will get a rude awakening in due course.

Not a slight on you particularly, but I see the shoulder shrug "doesn't affect me" comments a lot. It will be too late by the time you realise it affects everyone - multiplayer or not.

almanac2015 on 28 Jun '11 said:

Killzone 3 map pack - £3.99

There's little reason for map packs to be more expensive than that.

Edit - jim2wheels has got it spot on

kirankara on 28 Jun '11 said:

I've never bought a map pack, generally because I rarely play online enough as it is, but if you play it often enough I can't see that £10 is that much really. It's not even 4 pints at your local (barely covers 3 at mine). That's a trip for one to the cinema or a brand new DVD. Cost to hours of enjoyment for the map pack isn't that bad. It's all about what you see as value for money.

Whilst I kinda agree, I can't help but feel , that ultimately , it's overpriced for the hrs of development involved. when Guerilla games can provide 4 maps for £4 and Dice provide maps for free, or a whole expansion pack in form of Vietnam for not much more than price of cod map pack, then it is extremely overpriced.

I suppose the codaholics get their money worth though, but map packs at that price are a joke IMO , especially when you never end up playing half maps, as people end up voting for same few maps after a while

wrightandrewjame on 28 Jun '11 said:

I've never bought a map pack, generally because I rarely play online enough as it is, but if you play it often enough I can't see that £10 is that much really. It's not even 4 pints at your local (barely covers 3 at mine). That's a trip for one to the cinema or a brand new DVD. Cost to hours of enjoyment for the map pack isn't that bad. It's all about what you see as value for money.

Open your eyes and look behind you. It's a shafting, and people are taking it. Single player is next in line, so anyone burying their heads will get a rude awakening in due course.

Not a slight on you particularly, but I see the shoulder shrug "doesn't affect me" comments a lot. It will be too late by the time you realise it affects everyone - multiplayer or not.

Couldn't you say the same about those who play MMOs though? They pay over £10 a month just to keep playing the game they bought. They've been doing it for years, they buy expansions at extra cost. Has it affected our single player RPGs? Not in the slightest.

DLC is on the increase. That's a point that can't be argued. To fund our ever more expensive and eloborate games developers need to find extra revenue streams and DLC is just that. Something that can't be forgotten though is that you can't sell additional content to people if they haven't bought the game. If the core experience isn't good enough in the first place then people won't buy it.

Look at Homefront. As soon as word got around that it had a 5 hour single player campaign people avoided it like the plague. So I don't see your point. Consumers vote with their wallets and if something isn't good enough then it won't sell.

KieranTC on 28 Jun '11 said:

It is a lot of money, but i play Black Ops a lot with friends and on my own and it's great fun so buying the maps widens that experience.

I don't see the point in depriving myself of that because of an increased price.

jim2wheels on 28 Jun '11 said:

@Wrightandrewjame

MMO's and single player could not more different if you tried. When you subscribe to MMO's, you know what's happening and you are probably gonna be playing that game for a very long time. Plus, your getting the whole experience from the off. I actually don't have issue with online DLC - it has its running costs afterall.

When EA charge you £117 pounds for the "full experience" in a golf game, any argument about extra revenue falls on deaf ears I'm afraid. When you take into account the ridiculous amount spent on marketing, the extra revenue excuse just doesn't cut it. It's been quoted that COD BLOPS had a marketing budget of $200 million, that's way more than what the actual game cost. What do we get out of that? Nothing. But you're damn well gonna pay for it via DLC anyway.

If only your Homefront analogy actually applied itself to DLC...if only. But it doesn't. Most people are mugs, and that unfortunately means folk who know when they are getting shafted (myself being one of those) end up being marginalised by the minions who don't have a f**king clue. It was all these map packs that started this bulls**t, before that it was going in the direction we all hoped it would. Keep burying your head and justifying it, the bottom line is you and I will pay a s**t ton more for games than ever before. It's optional at the moment, but soon it will be a matter of course.

Imaduck on 28 Jun '11 said:

Just as a note: I wasn't agreeing with the price, or Activision's way of doing things. I was simply saying that Wright's post was a pretty fair point, opinions will vary of course, but he still has a point.

almanac2015 on 28 Jun '11 said:

Couldn't you say the same about those who play MMOs though? They pay over £10 a month just to keep playing the game they bought. They've been doing it for years, they buy expansions at extra cost. Has it affected our single player RPGs? Not in the slightest.

When I buy Skyrim, chances are I'll play it like mad for a few months. I'll play other games also, but much less. Then I'll play Skyrim less and will purchase more games.

When I purchased WoW, that was it. In 18 months I probably purchased half a dozen games, most of them cheap. Other games didn't enter my mind - I played WoW.

An MMORPG can't be compared to other games.

kirankara on 28 Jun '11 said:

"Couldn't you say the same about those who play MMOs though? They pay over £10 a month just to keep playing the game they bought. They've been doing it for years, they buy expansions at extra cost. Has it affected our single player RPGs? Not in the slightest.

DLC is on the increase. That's a point that can't be argued. To fund our ever more expensive and eloborate games developers need to find extra revenue streams and DLC is just that. Something that can't be forgotten though is that you can't sell additional content to people if they haven't bought the game. If the core experience isn't good enough in the first place then people won't buy it.

Look at Homefront. As soon as word got around that it had a 5 hour single player campaign people avoided it like the plague. So I don't see your point. Consumers vote with their wallets and if something isn't good enough then it won't sell."

Whilst its true games are getting ever more expensive to produce, COD isnt one of those games that needs to find extra revenue, its the biggest selling game in the world , with about 23 million copies of black ops sold. They could afford to knock out the map packs at half that and still make an absolute fortune.

Homefront actually sold fairly well, what killed homefront , was what killed Brink, it was a total feck up online.

wrightandrewjame on 28 Jun '11 said:

Wow. Lots of negativity. Here goes...

@jim2wheels (whole post), @almanac2015 (MMO - first line only) and @kirankara (revenue and Homefront)

My point on MMOs was only to show that subscriptions had no negative affect on the single player RPG in the same way online DLC won't have a negative affect on single player modes. You seemed intent on the idea that single player will suffer as a result of DLC.

As for your Tiger Woods comment you know exactly what you are getting on the disc. It's actually no less than the pre-DLC games in the series. Just because they offer 20 extra courses as DLC and a load of clubs which would bring it up to that total doesn't mean you have to buy it. It's a perfectly complete enough experience on its own. It's up to you to decide if you want to expand it.

The revenue stream comment applies more to other devs, but still the money goes to Activision, who fund other titles. Less income, fewer games getting the green light, simple as that. If you want those new IPs then the money has to come from somewhere and it's often from their big hitters.

The Homefront point was a bit weak, but the general point I was trying to make still stands. If people don't think the DLC or game is good enough they won't buy it. Supply and demand. Lots of people obviously think COD is worth £40 and a reasonable chunk are very happy to pay £10 for some more maps. If they're happy who are we to judge?

Also now I've noticed you've edited your post. If you think you're being shafted then don't buy the game or DLC. Wait until it reduces in price. Game prices haven't increased in years (almost a decade) and take inflation into account we're getting a better deal than before. DLC will never be mandatory. Don't be daft. How can content be "additional" if there's not something there in the first place? You will always have a "core" experience that you'll pay a price for, just now you get the "option" to add to it. They can't ever force you to buy something that they indicate is included in the game because it's against the law.

lonewolf2002 on 28 Jun '11 said:

Couldn't you say the same about those who play MMOs though? They pay over £10 a month just to keep playing the game they bought. They've been doing it for years, they buy expansions at extra cost. Has it affected our single player RPGs? Not in the slightest.

When I buy Skyrim, chances are I'll play it like mad for a few months. I'll play other games also, but much less. Then I'll play Skyrim less and will purchase more games.

When I purchased WoW, that was it. In 18 months I probably purchased half a dozen games, most of them cheap. Other games didn't enter my mind - I played WoW.

An MMORPG can't be compared to other games.

And who is to say that some people will not get 18 months out of a CoD game, hell I played nothing but Q3 for about 4 years.

My own view is the DLC could be cheaper but then again I don't play CoD.

gmcb007 on 28 Jun '11 said:

The fact that they charge more solely due to their brand name is what annoys me. I mean it's the actual players who earned you that reputation so why treat them like this. It's a blatant rip off compared to other map packs that offer MORE maps for LESS. The whole length excuse doesn't justify a higher price.

kimoak on 28 Jun '11 said:

And who is to say that some people will not get 18 months out of a CoD game, hell I played nothing but Q3 for about 4 years.

My own view is the DLC could be cheaper but then again I don't play CoD.

Oh gosh. I killed it with Quake 2 and 3. Years and years playing those. They really had a great following due to online gaming expanding so much at that time. Lots of user created maps by fans, so we got loads of Mods and maps for FPS games at that time. My golden age of online gaming, that period. I guess that's why I feel as though £10 for a couple of maps would be totally out of the question for me. In my view, one of the reasons the Quake games survived for so long was the support from the community and also ID with the SDK's and map makers like QERadiant etc.

I do tend to wonder with CoD nowadays what with annual releases now. I get the sense that people just hop from the previous CoD to the newest making it just 1 year of play per game. That's a sweeping generalisation though based on sales figures of the latest itteration of CoD. BLOPS sold so well so I assume that everyone is playing that one now and moved on. I don't know, maybe a hell of a lot of people don't stop playing the previous title after a new one and play them all. I would be totally guessing as I don't play CoD.

lonewolf2002 on 28 Jun '11 said:

And who is to say that some people will not get 18 months out of a CoD game, hell I played nothing but Q3 for about 4 years.

My own view is the DLC could be cheaper but then again I don't play CoD.

Oh gosh. I killed it with Quake 2 and 3. Years and years playing those. They really had a great following due to online gaming expanding so much at that time. Lots of user created maps by fans, so we got loads of Mods and maps for FPS games at that time. My golden age of online gaming, that period. I guess that's why I feel as though £10 for a couple of maps would be totally out of the question for me. In my view, one of the reasons the Quake games survived for so long was the support from the community and also ID with the SDK's and map makers like QERadiant etc.

I do tend to wonder with CoD nowadays what with annual releases now. I get the sense that people just hop from the previous CoD to the newest making it just 1 year of play per game. That's a sweeping generalisation though based on sales figures of the latest itteration of CoD. BLOPS sold so well so I assume that everyone is playing that one now and moved on. I don't know, maybe a hell of a lot of people don't stop playing the previous title after a new one and play them all. I would be totally guessing as I don't play CoD.

Started on Vanilla Q3 on the DC (did not play 2 as I was a console man through the 90's), played mainly the ID maps when I moved to PC but yeah there was absolute s**t loads community content if you wanted it. Then our "clan" went over to Threewave capturestrike and played in the Savage leagues(think that name is correct).

I begrudgingly(Friends all wanted to play on the new ones) paid for the Halo Reach map packs which again I feel were over priced, when as you quite rightly pointed out and I take as a given that more games should come with community support/tools like back then so the community can help make games last well beyond their sell by date.

kirankara on 28 Jun '11 said:

"The revenue stream comment applies more to other devs, but still the money goes to Activision, who fund other titles. Less income, fewer games getting the green light, simple as that. If you want those new IPs then the money has to come from somewhere and it's often from their big hitters."

Lol Activision and new ip's are not something that really go together.
If Sony and EA can afford to release map packs for cheaper price and free respectively , then Activision can too. They own the two worlds largest franchises in cod and wow, so they could pass their good fortune back to customers in some form IMO . They been placed their by customers and really should stop looking for further ways to fleece them, and treat them fairly . It's not a case of judging people got buying dlc for cod, it's the trend it set in place, with devs and publishers probably holding back material and then releasing it as dlc for high prices.

Personally I agree that devs have a right to release dlc and increase revenue from games , as long as they fairly priced. I also see his point about the obsession of devs with mp aspects of games being prioritised , as they want to get in on the dlc cash cow , that's perfectly modelled by cod.They can also release material as dlc which they might have ordinarily included within the game .

There has to be a balance, and I think cod doesn't represent a fair balance of time they spend producing material, the profits they make, and the cost to consumer.

TheLastDodo on 28 Jun '11 said:

100% agree with kirankara.

There's no good reason for the price of CoD DLC being so much more than others, its just pure greed and they Acti know they can get away with it, it's not a case of picking on CoD because it's trendy to, it's because CoD is the measuring stick these days and every other shooter is desperate to be the next CoD so they all copy CoD.

If CoD offered the ability to create and upload your own maps for MW3 and it was well received then that would be the death of DLC in shooters because everyone else would try to jump on the bandwagon.

The problem is that Activision hold a powerful position in the industry and they abuse that power by ripping off CoD fans and not only does it affect CoD fans but the effect trickles down to games not called CoD and fans of those games suffer too, because everyone wants a slice of Activisions rotten pie.

Very_Silver_Ownz on 28 Jun '11 said:

It is great value. You will play for hours so you can't complain. Me I like getting shafted so there you go. Might as well put a '' please f*** me '' sign on my back.

kimoak on 28 Jun '11 said:

Started on Vanilla Q3 on the DC (did not play 2 as I was a console man through the 90's), played mainly the ID maps when I moved to PC but yeah there was absolute s**t loads community content if you wanted it. Then our "clan" went over to Threewave capturestrike and played in the Savage leagues(think that name is correct).

I begrudgingly(Friends all wanted to play on the new ones) paid for the Halo Reach map packs which again I feel were over priced, when as you quite rightly pointed out and I take as a given that more games should come with community support/tools like back then so the community can help make games last well beyond their sell by date.

Yup! I remember the Savage League. I remember Savage being mainly CTF. There was also Wireplay, Barrysworld and UKCCL. *sigh* Fond memories.

It feels backwards that devs and publishers are taking away some creativity from fans with regards to mods and maps. id and Valve have proven that you can find some real talent out there if you give them the opportunity. I guess it is all corporate sharholders and tight rules throttling this kind of freedom nowadays.

What was your clan called? I am curious now.

MrEETFUK on 28 Jun '11 said:

when I saw this dlc was being released so soon after the last map pack I decided enough was enough and flogged my copy on ebay.

Dom Bom on 28 Jun '11 said:

"The revenue stream comment applies more to other devs, but still the money goes to Activision, who fund other titles. Less income, fewer games getting the green light, simple as that. If you want those new IPs then the money has to come from somewhere and it's often from their big hitters."

Lol Activision and new ip's are not something that really go together.
If Sony and EA can afford to release map packs for cheaper price and free respectively , then Activision can too. They own the two worlds largest franchises in cod and wow, so they could pass their good fortune back to customers in some form IMO . They been placed their by customers and really should stop looking for further ways to fleece them, and treat them fairly . It's not a case of judging people got buying dlc for cod, it's the trend it set in place, with devs and publishers probably holding back material and then releasing it as dlc for high prices.

Personally I agree that devs have a right to release dlc and increase revenue from games , as long as they fairly priced. I also see his point about the obsession of devs with mp aspects of games being prioritised , as they want to get in on the dlc cash cow , that's perfectly modelled by cod.They can also release material as dlc which they might have ordinarily included within the game .

There has to be a balance, and I think cod doesn't represent a fair balance of time they spend producing material, the profits they make, and the cost to consumer.

Activsion were very generous once. Remember World at War? They gave us Makin Day! You know, the exact same map as Makin. Except in daylight! And it was for free! Yep, that's Activisions generosity. The same map. Just in the virtual sunlight. I'm surprised it was free tbh.

lonewolf2002 on 28 Jun '11 said:

Started on Vanilla Q3 on the DC (did not play 2 as I was a console man through the 90's), played mainly the ID maps when I moved to PC but yeah there was absolute s**t loads community content if you wanted it. Then our "clan" went over to Threewave capturestrike and played in the Savage leagues(think that name is correct).

I begrudgingly(Friends all wanted to play on the new ones) paid for the Halo Reach map packs which again I feel were over priced, when as you quite rightly pointed out and I take as a given that more games should come with community support/tools like back then so the community can help make games last well beyond their sell by date.

Yup! I remember the Savage League. I remember Savage being mainly CTF. There was also Wireplay, Barrysworld and UKCCL. *sigh* Fond memories.

It feels backwards that devs and publishers are taking away some creativity from fans with regards to mods and maps. id and Valve have proven that you can find some real talent out there if you give them the opportunity. I guess it is all corporate sharholders and tight rules throttling this kind of freedom nowadays.

What was your clan called? I am curious now.

We was (Short controlled Bursts) and yeah Capturestrike was like 1 flag CTF with modifications to gameplay regarding health ammo no weapon pick-ups(as you started with a full arsenal no bfg though ) etc.

wiesniak193 on 28 Jun '11 said:

Not long ago,PC Gamer Mag listed all the games you can buy for £10.gta:Vice City,GTA San Andreas,Hitman -Blood Money,Deus Ex 1&2,Hlaf-Life 1 & 2,Ffifa 11,Pes 2011,Crysis,Crysis Warhead,Assassin`s Creed 1&2.....and the list can go on and on and on.Any of these games can be found for under £10.And you are asking if it`s too much????Activision and Bobby C have been robbing you for yeas now,yet you still pay them,so you can go next day to work,school or wherever it is you are going to be and say with a smile on your face "HAVE YOU GOT THE NEW COD MAPS???BRILLIANT...INNIT??"without even thinking about how those greedy b......s rob people off.What surprises me is this-all the developers and publishers got to where they are thanks to fans`s support and love....and this is how they say "THANK YOU" after all those years-by giving us 5 maps for &10.I st too much??For me-anything with ACTIVISION logo is too much.I don`t buy their games anymore.The rest of the gaming world????Their demand for quality had dissapeared long time ago.If they are happy to pay tenner for add-on to a 6/10 game- it says it all.

Headsrinker on 28 Jun '11 said:

lonewolf2002

kimoak wrote:

lonewolf2002

Started on Vanilla Q3 on the DC (did not play 2 as I was a console man through the 90's), played mainly the ID maps when I moved to PC but yeah there was absolute s**t loads community content if you wanted it. Then our "clan" went over to Threewave capturestrike and played in the Savage leagues(think that name is correct).

I begrudgingly(Friends all wanted to play on the new ones) paid for the Halo Reach map packs which again I feel were over priced, when as you quite rightly pointed out and I take as a given that more games should come with community support/tools like back then so the community can help make games last well beyond their sell by date.

Yup! I remember the Savage League. I remember Savage being mainly CTF. There was also Wireplay, Barrysworld and UKCCL. *sigh* Fond memories.

It feels backwards that devs and publishers are taking away some creativity from fans with regards to mods and maps. id and Valve have proven that you can find some real talent out there if you give them the opportunity. I guess it is all corporate sharholders and tight rules throttling this kind of freedom nowadays.

What was your clan called? I am curious now.

We was (Short controlled Bursts) and yeah Capturestrike was like 1 flag CTF with modifications to gameplay regarding health ammo no weapon pick-ups(as you started with a full arsenal no bfg though ) etc.

Did either of you two play Action Quake 2?? That was before counterstrike. I used to play in a clan called (SS) - 'Stormtrooper Syndicate'. I used to play the sh*t out of 'Wireplay' aswell. It had a purple lined window if i remember correctly, i loved it. It was indeed the 'golden age' of online in gaming. Everything was new and exciting.

KK-Headcharge78 on 29 Jun '11 said:

If you don't play COD you're hardly likely to agree it is good value. I play COD a lot online with mates and get many hours of fun out of it, more than the cinema, more than lap dancers with huge bazzookas and more than getting wasted but I still do all those things (I've about broken even with Blops having only paid £27 new) Is it good value, not particularly but then is any DLC good value, who wrote the rule book on what constitutes good value DLC? and is anyone really surprised they don't discount it? People are entitled to pay for what they like it doesn't make them idiots. I would guess Killzone DLC is only cheaper because it sells feck all compared to COD sales wise, albeit it is a good game. Sales = product pricing, always has and always will.

kirankara on 29 Jun '11 said:

If you don't play COD you're hardly likely to agree it is good value. I play COD a lot online with mates and get many hours of fun out of it, more than the cinema, more than lap dancers with huge bazzookas and more than getting wasted but I still do all those things (I've about broken even with Blops having only paid £27 new) Is it good value, not particularly but then is any DLC good value, who wrote the rule book on what constitutes good value DLC? and is anyone really surprised they don't discount it? People are entitled to pay for what they like it doesn't make them idiots. I would guess Killzone DLC is only cheaper because it sells feck all compared to COD sales wise, albeit it is a good game. Sales = product pricing, always has and always will.

They had same pricing for kz2 though, and dice gave maps away for free, and look at the dlc for gta 4 in terms of value for money, they created almost entire new worlds in effect with each episode.
The fact that Activision sells that many copies should in reality drive price down, not keep it over inflated, as the need to recoup costs is obviously taken care of, so it just boils down to plain greed on their behalf. I agree that people do get a lot of hrs of enjoyment out of it, but if consumers refused to pay that price for dlc, then theyd get it cheaper, and still get the same amount of fun out of it. Thats why the are stupid. U only have to look at EVE online, the customers are hitting them where it hurts over microtransactions, they walking away, and it set to lose them 1.5 million apparently. Thats the power people have if they use their brains, but instead, people shell out £10 every few months, for what is essentially a minimum amount of work.

am_gers2K8 on 29 Jun '11 said:

They been placed their by customers and really should stop looking for further ways to fleece them, and treat them fairly

It's There not their, there is place, their is possessive, sorry to do this but I go on Tumblr a lot and have become a bit of a grammar Nazi.

Back on topic, IMO Homefront is a great example. My dad has COD and has managed to complete it in 4 hours. He is not very good at games, and no this wasn't on easy. Why is it that people turned their, see that's where to use it, noses at Homefront when it's 5 hours long, yet COD gets a massive following releasing the same 4 Hours each year?

The Map Packs do add a level off longevity, but not enough to justify $15, I live in Australia. It is 5 maps. Most won't be played commonly, yet people buy them anyway. It amazes me that devs can charge for this when Valve and Dice have been giving them out for free. SDK's should really be released, mods are available on the PS3 at least, though not 360.

Shamanix on 29 Jun '11 said:

I dont really see why people hate cod dlc so much, i mean yeh it is expensive but if thats all you play (there are people that only play cod all the time aint there?) than if you want to exapand the game a bit then you can. nobodys forceing you to buy dlc!!1 i personally think that this map pack is pretty good better than the last, (F**KING STUPID ZOO MAP!) oh and Still hate activision for what they did to true crime!!! F**k You Activision! Rant Over!

dcman on 29 Jun '11 said:

The fact that they charge more solely due to their brand name is what annoys me. I mean it's the actual players who earned you that reputation so why treat them like this. It's a blatant rip off compared to other map packs that offer MORE maps for LESS. The whole length excuse doesn't justify a higher price.

So paying extra for a brand annoys you? Are all your clothes unbranded then? Got trainers from the market? No brand named food in your house or is it all supermarket basic stuff? People always pay extra for top brands - that's why they're top brands.

Now where did I put my Tesco Value Fabergé egg?

spaceman_DOUG on 29 Jun '11 said:

If you pay for brand rather than quality you're a f**king idiot.

Laughlyn on 29 Jun '11 said:

"Couldn't you say the same about those who play MMOs though? They pay over £10 a month just to keep playing the game they bought. They've been doing it for years, they buy expansions at extra cost. Has it affected our single player RPGs? Not in the slightest.

Unless you play eve online instead of activisions other cash cow. With Eve u downloa dit for free, buy a bit of gametime and if u play enough you buy a PLEX (30day sub) for ingame currency and play for your hard work.

As for DLC. If i was on 360 i'd never buy a CoD mappack, they're too expensive for what they offer but thankfully on PS3 me n 4 mates chip in together n share it so £2 a person is fine by me and we play it online for free. who cares if we get it a month later. I think for 4 Maps and the zombie mode it should be no more than £5 a piece. Me n a mate was discussing something similar last night n we'd rather a company came out and put a preorder purchase for all teh DLC they'll release for a good discount. Hopefully for folk on CoD elite the sub will give them the map packs and it will end up cheaper in long run but for 360 players, just playing a CoD game is getting an expensive gig (£45-£50 for game, £40 live for year, £40-£70 for elite plus any extras not included in elite package) I'll stick to Battlefield on my PS3 i think. Black OPs has been first CoD game i bought and after mess the PS3 version was/is, it's gonna be my last

AJDarkstar on 29 Jun '11 said:

It's Activision being PO'd that they make no more money once they've sold a copy of the game, so they come up with "ingenious" ways of fleecing us for even more of our hard-earned. The only good thing about capitalism is that if you don't like something, don't buy it. Job done.

gmcb007 on 29 Jun '11 said:

The fact that they charge more solely due to their brand name is what annoys me. I mean it's the actual players who earned you that reputation so why treat them like this. It's a blatant rip off compared to other map packs that offer MORE maps for LESS. The whole length excuse doesn't justify a higher price.

So paying extra for a brand annoys you? Are all your clothes unbranded then? Got trainers from the market? No brand named food in your house or is it all supermarket basic stuff? People always pay extra for top brands - that's why they're top brands.

Now where did I put my Tesco Value Fabergé egg?

Way to miss the point.

Like spaceman doug said, quality is what matters for the price, not what name is stamped on the product. Because the game is so popular doesn't mean it has the right to overprice the customers who got them that position ,thats what annoys me! I only buy a product for what fits my needs not because its 'cool'. Once again, like spaceman doug said, if you buy by brand name then your an idiot. Read my whole post next time before responding with petty insults.

KK-Headcharge78 on 29 Jun '11 said:

But thats the point you miss, I buy the product because I enjoy it not because it's 'cool'. The fact you think millions buy it simply because its cool takes this debate to the school yard.

Multiplayerking on 29 Jun '11 said:

I get it because I split it with three mates and get it for a fiver.

Plus zombies is amazing and you haters know it.

KK-Headcharge78 on 29 Jun '11 said:

If you don't play COD you're hardly likely to agree it is good value. I play COD a lot online with mates and get many hours of fun out of it, more than the cinema, more than lap dancers with huge bazzookas and more than getting wasted but I still do all those things (I've about broken even with Blops having only paid £27 new) Is it good value, not particularly but then is any DLC good value, who wrote the rule book on what constitutes good value DLC? and is anyone really surprised they don't discount it? People are entitled to pay for what they like it doesn't make them idiots. I would guess Killzone DLC is only cheaper because it sells feck all compared to COD sales wise, albeit it is a good game. Sales = product pricing, always has and always will.

They had same pricing for kz2 though, and dice gave maps away for free, and look at the dlc for gta 4 in terms of value for money, they created almost entire new worlds in effect with each episode.
The fact that Activision sells that many copies should in reality drive price down, not keep it over inflated, as the need to recoup costs is obviously taken care of, so it just boils down to plain greed on their behalf. I agree that people do get a lot of hrs of enjoyment out of it, but if consumers refused to pay that price for dlc, then theyd get it cheaper, and still get the same amount of fun out of it. Thats why the are stupid. U only have to look at EVE online, the customers are hitting them where it hurts over microtransactions, they walking away, and it set to lose them 1.5 million apparently. Thats the power people have if they use their brains, but instead, people shell out £10 every few months, for what is essentially a minimum amount of work.

All valid points mate if we lived in an ideal world but the fact (sad as it may be to some people) is that private companies will choose their own path on how they interact/price and promote to their consumers. Rockstar choose great value, expansive DLC whilst most FPS's offer the same stuff (i.e maps) for between Free to £10, NFS DLC is expensive, Trials HD is not too bad etc.... A glance at the community however would suggest it is only Activision who overcharge, not the case. Some games will die by these decisions and some will become stronger but I really don't get why the axe grinding on this continues because any business will and is entitled to set it's own commercial path, it's not simple enough to use the sell more cost less scenario. You are right it would be nice if they did but is it not just simple enough to not buy it and move on?

Augustus_aka_AG on 29 Jun '11 said:

I'd rather wipe my arse with a tenner than spend it on this. Bearing in mind I paid £20.00 for BlOps on launch day and after playing it for 5 hours realised I should have wiped my arse with the 20 quid instead. So thanks to CoD I have 10 pounds covered in s**t and a piece of s**t that cost me 20 pounds. MW3 can f**k off.

Baoth on 29 Jun '11 said:

I picked the expansion up yesterday, and am quite happy with it. Shop around, and you can get 1200 M$ points for £9.99 - that's £2 per map in reality.

Don't forget that DLC is optional... I don't buy everything for every game. Depends how much you like the game the DLC relates to I guess. In this case - can't go wrong.

Just mho though.

gmcb007 on 29 Jun '11 said:

But thats the point you miss, I buy the product because I enjoy it not because it's 'cool'. The fact you think millions buy it simply because its cool takes this debate to the school yard.

Well lets be honest, many underage gamers prefer COD because its 'cool' as it contains guns and shooting. What I am trying to say is that Activision use the cool and popularity reason to charge more. No game should charge more due to its popularity.

lonewolf2002 on 29 Jun '11 said:

But thats the point you miss, I buy the product because I enjoy it not because it's 'cool'. The fact you think millions buy it simply because its cool takes this debate to the school yard.

Well lets be honest, many underage gamers prefer COD because its 'cool' as it contains guns and shooting. What I am trying to say is that Activision use the cool and popularity reason to charge more. No game should charge more due to its popularity.

Sadly supply and demand both disagree with that.

KK-Headcharge78 on 29 Jun '11 said:

But thats the point you miss, I buy the product because I enjoy it not because it's 'cool'. The fact you think millions buy it simply because its cool takes this debate to the school yard.

Well lets be honest, many underage gamers prefer COD because its 'cool' as it contains guns and shooting. What I am trying to say is that Activision use the cool and popularity reason to charge more. No game should charge more due to its popularity.

Point taken but these big publishers/developers, be it EA, THQ, Epic, Activision or whoever will exploit the popular. Yeah as a gamer it sucks but with my commercial head on it makes sense and I personally would do the same if the opportunity was there in my line of work.

gmcb007 on 29 Jun '11 said:

You make a very good point. I suppose us gamers are always the ones to get the worst end of the deal.

kimoak on 29 Jun '11 said:

We was (Short controlled Bursts) and yeah Capturestrike was like 1 flag CTF with modifications to gameplay regarding health ammo no weapon pick-ups(as you started with a full arsenal no bfg though ) etc.

Aah. Cool. I may have found your old forum whilst googling then. Perish, War, Shaolin? I can still find some of my old posts on the archived Wireplay boards. Pretty wierd.

I co-founded a clan called Children of Gaia. Pretty sweet times.

jim2wheels on 29 Jun '11 said:

You make a very good point. I suppose us gamers are always the ones to get the worst end of the deal.

And parents in many cases.

I'm dumfounded that anyone can be happy about this DLC trend, what kind of person wants to pay more for something? As one poster said to me earlier, I don't have to buy the game. And I won't buy a game new anymore unless they treat DLC the way it was intended, huge games like Skyrim being the exception.

MrEETFUK on 29 Jun '11 said:

whatever happened to paying premium for map-packs to get them early , after 4-6 month getting the same maps for free ?
did I imagine this ?

lonewolf2002 on 30 Jun '11 said:

We was (Short controlled Bursts) and yeah Capturestrike was like 1 flag CTF with modifications to gameplay regarding health ammo no weapon pick-ups(as you started with a full arsenal no bfg though ) etc.

Aah. Cool. I may have found your old forum whilst googling then. Perish, War, Shaolin? I can still find some of my old posts on the archived Wireplay boards. Pretty wierd.

I co-founded a clan called Children of Gaia. Pretty sweet times.

Blimey you did find the old website lol aye Shaolin was the leader, I see used to do very well especially in Q2, and yeah they were good times back then, I tried QuakeLive after a 6 year break, that didn't go well.

MANYOO4EVA on 30 Jun '11 said:

I've bought all 3 map packs and have had hours upon hours of fun from them (waiting for blind sheep comments), but yes they are too much. 800 points at most.

And no i don't play COD religiously like one player i came across today who was prestige 15 but only had 420 gamerpoints.

Tad obsessive me thinks and the disc probably doesn't leave the tray. Very sad indeed.

Also, there has been talk already of another map pack coming out and I think Activision should release that for free, for the loyal fans and to retrieve a bit of we-arent-completely-evil respect. Won't happen though.

Scottfromsco on 1 Jul '11 said:

I have always wished that they would release the DLC but have the zombie maps separate because I just don't find the online multiplayer enjoyable.

craiglackenby on 1 Jul '11 said:

If you like CoD and play daily then you need maps to keep it fresh. I'll try anything to keep it interesting, hell I'm going to sub to CoD Elite for the first month at least. See what it's all about.

I know some people (including me) that will get 10+ hrs from the Zombie map, some full price games don't provide that value for money.

the elz on 2 Jul '11 said:

I bought the map pack for MW1, what a rip off, 4 new maps, most of which were crap anyway.
I was a sheep, im not anymore, but theres plenty of sheep still out there so activision will continue to churn out fifa/pes with guns every year & charge people "extra" in between for parts of the game they forgot to put in for release date.

the best rip off is CoD WaW - I bought it 2nd hand to play, enjoyed the single & multiplayer parts, but if you didnt have all the map packs it would join you into a lobby for a game you didnt have the map pack with, only to be kicked when it started!
essentially forcing you to buy all the map packs to play it! this "bug" still hasnt been fixed....
I rearly buy DLC now, there rarely worth it to be honest.

skyvisco on 3 Jul '11 said:

None of the comments above me have the right answer to this forums question.

Activision charges more for their content because they can. That's it.
They know that most people who play their games are willing to shell out the extra cash no matter what is included.
There are people out there who don't know how to use their money or spend smartly.
Activision is cashing in on people's stupidity.
I'm sure there are lots of young ones out there who don't even think twice about purchasing new stuff.
That's what Acti. counts on. And it's why they make a s**tload of money.

Now I don't buy map packs. Period. I don't do it because I don't play online too much and lately I feel it's more and more ridiculous to purchase Xbox Live when PS3 users get the same service for free and IMO it's a waste of money to buy anything involving Black Ops.

But overall I think it is too much and that Activision is taking advantage of it's fans and followers.

griffa94 on 4 Jul '11 said:

I really liked this map pack personally
Shangri La is brill
Hangar 18 and Hazard are really good
Silo is great for objectives and drive in is just ok