Poll: Should map packs be free? For halo, cod, gears etc

I voted no; I mean, I hate shelling out cash for 3-4 maps just as much as the next person, but the developer did spend time working on them and we can't just expect to get everything for free.  DLC is simple, if you really like the game, then buy the DLC and you'll have no regrets.  If you only casually and occasionally enjoy a certain game, don't waste your money.  Maybe it's just that a lot of gamers don't seem to have disposable income, but the occasional ten (more) bucks dropped on a game you really like playing does't really seem like that big of a sting in my wallet, especially when I have full intentions on getting as much use out of them as possible.

Yes, absolutely. I'm never going to pay $10 for DLC unless it adds a fair amount of content (five maps doesn't count as "decent amount"). By decent amount, I mean adding several hours to the game (e.g. Fallout 3 DLC).

Totally depends on the financial situation of the developer. It really shouldnt be up to consumers at all, I know we all like to feel we dictate what's worth money and what isnt, and on a larger scale, we do. But if a company is going to develop a product seperate to that of the main game, they have to see some profit from it because people have to be paid.

If they are still seeing mass profits from their game however, then yeah a nice map or two as a thank you for the support would be nice. But the huge majority of developers see one lump sum from the publisher on release of a game and nothing afterwards, asking/expecting them to do put out maps for free is kinda bullshit if you ask me.

Edit: StarFoxA: I agree with the sentiment, but for those who are into the multiplayer, i'd say they probably add more game hours than any Fallout DLC could.

I don't think that ALL map packs should be free, but I do think that developers should throw a bone to the players every once in a while.  With that said, the developers are taking extra time to offer continued support for their games on console, and in turn, they should be paid for it.

From a consumer standpoint, yes, because free is always good. But I guess the developers should get paid for extra work, so, my vote is "depends"

Not really because take halo 3 for instance, if they didn't get money from map packs they wouldn't continue to support and update matchmaking. Again you don't HAVE to buy them if you don't want to. Like i wouldn't buy a gears 2 map pack because well... i don't think gears 2 is good enough ot be worth it

I just think paying for content means your giving yourself the ability to play against less people. I think most people don't buy map packs and so if you do your going to be playing against fewer people then before.

Valve seems to have got it right with TF2. Every time they a new update they make a big event out of it so that more people get interested in the game and they usually lower the price too. It makes people like me continue to play the game years later and get new people to buy the game because it's still fresh.

I guess it depends. I mean take a look at the massive riot the RE5 DLC caused because it was supposedly already on the disc. Again, it's their stuff and they should be able to charge if they want to. If you're like me and pretty muched ditched CoD4 and CoD:WaW after the solo campaign, then don't bother, but if you spend a couple hours a day on Multiplayer they buy it, it'll be worth it.

I think it's certainly fair to pay some sort of fee for content, if only to support the developer, but I see some disturbing trends developing that makes me nervous for the future of paid DLC. For example, the recent trend of releasing a map pack for a game that is less than two months old (ie. Gears 2) seems more like corporate-milkage than fan-service.

They should definitively be cheaper than DLC's that add tons of content.

If they were free they wouldnt get made.

You can say PC games get free map packs but the fact is PC games have much longer lives than the average console game and so the free content is there to entice new customers.

You gotta remember it costs money to do these things so you have to expect to pay for it.

And you can say "welll Im never shelling out x amount for DLC", ok so what, your not there target audience then, as there are many people who are willing to pay for it.

You got to remember these arent groups of people whose sole purpose is to satisfy you guys,  they are companies, and there sole purpose is to make money, simple as that.

I think perhaps a system is in order, such as Trophies and Achievements being worth a certain amount of points. Those points could perhaps then be used to knock a certain percentage off of DLCs price off.... but I've had that idea since PlayStation Home... Trophies for currency

" I think perhaps a system is in order, such as Trophies and Achievements being worth a certain amount of points. Those points could perhaps then be used to knock a certain percentage off of DLCs price off.... but I've had that idea since PlayStation Home... Trophies for currency "

@lemon360 said:

"@AzureSupernova said:

" I think perhaps a system is in order, such as Trophies and Achievements being worth a certain amount of points. Those points could perhaps then be used to knock a certain percentage off of DLCs price off.... but I've had that idea since PlayStation Home... Trophies for currency "

that does sound like a good idea, but there would be problems with that."

Oh definitely, there's always problems...

Not free,but alot cheaper than they usually are.For example 3 maps should be no more 5 bucks.

"I guess it depends. I mean take a look at the massive riot the RE5 DLC caused because it was supposedly already on the disc. Again, it's their stuff and they should be able to charge if they want to. If you're like me and pretty muched ditched CoD4 and CoD:WaW after the solo campaign, then don't bother, but if you spend a couple hours a day on Multiplayer they buy it, it'll be worth it. "

"@AzureSupernova said:

"I guess it depends. I mean take a look at the massive riot the RE5 DLC caused because it was supposedly already on the disc. Again, it's their stuff and they should be able to charge if they want to. If you're like me and pretty muched ditched CoD4 and CoD:WaW after the solo campaign, then don't bother, but if you spend a couple hours a day on Multiplayer they buy it, it'll be worth it. "

I've said it before and i'll say it again, as a programmer that whole issue pissed me the fuck off.All the art assets are on the disc, they are just re-used in the same way most multiplayer levels re-use single player art assets. All the code was developed entirely seperately by a different team of people, and the low file size is accounted for by it being majority code, which takes up an insanely small amount of space next to art assets.But it forms the bulk of my point, consumers don't know, or care about these things and developers should know that and avoid these situations with clever release scheduling. "

No, if the game companies involved are good enough to make more maps, then I'd be happy to see more money going to them.  Just don't overprice it; they have to remember that the game is worth $60 packed full of content, so a few maps should not equal $15.

I like the pay when it's new then 6 months to a year later it's free.

I have no problem with paying for extra content as long as it's worth it.

there is clearly a differance from maps for multiplayers and DLC's for more single player content.  I enjoy the hours of online shooting of other people, but i don't buy maps cause I think they're too much.  COD WAW has plently of maps in game to not bore me into paying $10 for 3 maps.  however if I could get all the maps and an extra gun or two or more ranks I would be willing to 10-15 dollars. 

At the other end when the fallout 3 DLC comes to PSN I would easily pay the $10 for one of them and if I enjoy it than maybe another.  In the end I just wish there was some way to know up front how much DLC stuff will be coming.  When COD sells MW2 they should make it clear that there will be atleast 2 map packs and x amount of maps on original game. 

It completely depends upon when we get it. If it comes out at release then yes it should be free. If it comes out months after a release then no it should not be.

Do I want them to be free? Well I don't give a shit about most shooters

But they should definitely cost money.. unless you're Valve and somehow they can cut prices and give out free stuff and not lose money...

On topic: Map Packs?  Yes.  Off topic: other types of DLC - like GTA IV's "Lost and the Damned", No.  The former being just a map.  The latter being actual gameplay content that expands the story.

I want them all to be free but, that will never happen.

Any map pack that is a year old should be free, anything that is more than 6 months old should be half price and anything new is priced at whatever the publisher deems reasonable.  Of course, everyone wants everything to be free, but that ain't how the world works (on consoles), so I am willing to pay for map packs if they seem worth it for the price and I expect I'll get a decent amount of play from them.  I don't pay for Halo or Gears maps because I don't play those games multiplayer often, but I do enjoy COD multiplayer so buying them makes sense since I will actually play those maps.

Map packs should be free considering you payed $60 for the game, something like TLAD though is worth paying for

I never have, and never will, pay for a map pack.

Depends how they price them. I understand why they charge for them but I think the gaming industry needs to accommodate itself to this global economic recession. 

It depends. Obviously, I love free stuff, but, at the same time, not everything is free and why should a map pack that the developers put a lot of effort into post-release (such as the Halo 3 Mythic map pack) be free? They deserve the money that they worked hard for. Still, there are some sucky map packs out there as well that don't deserve to be paid for but, you know what?, just DON'T BUY THEM. Period. Still, some people pay for them and regret it, complaining about the game itself now.

Depends really, I don't really think the map pack for CoD4 should've cost what it did, it wasn't that good to be honest. :/

In my opinion, DLC costs should be part of the game's original budget and should be an late-release 'bonus' with my 60$ purchase.

In Halo 2, they would let you download the maps for free after a set period. I wish it was the same with map packs today. At some point, they should just let everyone download them for nothing.

Do I want to spend more money? Hell No.
Should the developer get payed for supporting a game after release? Hell Yes.

"In my opinion, DLC costs should be part of the game's original budget and should be an late-release 'bonus' with my 60$ purchase."

I don't think it's fair to want them to be free since they probably still require some manpower. But they could be priced more reasonably. Ten bucks for couple of maps feels like a rip-off in my opinion thus I haven't bought any.

"How do you figure that? And what would be the point?If it's part of the games original budget, wouldnt you rather just have it in the game at the time of purchase? Seems kinda backward to me. "

Personally, I think map packs should be free and I voted as such.  This is because I generally think they are not worth the money.  Even worse, they discourage me from investing too much of my time into any multiplayer.  I have no desire to put extra money into a $60 game, and so I would be "left behind" by a games online community as it moved onto new maps.

All that said, map packs are huge sellers.  Millions downloads show that there is plenty of demand, even when the maps are highly priced.  So the capitalist in me says to go for it.  Charge what you think you can get for maps.  No reason give away for free when people are willing to pay.