We’re coming up to the Battle Of The Map Packs, where the two most popular modern military online shooters – Modern Warfare 2 and Bad Company 2 – are about to provide “new” maps for players to fight over.
EA’s effort involves the unlock in a few weeks of “new” maps that are already on the BFBC2 disk. They exist right now, but they’ve locked away for two reasons –
- So there’s something they can “release” to compete with the MW2 maps when they’re released; and
- to punish those who’ve bought the game second hand (who have to pay a large fee to get access to these maps).
The first is a complete contradiction of what “downloadable content” means, and the second is an insult to every single purchaser of the game, not just those who’ve bought it second hand. It’s EA saying to you, you do not own the content on this disk. You do not have the right to buy it and then sell it to someone else. It’d be like Penguin telling you that if you sold a book to someone else, the last chapter’s being cut out and the new purchaser will have to pay them to read it.
It’s anti-consumer garbage, and we should be very angry with it.
Activision’s new maps for Modern Warfare 2 are not on the disk, and are not a means of punishing second-hand purchasers.
But they’re an enormous ripoff anyway. 1400 Microsoft banana dollars, which is about $30 – or, more than a third of the price I paid for the original game. For three new maps, and two old ones that most of their customers will have already bought for Call of Duty 4.
That’s ridiculous. It’s such a ripoff that, as someone who’s bought all the map packs for COD4 and World at War, I’m going to say no. Particularly since Activision still haven’t fixed the major matchmaking problems with the game. I just hope enough other gamers do the same.
Not getting the MW2 maps either and there is DLC content on the MW2 disc. Some hackers unlocked it a while back.
You are aware that EA has a responsibility to at least do SOMETHING to combat the bullshit that is the second-hand market, right? Instead of activations and DD (well, they do DD) they’ve created a value add system which provides first hand customers with a bonus piece of game – nothing which effects the gameplay significantly – a bonus character in Mass Effect 2 and Dragon Age: Origins, some titties in Saboteur, different map modes in BFBC2.
It gives second hand purchasers an option – do I purchase the extra content for a measly $20? Or do I leave it alone? This discourages people from purchasing second hand games from the variety of resellers who sell second hand games at a mere $10 less than the RRP – a truly anti-consumer situation that you appear to wish to preserve.
Regardless of your ignorance to the implications of business factors on game development, the second hand situation is a serious problem for publishers these days. I think value-add content is a fuckin brilliant way for them to go about it. As to your other point – they never called it DLC. They’ve called both of them (this is the second) map packs.
Can’t argue with you about MW2. That shit is daylight robbery.
“You are aware that EA has a responsibility to at least do SOMETHING to combat the bullshit that is the second-hand market, right?”
To whom? Their shareholders? Certainly not their customers. As a customer, I consider that my copy is MINE, 100%. I should be able to onsell it completely. EA trying to keep part for themselves – and we’re not talking about “a bonus piece of game that doesn’t effect gameplay significantly” in the case of BFBC2, we’re talking about maps that gamers effectively have to have to be able to play with friends online – is anti-consumer garbage that we should resist.
“This discourages people from purchasing second hand games from the variety of resellers who sell second hand games at a mere $10 less than the RRP – a truly anti-consumer situation that you appear to wish to preserve.”
Not at all. Someone should set up a decent game-trading system now that Ebay is a triple-dipping ripoff. The stores gouging consumers with the purchase and sale of second-hand games deserve to lose that cash cow. The problem is that it’s very hard for a competing service to begin, given that Ebay has such a huge monopoly that the ACCC utterly failed to reign in.
Ah well – hopefully someone will get around to it soon.
In the meantime, it’s still wrong to prevent me from onselling part of the content for which I’ve paid.
“Regardless of your ignorance to the implications of business factors on game development, the second hand situation is a serious problem for publishers these days. I think value-add content is a fuckin brilliant way for them to go about it. “
I’ve no problem with value-add. I’ve a problem with being deliberately prevented from onselling content for which I’ve paid – and that includes both DLC and downloadable games.
1. Of course their responsibility is to their shareholders first. But at least they’re attempting to provide a middle ground to keep customers happy as well.
2. They’re not necessary at all. Tell your friends to stop being dickholes and quit choosing to play on maps you don’t have. They’re not missing out on maps anyway – they’re missing out on game modes on maps they already have.
3. Explain a decent game-trading system.
4. Then don’t use the code? Or sell your gamertag with it? It’s not like the options aren’t there for you. They’re simply not the easiest way to go about it.
5. I’m sorry Jeremy but DD is the way of the future. Millions of pirates have made sure of that. Should they still charge as much when you don’t get full control over your games? I don’t think so. But that’s not the topic at hand.
“1. Of course their responsibility is to their shareholders first. But at least they’re attempting to provide a middle ground to keep customers happy as well.”
By adding artificial barriers to customers’ right to onsell their games?
“3. Explain a decent game-trading system.”
Ebay but where the auction house isn’t taking its cut three ways. Ebay before compulsory PayPal.
“4. Then don’t use the code? Or sell your gamertag with it? “
Those are stupid “options” that involve me being deprived of part of the product for which I’ve paid.
“5. I’m sorry Jeremy but DD is the way of the future. “
Well, I won’t be encouraging it. Not while it means consumers losing rights, anyway.
In an effort to minimise the amount I repeat myself when conversing with you,
“Well, I won’t be encouraging it. Not while it means consumers losing rights, anyway.”
You won’t be encouraging it? So you won’t be purchasing games that are digitally distributed? Are you eliminating Flower and PJ shooter from your played games? Or will it just be from now on that you don’t buy DD games or DLC?
Fair point – I probably won’t abstain from all such titles if there’s no alternative. But if there’s an option that doesn’t involve a digital download, or there’s an alternative game that doesn’t impose these sorts of anti-consumer restrictions, then I’ll purchase that instead.
Some free market, huh?
Activision seem to be on some kind of “our game is so awesome that you’ll pay anything for it” trip. As if it wasn’t insulting enough that they expected us to pay extortionate prices for the game itself (not that many of us actually did), they want us to cough up 1400 points for this paltry selection of ‘new’ maps?!
Activision, kiss my pucker.
[...] Every time the gaming industry begs support on the basis that only financial success can help them do the right thing by you, remember that it’s really run by greedy corporations. Like Activision. You know how it justifies its upcoming map pack ripoff? [...]
I’m not a Law student or anything like that and I certainly don’t know about Australian consumer laws (being from Brazil), but I’m pretty sure that there’s something you can do about it. Legally, i mean. Someone should check the purchase/service contract for the game. If they didn’t add anything about this unlockable content on it, anyone who paid for the software contained on that disk is entitled to all of it. Making you pay for something you’ve already paid for is absurd.
Now… I believe Activision f***ed up on that one. I am all for downloadable content and games. I agree that that’s the future for all kinds of software. And I understand what Activision was trying to do, but the way they did it. If they hadn’t included the maps on the game’s disk they wouldn’t have created this breach from which the consumers could legally reach out and get this “extra” content for free. Because if they didn’t add a clause in the contract clarifying that you’re purchasing only part of the software inside the disk, then I’m pretty sure you can fight them at a court and win.