16 Replies Latest reply: Jun 11, 2014 11:35 AM by phxs72 RSS

Gun DLC - I'm already put off

scotland-rules

Hello CoD Community.

 

I've been a CoD fan all my life and I'd go as far as to have called myself a fanboy of the series. I've enjoyed most CoD titles excluding Black Ops 2 but I'm not here to talk about that. I'm here to talk about Gun DLC. At the end of the gameplay shown at E3 we got told if we pre-order AW we'll get exclusive access to a custom EXO-Skelton Suit thing and an EM1 Quantum Weapon.

 

Personally I'm now put off AW already. I got a feeling back in Black Ops 2 that CoD would be changing to have Gun DLC full time. After-all they introduced the first ever DLC weapon. Now in Ghosts it seems we're getting one with every map pack. However I'm totally put off by Gun DLC as I see it as a form of Pay to Win and I honestly think that its granting a tactical advantage. 

 

The big question is: Why are they producing paid weapon DLC?

 

The answer of course is money. I guess DLC sales started to decline and they wanted them picked back up. However I don't understand why in such a big shooter that they're wanting to grant others tactical advantages?

 

I mean they have map packs, micro dlc and a massive, massive fan base.

 

Now if they introduced weapon DLC for free then I think I'd be more than happy to have it. Having free DLC means the developers want to give something back to the loyal fan base but also ensure the balance of multiplayer is maintained. Its a competitive shooter and the selling point is the Multiplayer. So upsetting the balance isn't a good idea.

 

To this day we still see Ripper DLC complaints and it was largely agreed it was granting a slight tactical advantage.

 

So am I the only one put off by this news of weapon DLC? As a pre-order and obviously it will be in the game?

  • Re: Gun DLC - I'm already put off
    Izjar11

    Though I agree with what you say, if you play other games the truth is online gaming is heading in this direction of paying for things, BF4, War Thunder, Blacklight retribution, etc all pay as you go. Good or bad?

     

    personally, if I buy a game I would want all content given to me.

     

    as a business professional, I can understand more profits are to be made but at what expense?

    • Re: Gun DLC - I'm already put off
      scotland-rules

      Blacklight Retribution was a Free to Play - you expect it in free to play games. I've always expected it from BF as its an EA title, I've only seen rare moments of generosity from them.

       

      The problem is CoD is huge and that's the reason it bothers me. They don't need to introduce paid Gun DLC but they're doing it for extra profits and completely unbalancing the multiplayer but they know they have a huge market and can afford to upset us all they like.

       

      Its also a money factor as well. The price of the map packs is huge. I mean £12 per pack (don't know about Dollars) whereas you see other companies producing new (not reskined maps) and selling them at £7.99 or less. And you think to yourself? Is this value for money?

       

      It isn't.

      • Re: Gun DLC - I'm already put off
        Izjar11

        scotland-rules wrote:

         

        Blacklight Retribution was a Free to Play - you expect it in free to play games. I've always expected it from BF as its an EA title, I've only seen rare moments of generosity from them.

         

        The problem is CoD is huge and that's the reason it bothers me. They don't need to introduce paid Gun DLC but they're doing it for extra profits and completely unbalancing the multiplayer but they know they have a huge market and can afford to upset us all they like.

         

        Its also a money factor as well. The price of the map packs is huge. I mean £12 per pack (don't know about Dollars) whereas you see other companies producing new (not reskined maps) and selling them at £7.99 or less. And you think to yourself? Is this value for money?

         

        It isn't.

        I've played many free to play, and they are actually pay to play (they trick you) because you can purchase all the more advanced things with some prices upto $99.99.

         

        The map price (IMO) should be less, its not huge but should be less money than what the game costs.

  • Re: Gun DLC - I'm already put off
    nicedrewishfela

    My question is this... will that weapon and Exo Suit be available to ALL upon release, without the "Bullet Bronze" Camo?

     

    If so, not a problem. But I agree that I am not liking the move to "Pay to Play".

     

    Pre-Orders and DLC should NOT impact the balance of the game. Players should be working to unlock things, not handed them.

  • Re: Gun DLC - I'm already put off
    ghamorra

    I blame mobile games. Mobile games use a micro transaction format and make bank. They're super easy to make and even though they're cheap you buy so much of them that it makes more than a ton of money. Console games are trying to do the same thing. However, players are already spending 60+ on a game thanks to all the DLC.

    • Re: Gun DLC - I'm already put off
      nicedrewishfela

      Has turned me off mobile gaming. I play Tapped Out (Simpsons), which has In App Purchases, but they don't dictate the course of the game (though lately they have gotten worse about it). I wanted some variety so tried other games... and  it seems the norm these days is that if you want to progress, at all... you need to put down some cold, hard cash.

       

      Skill and persistence is out the window.

  • Re: Gun DLC - I'm already put off
    rankismet

    Well... it's a pre-order bonus.

     

    ... but...

     

    ... I don't like that. I'm okay with making it availble for all to buy or free to anyone... but bonuses are often tied to a certain retail chain. Do you get nothing if you pay full bank and download it digitally?

  • Re: Gun DLC - I'm already put off
    TL_Bare_B_V2

    It looks like it's just a skin so nothing to worry about just yet.

  • Re: Gun DLC - I'm already put off
    iHattoriHanzo0

    Well its all speculation because we don't know the specifics. But I agree with your principle belief in the matter. cranium2001 and I were reminiscing in a thread the other day about WaW advertising. He showed me a vid where Gamestop offered the M1A1 to be unlocked early instead of needing to rank up to unlock it. I had the Collectors Edition that offered the early unlock of the FG42.

     

    My point is, this isn't anything new. That was 6 years ago. Most of CoD's pre-order bonuses and and tactical additions become available to all players after time. We may have the option to "pay to play" earlier than others for access to something. Which isn't necessarily fair, but not exactly "pay to play" either.

     

    Question: Did the peacekeeper eventually become available to everyone in BO2?

  • Re: Gun DLC - I'm already put off
    PUR4IDO

    This is the future and we can blame the ppl who purchased Black Ops 2 Micro crap & all the people who purchased all the BS Ghosts shipped out. They know ppl will buy it.

    • Re: Gun DLC - I'm already put off
      Izjar11

      PUR4IDO wrote:

       

      This is the future and we can blame the ppl who purchased Black Ops 2 Micro crap & all the people who purchased all the BS Ghosts shipped out. They know ppl will buy it.

      blame for what exactly?

       

      And

       

      What is wrong with buying things from Activision, willingly?

  • Re: Gun DLC - I'm already put off
    nuttin2say

    I agree that offering weapons based upon buying those weapons is not a cool direction to go. On the one hand. On the other hand, I've yet to see that these special purchase weapons were able to outperform other weapons. But games that do offer weapons for purchase only are merely adjusting the culture of gaming. It is an extremely elitist mentality that further divides the muck and the sh!t / wanna-be sh!t.

     

    Here's the way I see it. And I know no one is going to like this idea, but it is just an idea.

     

    Go ahead and make it so that you have to "purchase" all guns in the game. Including DLC guns. But you do this so that everyone except DLC buyers does not have enough funds to buy every gun in the game. So, let's say there are 30 guns regularly available plus 4 DLC guns. To buy all the guns, including DLC guns, you need a total of $50,000 COD dollars. Regular, non-DLC players would get say $40,000 COD dollars ... BUT they could have access to the DLC guns ... at the cost of not being able to buy some guns that would not normally be available in-game.

     

    That's the first phase. The second phase is that you have it so that if you get killed and you pick up someone else's gun? You lose your gun. So, say I bought a Maverick and I'm tooling along owning everyone ... but then I get killed. And then some player not on my team comes along, it would not even have to be the guy that killed me, sees my gun and he picks it up. He manages to stay alive for the rest of the match while still holding onto my gun that he stole from me.

     

    At the end of the match, now, he has a Maverick and I do not.

     

    I know that sounds terribly harsh, but there's a way this could be easily balanced out. The guy that has the Maverick could then "sell" that gun to either me or some other player.

     

    I think a system like this would be hilarious. Especially given that most players have only two or three guns they ever use - and those guns are always the best performing guns in the game. Players who easily have strong performances with POS guns would be able to have a huge collection of "good" guns

     

    And I think you should be able to cash out these sales to other gamers. Let's say you picked up / stole the equivalent of $200 worth of DLC weapons. You couldn't sell it for the full, normal DLC price ... but you could do like a 75% cap and even sell it for less if you had a nice heart. But whatever you collected, you could cash out later and have ATVI send you a check.

     

    I mean, you could use your funds to repurchase your favorite weapon a 1000 times if you wanted to. Or you could buy a good variety. But if you collected the same gun 1000 times and sold it 1000 times at 50% off, you could buy cheaper, POS guns and so it would be okay if it cost you, say, a SA2010 in order to kill a guy with a Honey Badger. The former might cost $500, the Honey Badger, used, might be worth $1000.

     

    Oh, I wish gaming was like this. It would be hilarious. It would totally shatter everyone's perception of "balance."

  • Re: Gun DLC - I'm already put off
    phxs72

    I have had a number of DLC weapons that I enjoy using but I have yet to see a DLC weapon that was superior to stock weapons in the game.  I think this contradicts the idea of pay to play.  However, that doesn't mean that it couldn't become that.  If the weapons that they offer in DLC are no better than the stock weapons then all you really are getting is a different look and a new gun to do camo challenges with.  Sure you paid for it but if you didn't think that it was worth it then you wouldn't buy it.  What you didn't do is buy your way to a win.

     

    The new AW weapon I would be willing to bet is going to be very similar to at least one stock weapon in the game.  We already knew that direct energy weapons would be a new category.  The only possible but not likely "exclusive" piece to it is that it's Bronze.  And besides that, it's a pre-order bonus.  You don't have to pay any extra to get it.  All that you have to do is order the game which most folks that want the game do anyway.