Please keep online content free [Archive] - Team17 Forum

PDA

View Full Version : Please keep online content free

Guilty
11 Mar 2007, 23:11
please?
I know you want to make money and what not , but just having free updates for this game will do a bunch of things
1. With all the new content released it will increase the value of the title itself
2. having the content free would also mean that ALL the players would have the same thing as everyone else , meaning they would not have to pay for the stuff just to be on the same level
3. With Microsoft announcing that the live arcade size limit is going up for a new memory card , that means we could take all the stuff with us !
4. EXTENDED PLAY! this is the most important thing , with more content , there is more gameplay time to use all of it! If you have to pay for content that should be free , why keep playing?

Rambeezy
11 Mar 2007, 23:31
When you charge for extra online content, it is definately much harder to find players online to play with since some haven't bought the extra content. I found this with GRAW (360) and Star Wars:Battlefront 2 (original Xbox).
In fact it was so bad with Star Wars: Battlefront 2 that i pretty much had to pay for the new content if i wanted to play a decent game online.

Squirminator2k
12 Mar 2007, 00:04
I can't see the problem so long as they keep online content at a reasonable price.

SpaceInsom
12 Mar 2007, 00:14
After Team 17 saying over and over they would have included more if it wasn't for that 50Mb limit, if they charge for the downloadable content, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. "Oh, we so wish we weren't limited by that awful 50Mb limit, we'd love to give you so much more in your purchase of Worms XBLA. Oh well, now we'll just charge you for most of it."
Any new landscapes should be free. Please don't divide the community between those who paid for the new landscapes, and those who didn't. Also, 3 is an insanely small amount to start with, much much lower than even Worms 1.
Any Worms 2, WA, or WWP soundbanks should be free. Team 17 will have had to do almost nothing to provide these, and I've already paid for them before, so I don't want to be charged for them.
Any Worms 2, WA, or WWP music tracks should be free. Again, Team 17 will have had to do almost nothing to provide these.
Any content not taken from another game, and made specifically for this game, should be either free or paid content, unless you can't play a game with someone else who is using that content. I think this rules out landscapes, but everything else should be able to be paid content.
Any optional content that requires a lot of programing on Team 17's part should also be paid content. A good example of this would be an optional level editor.
Anyhow, that's my two cents on the matter.

PabloCreep
12 Mar 2007, 00:19
I think it'll be largely based on sound packs than anything else... in which case it'll probably just sound like the default sounds for the other player.

phoenix96
12 Mar 2007, 00:58
please?
I know you want to make money and what not , but just having free updates for this game will do a bunch of things
1. With all the new content released it will increase the value of the title itself
2. having the content free would also mean that ALL the players would have the same thing as everyone else , meaning they would not have to pay for the stuff just to be on the same level
3. With Microsoft announcing that the live arcade size limit is going up for a new memory card , that means we could take all the stuff with us !
4. EXTENDED PLAY! this is the most important thing , with more content , there is more gameplay time to use all of it! If you have to pay for content that should be free , why keep playing?
The additional content Team17 has talked about adding (themes, soundbanks, gamer pics) won't affect the gameplay at all, so that means that they won't extend gameplay time or give anyone an advantage.

Squirminator2k
12 Mar 2007, 01:22
I personally don't see the problem with, say, charging 20-50 points for a speechbank, or 50-80 for a terrain style. I do think that additional background music should be offered for free, mind.

SpaceInsom
12 Mar 2007, 02:52
or 50-80 for a terrain style.
If you've bought the content, and I haven't, we can't play together unless you use one of the three starter landscape styles. That's what's wrong with making landscapes paid content; it splits the community.
As far as soundbanks, like I said before, I don't think Team 17 should be making any more money off W2, WA, WWP content. If they want to make new banks, that's fine, charge for them. If they want to use stuff they made damn near ten years ago (worms 2), they really shouldn't be making any more money off that content.

tonyd1411
12 Mar 2007, 04:26
If a massive game like Gears of War offers new maps for free, then Worms will have one heck of a nerve trying to charge for it.

Squirminator2k
12 Mar 2007, 11:51
If you've bought the content, and I haven't, we can't play together unless you use one of the three starter landscape styles. That's what's wrong with making landscapes paid content; it splits the community.
This is why I'm saying keep 'em cheap. 50-80 points is less than £1, and I don't think people will have a problem paying that much. If you're into CCGs and you only buy a Starter Pack and don't pick up any boosters you can't complain when someone else puts a card you don't have into play. If you want it, go out and buy it. It's not expensive.
As far as soundbanks, like I said before, I don't think Team 17 should be making any more money off W2, WA, WWP content. If they want to make new banks, that's fine, charge for them. If they want to use stuff they made damn near ten years ago (worms 2), they really shouldn't be making any more money off that content.
Again, this is why I said 20-50 points. Less than 50p. Hell, sell them for 10 points - that's less than 25p. Say I want "Team17 Test" but you don't because you have kids, and you don't want them hearing things like "Oh FFS" or "Snatch, gimme more snatch, hehehe". You don't download it. Or say you want "The Raj" and I don't because I find it offensive (I don't, but I'm being theoretical). If Team 17 bung them all in one pack for download for free then I have speechbanks I don't want on my computer - this is why I think Team 17 kept the speechbanks on the CD for Worms Armageddon, rather than install them to the hard drive as they did with Worms 2 - to save space. Some people have limited space and won't want all of those speechbanks, and some people simply won't want to download all the speechbanks. Some people will, because they're digital magpies, but that's up to them. Personally I have no complaints with paying for additional content, so long as it's not too expensive.

Guilty
12 Mar 2007, 17:03
please think this over team 17

thomasp
12 Mar 2007, 18:37
please think this over team 17
It most likely won't be Team17's decision - that'll be up to Microsoft, the publishers of the game.

Morberis
12 Mar 2007, 20:38
If you've bought the content, and I haven't, we can't play together unless you use one of the three starter landscape styles. That's what's wrong with making landscapes paid content; it splits the community.
As far as soundbanks, like I said before, I don't think Team 17 should be making any more money off W2, WA, WWP content. If they want to make new banks, that's fine, charge for them. If they want to use stuff they made damn near ten years ago (worms 2), they really shouldn't be making any more money off that content.
Not necessarily, if you've ever played Uno youd know you can play with the pay content as long as the host has it, they just temporarily download it to you. Granted it may take a half a minute for you to get it.

phoenix96
12 Mar 2007, 20:41
After Team 17 saying over and over they would have included more if it wasn't for that 50Mb limit, if they charge for the downloadable content, I don't think they have a leg to stand on. "Oh, we so wish we weren't limited by that awful 50Mb limit, we'd love to give you so much more in your purchase of Worms XBLA. Oh well, now we'll just charge you for most of it."
I don't know... They've said all along that some DLC will be free and some will be low-cost. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Spadge
13 Mar 2007, 05:36
please think this over team 17
Like we haven't.
We don't actually control the pricepoints of DLC, Microsoft does.
However, we've been working very closely with them to get very good offerings on it and yes, had the game had a 150mb limit, there would have been more content included.

05035407
14 Mar 2007, 03:06
Ok people what in gods name are you thinking agreeing to having paid DLC. What the F*** is going through your minds. If this actually happens then all the people predicting Microsoft creating "Micro-transactions" will be true. Do you really want to go down this slippery slope of spending money on DLC that should have been included in the game anyway but couldn't because the game size was regulated to 50mb. KEEP THE DLC FREE!!!

Siege88
14 Mar 2007, 03:15
^^ I believe the man just said they didn't control the price of DLC. They could probably make recommendations, but MS seems to have the final say. Personally, yes, I think it's a little silly to pay for a few recorded voices/sound effects or background art, but I'd probably put down for it anyway.
I was just wondering if aside from these and the obvious fix for the online problem, if we'd maybe see any changes to gameplay? I was mainly thinking of some things like a bugfix for the mines exploding before the game starts, a shorter or random timer for mines, and maybe fire from explosive barrels (Or was this a design decision?). I feel like even more than any "missing" weapons or anything, I'd love to see the fire put back in. To me nothing was more amusing and humorous in previous Worms games than strategically using the barrels to set fires under enemy (or your own by accident) worms and watching them bounce around screaming "Ow Ow Ow!"

phoenix96
14 Mar 2007, 06:26
Ok people what in gods name are you thinking agreeing to having paid DLC. What the F*** is going through your minds. If this actually happens then all the people predicting Microsoft creating "Micro-transactions" will be true. Do you really want to go down this slippery slope of spending money on DLC that should have been included in the game anyway but couldn't because the game size was regulated to 50mb. KEEP THE DLC FREE!!!
Microsoft creating "microtransactions" already happened - well over a year ago.
Team17 has said that some of the DLC will be free and some will be cheap. The game cost a whole $10 originally. I don't think it's unreasonable to pay a few dollars extra for more content.

AndrewTaylor
14 Mar 2007, 11:59
Ok people what in gods name are you thinking agreeing to having paid DLC. What the F*** is going through your minds. If this actually happens then......the terrorists have already won?
Calm down.
If you object that strongly, don't buy it.

thomasp
14 Mar 2007, 13:02
Ok people what in gods name are you thinking agreeing to having paid DLC. What the F*** is going through your minds. If this actually happens then all the people predicting Microsoft creating "Micro-transactions" will be true. Do you really want to go down this slippery slope of spending money on DLC that should have been included in the game anyway but couldn't because the game size was regulated to 50mb. KEEP THE DLC FREE!!!
Here's a little analogy to sum up why I believe downloadable content should be paid-for (most of it):
You buy a small house, knowing that it doesn't have all the features you like - let's say it only has one bedroom - and it's cheaper and newer than a nice, big house
To improve your house and add more "features" to it (say, a second bedroom and a larger living room), you need to upgrade it and "buy" an extension (ie: downloadable content). Therefore, you pay for someone to build the extension for you and pay for all the materials.
You don't need this extension (as it's just you and a partner living in the house, let's say), but it will improve your house by having one and make it more "enjoyable"
Now, let's go back to Worms:
You buy a small game, knowing it's small and doesn't have as many "things" in it (eg: terrains, sound banks, etc). A group of people at a later date then create more stuff for this game, and as they've spent their time on this, surely it's only fair that you should reward them for it by giving them money? I certainly wouldn't want to build an extension on a house, or even create additional terrains for a Worms game and not get paid for it! Unless I was doing on my own, but that's a different story.
You're getting a service, so why not pay for it? Especially when the original product was so cheap

SirMossy
14 Mar 2007, 14:50
You're getting a service, so why not pay for it? Especially when the original product was so cheap
You seem to be missing the point.
You dont pay for it because it would have been included with the game originally if the limit was larger than 50MB and it still would have been $10.
Seems, however, that its in MS' hands now to decide whether they'll charge... and after what we've seen with Lumines, they will.
HOWEVER.. as we know, its the developers who decide the cost (horse armour anyone?) so they could at least knock it down to 50 points or something for a group of maps.

Lebowski
14 Mar 2007, 14:58
You seem to be missing the point.
You dont pay for it because it would have been included with the game originally if the limit was larger than 50MB and it still would have been $10.
That's an interesting presumption, on what do you base it? You obviosuly know more about it than we do ;)

Luther
14 Mar 2007, 15:37
You seem to be missing the point.
You dont pay for it because it would have been included with the game originally if the limit was larger than 50MB and it still would have been $10.
Source? You just flaming. Stop it please.
Seems, however, that its in MS' hands now to decide whether they'll charge... and after what we've seen with Lumines, they will.
Pointless pessimistic speculation.
HOWEVER.. as we know, its the developers who decide the cost (horse armour anyone?) so they could at least knock it down to 50 points or something for a group of maps.
That's simply wrong (and even contradicting yourself). MS decide DLC cost.
Here's the point. Everyone here at Team17 would like the DLC to be as cheap as possible and free in as many instances as possible. Fact.

poep98
14 Mar 2007, 15:40
Bought this game for 800ms
you ask me is it worth it? and ill say hell yeah. Its a great game a bit incomplete but there is dlc coming.i hope most op the map themes are free because 3 is just to few ill be more than happy to pay for voice banks,pics,dash themesmaybe even gravestones. the first map theme(s) should be free...because? the game will be complete voice banks,gravestones.gamer pics etc are optional thats whats dlc is all about its not a must and thats what people like.
i know weapons aint gonna be realeased in dlc but the casual crowd you were aiming for are the same crowd who like the over the top actions the super weapons and more variety in weapons, i like the game anyway
-Mark

phoenix96
14 Mar 2007, 17:49
You seem to be missing the point.
You dont pay for it because it would have been included with the game originally if the limit was larger than 50MB and it still would have been $10.
Maybe. Maybe not though. There's been a lot of talk lately (not by Team17) about the possibility of larger games being more expensive.
Seems, however, that its in MS' hands now to decide whether they'll charge... and after what we've seen with Lumines, they will.
HOWEVER.. as we know, its the developers who decide the cost (horse armour anyone?) so they could at least knock it down to 50 points or something for a group of maps.

SirMossy
15 Mar 2007, 11:47
Source? You just flaming. Stop it please.
Pointless pessimistic speculation.
That's simply wrong (and even contradicting yourself). MS decide DLC cost.
Here's the point. Everyone here at Team17 would like the DLC to be as cheap as possible and free in as many instances as possible. Fact.
What the hell? I'm not flaming. Spadge has said himself that only the limit stopped them adding more content as they have more. Maybe you should read what your fellow employees are writing. Nice tone btw.. had a bad day?
I've also NOT contradicted myself as Bestheda has gone on record to to apologize THEMSELVES for charging too much for the armour at which point they further reduced the cost of their follow up add-ons. It wasnt MS' decision to charge 200, it was theirs. If you want a source check IGN, they posted the news.
You really need a to chill out angry man.

AndrewTaylor
15 Mar 2007, 11:58
I've also NOT contradicted myself as Bestheda has gone on record to to apologize THEMSELVES for charging too much for the armour at which point they further reduced the cost of their follow up add-ons. It wasnt MS' decision to charge 200, it was theirs. If you want a source check IGN, they posted the news.
You really need a to chill out angry man.
I really hope Team17 have a more reliable source than IGN on Microsoft policy...

Spadge
15 Mar 2007, 12:25
What the hell? I'm not flaming. Spadge has said himself that only the limit stopped them adding more content as they have more. Maybe you should read what your fellow employees are writing. Nice tone btw.. had a bad day?
I've also NOT contradicted myself as Bestheda has gone on record to to apologize THEMSELVES for charging too much for the armour at which point they further reduced the cost of their follow up add-ons. It wasnt MS' decision to charge 200, it was theirs. If you want a source check IGN, they posted the news.
You really need a to chill out angry man.
Erm, I wasn't aware Oblivion was an XBLA title.
Full price you can charge what you like (although themes/gamerpics are standard). I think Bethesda charged $5 for an armoured horse or something?
MS control the XBLA pricings to ensure there's an accepted costing across the entire service or anarchy would reign.

Luther
15 Mar 2007, 17:07
What the hell? I'm not flaming. Spadge has said himself that only the limit stopped them adding more content as they have more. Maybe you should read what your fellow employees are writing. Nice tone btw.. had a bad day?
You really need a to chill out angry man.
I wasn't talking about the 50Mb limit. I was talking about your insider information on Team17's pricing policy.
That wasn't an angry tone. It was a factual one.

SirMossy
16 Mar 2007, 10:49
Well it wasnt factual if Spadge said it was different.
And IGN reported what Bestheda said, it wasnt IGN claiming they knew the policy themselves.
Anyway, its a little silly for me to have pretty much the same discussion in two different topics, so i'll end the one in here.

moco64
16 Mar 2007, 11:37
Do you think it didn't take work for them to fit the game into 50MB? That's a small size for everything we received. Worms looks very good for 50MB. The backgrounds we received are very high quality IMO, and I'd love to see some more. Would you rather have 15 Jpegs with snow effects etc or the quasi-3d versions we have now?
I would gladly fork over 400 points for a package of themes and soundbanks, I'm against offering individual SBs or themes because that would really split people apart.
My only disappointment is that the original music theme wasn't included :(

vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.