Luke Plunkett with Kotaku recently wrote a fairly heated article about Larry "Major Nelson" Hryb and his most recent podcast, in which he lambasts Gears of War developer Epic as well as 360 owners in general in response to outcry regarding the pricing of the recently-released Gears of War map pack.
You can read Luke's article
here. My response to the article, what is now my "open letter" to everyone involved and then some, after the break.
What surprises me is how far off the mark everyone seems to be on this.
Customers seem divided into two groups: those who think the price is too high for the maps (the only good argument I've heard for this is that such DLC should be free within a certain time frame of a game's release), and those who think we should get it free because CliffyB said that Epic, as the content's developer, wanted to release the content for free.
Major Nelson has completely neglected his readers by omitting that last part. He's now made the very public assertion that all we want to do is get free things from Microsoft because all things should be free. The reality is not that we necesarily want the pack to be free, but that developers should have control over their own pricing: Microsoft promised this in the early days (damned if I can't find a link now). And trying to turn this around on Epic is a low blow; Epic has always been a supporter of their customers. The 360 wouldn't be able to hold a candle to the PS3 if it weren't for the RAM than Epic encouraged MS to add, and Epic's games (looking straight at the Unreal and Unreal Tournament franchises) have enjoyed a rare longevity because of free bonus map packs from Epic and continued support of community-driven development. If Microsoft wants the 360 to compete with computer gaming, they need to realize that gamers on that platform have enjoyed completely free map packs and wide-open consumer-developed content for years now, and cater to that expectation that there should be at least some free DLC of substance. But at this point, 360 owners are getting used to MS not living up to their promises: does anyone even remember when MS said that MS-published games would only be $50, and 3rd-party titles would carry the $60 tag? PDZ, Kameo, PGR3 - they all kept the promise. But once the super-hyped titles like Gears came out, promises to consumers were thrown out the window. And now here we are, after paying $10 more than we had been told we'd have to pay, watching MS tell their developers that they cannot offer substantial DLC for free, mocking the very customers – whom they are supposed to serve – when we point out these discrepancies, and then blaming the developer of the only game to really drive 360 sales.
On the flip side, Kotaku takes the customers' most extreme viewpoint of "these are overpriced and should be free" and runs with it. As many people have already pointed out, developers incur expenses developing things like maps. Its not enough to just design a map; it has to be thoroughly playtested and certified to meet MS's quality standards prior to release. It takes time and costs money. Developers deserve to be compensated for their hard work. In that regard, $10 is not that bad for four good maps. $5 would be much more desirable for consumers, but $10 isn't unfair if the quality is good--and we'd expect nothing less from Epic. However, should they decide that they want to offer the fruits of their labor for free, no one should be able to insist that a fee be placed on their goods. Yes, Microsoft runs the store (I get tired of calling it the Marketplace, because markets have multiple sellers in control of their own prices, and thus have market forces such as competition) and have to pay for servers, bandwidth, etc. However, Gold subscribers are paying $50/year for exactly that: servers and bandwidth. In the case of the Gears map pack, MS's expense is already covered (if nothing else, they got their $10 when we bought the game at their inflated price). So if Epic decides they want their customers to enjoy some free gratitude for their loyalty, MS shouldn't block that.
Major Nelson should be ashamed of his unprofessional behavior, but it seems like that is going around the Microsoft offices these days. TriXie pulled a very similar stunt after the responses to the Guitar Hero II song packs, and then turned around and whined that she shouldn't be held to any sort of professional standards because she's not PR. Two words: bull shit. If you're a public voice for a company, you're PR, whether its the job you're paid for or not. Major, Trixie, if you don't want to be the feet that get held to the fire when MS screws over their customers and developers, then don't volunteer yourselves as "community" anything or take credit for anything involving the word "ambassador."
Read full article...
