In reply to a post by Lt_Swan:

In reply to a post by time2die:

Yeah i already got pawned in deciding to have the elite edition........However if the content on offer each month is half decent then I'm going to be saving around £120 because content when released is going to cost the none elite subscribers £9,99 a time and 4 months of paying for that would have got you the hardened edition with the added bonus of a further 8 months of content.

On a different note and if the content is poor then then Infinity Ward and Activision have seen me coming and T2D got fleeced once again.

Anyway I'm really enjoying MW 2.5

Blimey I could almost feel sorry for all the mothers that have 13 year old [censored] who will be whining at them for the latest update each month

The problem with segmenting content like this is that it fractures and splits the people playing the game.

It's bad enough with 1 piece of "DLC" as you'll have servers/lobbies where the players either have it or don't.

In MW2 some of my friends bought the 1st DLC and some of us didn't (including myself as a matter of principle). Therefore, as we always played as one group, we never played the maps in the DLC as not all of us owned it and so we never got put in matches playing it. Those who shelled out literally wasted their money. Obviously, none of us bought the 2nd DLC they trotted out. No money made there then. If they'd been intelligent and released a massive update with truly original stuff in it, in one installment, I might have entertained the idea but only if it was a few pounds. £10? £15 for each piece? Nah.

When you multiply it to many more pieces of DLC you end up with players who have any number of combinations of the content. Quite a pickle when you go to play with your friends and find 1 of them hasn't got the same content as the rest of your party. Guess they'll not be playing with you or none of you will get to play the new map. Scale up for the entire userbase and it actually becomes a serious issue to the game as a whole. As we know all online multiplayer relies on player numbers.

I believe if game companies release a game and want my £40 for it they should update it and preferably add new maps or content to it for a reasonable period of time afterwards. This is how it worked with other games I've played down the years. Counter-Strike for example, waaaaaay back before it was even a retail game, got updates every few months with new maps, equipment and game modes and it was completely free at the time. Seems almost unbelieveable but thats how it worked in the late 20th century. Yes, it was that long ago. Now you're £40 seems to buy you a game and a handful of bug fix patches and then you're expected to open your wallet again for stuff that should come as standard.

Edited by orly (Sun 11-Dec-11 04:09:48)

Nobody likes to pay for extra content but unfortunately thats the way of the world and my point is that by buying the more expensive hardened edition then i am saving a fortune over the people that buy all the premium content each month.

I know for a fact that i would have paid for map packs,or spec ops missions and other stuff so for me its a good choice based on the price structure they will be charging.

So we get a years supply of content each month until the next Cod game arrives next November,depending on what that game is like will also decide if i renew the subscription or move on to the next chapter.

Not that keen on Treyarch as a developer but there were certain things in Black ops that were better and more balanced than previous MW games but even then i prefer how MW games feel and play over ant Treyarch game .

Is the content worth what you paid for it?

Unless it's spectacularly epic...like wholesale improvements to the game (lots of new weapons, game modes, pointstreaks, maps, graphics improvements etc) then i'd say it's not worth a single penny.

Also, you're not saving a fortune over someone who buys none of it.

Bit of a daft obvious last paragraph you wrote there my friend,obviously that particular person that refuses to pay for the extra download content each month is normally the person that has not bought the game in the first place.

I based what i said on price structure and the savings that would be made if you were to download most of the content each month.

I have already downloaded Gear 3 stuff and i dare say i will do the same in the future if need be and the majority of my friends do the same.

Well said Orly
I for one will not be playing the mw milk me of my money like a twit game

In reply to a post by orly:

In reply to a post by Lt_Swan:

MW just seems so pointless, nothing to do but constantly kill and be killed

Supremely confusing comment there. What exactly is the point of *any* shooting game? To kill...and obviously be killed.

Yea of course you aim to kill the enemy but in BF you also have the option of helping out your team mates with repairs, resupplying, healing etc and the spawn die time is usually a lot longer than in MW. As you know BF is much more a team based game in which a good squad can really make a difference to who wins where as in MW it's all about selfishly getting your name to the top of the leader board.
I used to really enjoy MW but now I have switched I enjoy the team work in BF so much more and will probably never go back to MW games.

In reply to a post by orly:

In reply to a post by Gzero:

Have you tried the spam tastic maps that are basicly CoD cluster<you know what>? Metro Conquest, Damavand Peak Conquest and Rush, Grand Bazaar TDM?

There are no comparable maps between the two games.

That's a daft comment Gzero is talking about the game play

Thanks for the wake up call

I bought MW3, but just like MW2 I have no plans to buy any of the extra content.

I bought BF3 but it's still debatable whether i'll bother with the Back To Karkand expansion.

You're posts are a good read and you are descriptive of your opinions, but your recurring comments like "I generally view the playing of first person shooters on consoles to be the height of idiocy" just dampen them. I can't stand the "elitism" that comes with PC gaming and find it extremely irritating that people think playing the game on a PC makes them superior. I used to do a lot of FPS & MMORPG gaming on a PC but now I live with a friend and we both have Xboxes and TV's setup in our lounge it's easier for other friends to come round and hop on with their gamertags. It doesn't mean I am any worse of a gamer and when we play online with 4 - 8 of us it's great fun and extremely tactical, our win to loss ratio is awesome when we squad up.

I would enjoy playing BF on the PC and do miss the large player servers compared to 12 v 12 on the Xbox but like I say, the majority of my friends play it on the Xbox and if I started playing on the PC then I would just be alienating myself from joining my friends and their games. I don't get any disconnection issues on the Xbox so can't say I can feel your pain on that one. I can see where frustration lies if you are a PC gamer and you can tell straight away that a game has been made with a console in mind but I don't think that the console gamers who aren't whiney teenage kids should all be tarred with the same brush.

Edited by deleted (Mon 12-Dec-11 10:51:27)