This is an important aspect in my decision of buying this game. Once we purchase the game, are added maps, weapons, game-modes, content, etc going to be updated automatically and downloaded for free (ie- TF2, KF, BC2), or will there be price tags on them, such as with MW2?

I would hope free, but who knows. Bethesda are big fans of paid DLC, so it's possible. If you're on Xbox or PS3 (Xbox especially) all DLC is very likely to be paid.

And uh, pray tell, what BC2 content are you referring to? Last I checked, their "Vietnam" expansion sure isn't (although I haven't played the game, so I assume there's other content I'm not aware of you were referring to).

Likely, the PC users will get a free SDK at least. But I'm guessing that since it's Bethesda, and any game I've ever played that was published by them has had pay-to-play DLC, that all platforms will have to pay for extra content.

A proper extension is something I would pay for. A simple map- or clothing-DLC is not.

BC2, I'm talking about all the additional new maps, new gameplay types for those, and additions to weapons. The Vietnam expansion I could see being argued either way as to whether it was actually an expansion pack, which are typically sold, or just some new content, since they reused a lot of assets. But it wasn't like you could be playing on the server and all of a sudden it goes to a BC:V map and now you can't play; they were two separated "games."

I would be getting this game for PC, where it is less typical to charge for new content when compared to console. I am not so opposed to charging for new additions to the single player game, like new story modes or the likes, as Borderlands did, but I would be very much against paying for new multiplayer maps, better weapons, perks, or anything that affects gameplay. Paying for aesthetic changes, such as new outfits would be kind of lame since avatar customization is such a huge part of this, but I wouldn't mind that as much as gameplay elements to the multiplayer scene.

Soooo, are you saying SD should just release free DLC and never expect any additional incomes once you purchase the game? You do know that many a game developer now depends almost as much on DLC/expansions as they do the original game, right? (After all, once the engine is up, adding content is usually alot let costly than building the original game was).

Basically, what you're saying is don't charge for content, and don't charge for aesthetics? Seriously?

I actually could easily see SD charging for new wardrobe options; maybe even create whole new archetypes that could be purchased. After all, if you take a moment to take a look at the Asian MMO market or at Facebook games, it seems that many a player is ready to pay to ensure they look their best. And since charging for such an item would in no way the gameplay of anyone who can't pay, I really don't see anything bad with that idea, and would actually find it perfect for a game such as Brink.

Indeed, i can see them releasing a few maps for money or mabey a few maps for free a few months after release or somthing, but definatly there going to be selling new archtypes.

Really? That's stupid just buy the game, if a DLC of some sort comes out then don't buy the DLC. :ermm:

Some people rather not experience the mind blowing awesomeniss that is brink for silly little things that barley affect the game in any way, most of them are cod fans

This ^^

i hope they do it like bc2, pay 1200 then everything else is free, worked for them, why not for SD?

You mean for the VIP code?
It was free anyway.

Not only should we pay for the game but we should pay for everything that happens in the game. cause hey let's face it, it's not upto us on what we should and shouldn't pay for.

It'll probably be paid, and is Splash Damage/Bethesda have any integrity, they'll make everyone have to pay to keep it all fair.

I really hate it when developers give PC players stuff for free that we have to pay for. It really is just a slap in the face to all that developers console fans.

See also: Valve.

I agree we should slap someone in the face. :toughninja:

A lot of the PC guys will tell you that their issue is that a lot of DLC used to be free until the console marketplaces took off. Now they're irritated with consolers for supporting the practice of charging for content, and some of them seem to have this mentality that they should still be getting it for free.

I sort of understand where they're coming from on certain aspects. It's one thing to be charging 10 bucks for expansion packs that actually add hours of game content. I don't think anyone minds paying for that. But when companies just start bilking you for a bunch of accessory packs at 5 bucks a piece, it gets a little ridiculous. I suppose in the end, though, that if you're willing to pay it then you must think it's worth it.

Luckily for Brink fans, Bethesda is pretty solid as far as the cost/quality ratio of the DLC they publish. If you look at games like Fallout and Oblivion, most of the post-release content they put out there is actually worthwhile and comes at a reasonable price.

Well said Buck rogers!!!!!

Pay 1200 what?

1200 waffles?
1200 dlldos?
1200 lives?
1200 copies of brink?

:)

The vip was in every copy of bc2 and the only time you woud need to buy it was if you bought it used without a code. You would get free map packs that would come out.

I like that you didn't even have to read the whole post, just the two sentences you quoted, and you still managed to spin them completely out of context.

Let put it more clearly. I'm not happy to pay for aesthetic unlocks (new outfits, new tattoos, new hairstyles) but I would completely understand it. New games, single player experiences

Examples
Fallout New Vegas: Dead Money. Same engine, same setting, but new campaign, characters, scenarios; totally cool with being charged for that.

TF2: New official maps, new sidelocks for each class, a trading/crafting system, no extra charge. Good [censored] show. I will continue to support Valve and their products because I know that they'll continue to develop them without charging me for every update.

Half-Life 2: With the exception of cleaned up models and two or three new enemy types, (and obviously, VO and the level geometry itself) Valve reused all the assets from HL2 to make Episodes 1 and 2. They also were considerably short. I still bought both as soon as they came out, because the work put into them justified it and they were reasonably priced ($15 for an entirely new chapter, not 5 new MP maps).

Battlefield 2: They charged $35 for the Special Forces expansion pack. I wasn't bothered by that, they were still adding new maps to the main BF2. The games were separated; in order to play BF2:SF, you had to join specific BF2:SF servers. So, Mr. Xx bookend name, I would have just “bought the game and not the DLC.” The problem was, they allowed people who bought the expansion pack to use the weapons in regular, non-SF games. They also made the weapons substantially more effective than the base weapons and unlocks, which was really [censored] devious. Not only that, but you could pick up those weapons meaning THEY WERE PROGRAMMED INTO THE GAME. You could not spawn with them unless you bought the expansion pack.

CoD:MW2: Disregarding the fact that I’m not very fond of MW, let alone all the clones trying to emulate it, and forgetting that it’s already the issues with dedicated servers that will ensure I will never purchase this game, paying for map packs is absolutely ridiculous. You’re now playing the same game everyone else is playing, but you’re limited to servers that are running maps that you own. On the PC version, if I remember correctly, you were kicked off the server when it hit a DLC map. I haven’t gone back to it in a while, but I think they might have finally merged the map DLC maps with the game.

Bottom line is, if somewhere down the road, there’s like, Brink: Aftermath or whatever that includes a new single player campaign which occurs after the events of Brink, an updated multiplayer mode with new weapons, new maps, a more optimized engine, I’ll buy it full price.
However, if they start releasing more powerful weapons once every month or two that you can’t unlock through gameplay, premium perks, or 2-3 new maps every few months that you have to buy in packages, then I’m canceling my pre-order I made last October.

I seriously fear that eventually, people will be forced into buying subscriptions to play video games, offline or online. Don't think the idea isn't already being worked on.

Really? All your post said was that anything that affected gameplay and balance shouldn't cost anything, and then you add that anything purely cosmetic shouldn't either. In which way did I read those sentences out of context?


And why would you expect SD, who decided to delay the game an extra year to make sure, amongst others, that the weapons were all as evenly matched as possible, would then go out of their way to break that balance?


Isn't that already the case? (see MMOs, XBoxLive)

Try reading them again. I said while I think it would be kind of lame considering how customization is a big selling point for this game, I wouldn't mind it. That's one I actually expect them to do. I'm also hoping and expecting you get a wide range of free options before you have to start paying for more unique ones.




I didn't expect them to do that in BF2 either, but they did. When I first started playing Battlefield Heroes, I didn't expect them to put in uber weapons you could only get by paying for them. I know, it's a free2play game, so it's not the same situation, but it caused a huge rift in the community until they let you rent the weapons using in-game money.

I'm beginning to see a lot of practices I find morally and finacially objectionable in game design. I don't think it's crazy anymore to ask before it's sprung upon you after you've already purchased the game.




No because in the case of MMOs, what you're paying for is the massive amount of data and traffic on the servers running the game. Not to mention, there ARE free MMOs out there. With X-Box Live, you're paying for the service of paying games online, which is [censored] and why I don't have X-Box Live. The PS Network and Wii networks don't charge you a cent extra to play online. What I was referring to was a future where every game you play, regardless of whether its single or multiplayer, will require you to pay a subscription, either by game, company, or service running that game. That's the direction we're starting to move in. Don't forget that more than 6 years ago, Sony was doing R&D on a disc that would only play on the first Playstation that ran it, requiring an online authentication to run.

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was my understanding that XBox Live and PSN don't allow new content to be released for free. If a developer isn't allow to release something for free I don't think that necessitates that they charge PC fans who aren't in this position.

As for Brink, it does seem likely that DLCs will be considered. However ever since Oblivion Bethesda has leaned towards fairly large DLC and I think it's likely that this will be continued for Brink.

You're correct. If it were up to Valve, all the DLC would be free. They've made the statement before that their hands are tied in the matter.

It seems to me that the argument above is more about Nikolovich being willing to pay for a DLC that is substantial, and actually brings something meaningfully different to the way a game is played.

It looks more like he's saying that driblets of content should not cost money, and the larger packages that are composed of more than just a couple of new items for your toon he would buy with no regrets.

I.E. Shivering Isle, or Knights of the Nine, as opposed to the Spectact gear in BC2.

That being said if you are on Xbox live (I don't own a PS3 so I wouldn't know about the Network) you will have to pay for Everything.

Microsoft corporate greed makes me