Activision: Marvel: Ultimate Alliance 2 DLC on PSN was a 'limited time offer'

Dude, that's effing annoying.

Truly, this is ridiculous: time-limited DLC? I can't think of anyone who benefits in that deal, unless it was the Marvel license-holders hoping to get paid every year for the DLC to be up on the store.

Not to troll, but why is the 'how much did MS pay them' such a bad thought? There has to be a financial reason for Activision to do this. They invested money creating this DLC, and people would buy it if they could. Either they want to sell this in a different way (such as a GOTY), or MS paid them to make this 360 exclusive. Since they didn't take this off XBL AFAIK, then it seems plausible... even hard not to suspect that MS again paid for exclusivity. They do that all the time, after all.

Kinda silly thing to pay for, though. That's the only reason it's unlikely... MS isn't going to get anyone to buy a 360 based on this.

I hope hope hope that this pay for exclusivity or pay for support goes away. I don't mind exclusives... with Uncharted and Halo, I think they lead to better technological focus on the respective system. I just mind the ugliness. the patent troll lawsuit with Immersion, where MS argued in court the patent was bogus before buying into the company and suing Sony for the opposite claim. The Capcom Bioshock thing, where at least a couple of devs claimed MS insists on multiplatform games not being better on the PS3. That kind of thing is nasty, if it's even accurate.

Who knows. I'm not claiming MS is the bad guy. They may all act this way. Nintendo has been pretty bad in the past, too. But I think it's bad business in the long term to pay for products to not appear. Make money by competing, not by tripping opponents.

Um, as far as I can tell, the DLC is gone from Xbox Live, too.

Fucking retarded move, Activision. Truly.

Seriously, Gimboa? I'd assume paying a company to remove already released DLC from a rival's digital marketplace might violate some kind of antitrust law. Also, what would be the point? Pay millions of dollars to remove DLC for a months-old game that's only moderately popular? How would that possibly benefit Microsoft enough to justify the expense?

My guess is that Activision is prepping some Platinum Hits-style rerelease of the game that includes all the DLC, and that they removed the DLC of the marketplace so that used sales of the original version of the game don't undercut sales of the reissued version. Call it a hunch.

It's called karma. Like Sony paying off Konami to keep Metal Gear Solid 4 exclusive to Playstation 3 and telling Konami to add an iPod item and Apple logos and Mac operating systems on the screens on all the computers so that porting the game so that they'd all have to be changed to Windows logos and operating systems, which would be too much work to even attempt, so Kenami decided it was best that Microsoft never gets a port.

All of this despite Metal Gear Solid 2 Substance coming out on the original Xbox and the post-Metal Gear Solid game, Metal Gear Solid Rising, coming out multiplatform. And I can make a small list of other cases where Microsoft got shafted in favor of Sony. Final Fantasy XIV comes to mind...

Don't blame Microsoft. If you don't believe in karma, then believe in a developer deciding for themselves what console they feel they want to support.

Max, that's called product placement. Every real world item in the game is an advert, not a plot to make it more difficult to port it to another system.

That would mean that the Triumph motorcycles in the game are so MGS won't be played in Ducati dealerships.

Hey Maxx, remember a game called Grand theft Auto 4? If I remember correctly, most GTA games came out for the playstation. Now Playstation has to do without the extra episodes. What about The last Remnant, Left for Dead series, Mass Effect etc. There are many more games that microsoft has exclusively over the playstation at this point. I do not think microsoft had anything to do with the decision, but I am just saying that microsoft has a much better library than sony so there is no point in being upset over metal gear.

Most likely a preparation for a GOTY edition. Companies love those four letters. It means more monies.

The game has to be GOOD for a "game of the year" edition. Also, someone has to pronounce it game of the year.

There's always GOLD edition. (Or collector's edition)

I'm glad i didnt buy this game, i dont want to support any game making ASS moves like this....

Are u serious c'mon its Activision that were talking about here. They don't care about the consumer they only care about the money. I guess a lot of people didn't buy the game.

BigPapi : acutaly if they said that it would be onl for some time probably people whould have rushed to get

now those people didn't paied and will not ever pay

It is really suspicious that they didn't tell you it was available for a limited time only. That's basically breach of fiduciary duty. They paid money to develop this dlc.

Something else is going on here.

that's a "sunk cost". money you aint getting back. is there a fee to support dlc on the network because it uses bandwidth (or whatever sony charges for)? if so it makes tons of sense.

they are losing money by keeping the dlc available. the cost of development is irrelevant, just like when you consider whether to buy groceries, you dont factor in the cost of the car you bought a year ago to go get them.

activision

Indeed.

what's is the point of achievements/trophies? i play games that are fun and MUA 2 is total crap

trophies are like additional levels. It gives you a goal to shoot for. This adds some playability to the game. You could do this yourself, telling yourself to try to do three flips or win with every character or find every golden ring, but having a little bell ring and a trophy show up is good fun. It definitely adds value for many players.

don't blame you for not caring about it, but it's not that stupid. You're already playing video games... it was never more than a distraction and fun.

Sorry for my comment above I didn't now it was gone for 360 too... tat sucks. And Activision can shove everything up their a$$.

EVERYTHING?!

EVERYTHING.

"Shove it up your arse activision."

That's all you needed to say.

Activision: It only shoves everything.

I bought MUA2 when it first came out and planned on buying the DLC this year as I got gift cards for MS Points. This is highly irritating. I must say though, if what you say is true about all the DLC being pulled for both games, I'm thinking it's a licensing deal problem with Marvel being sold to Disney, since now Disney holds the rights to all Marvel characters they can not do anything about the game that has already been released on disc. But the DLC would need to have a new agreement / contract to be met in order to sell it since it's a digital distribution. My guess is Disney wanted more money and Activision didn't want to pay it.

I didn't think of that, it might be since the deal went through on the same day this expired, I think?

But at the same time I remember Marvel saying all their current video game deals were going to stay in place thus why the Iron Man 2 game is still coming out and Thor is meant to still be in development. So unless at the start of the new year the deal was terminated with Activision or not re-newed as expected or something?

First of all, please get your facts straight. All of you have some very good ideas and theories regarding why Activision might have done this, but one point specifically needs correcting. Disney DID NOT buy out MARVEL - they only purchased MARVEL studios - the portion of MARVEL which produces film and tv content. Furthermore, they DO NOT own the rights to all of MARVEL's characters. MARVEL still maintains sole exclusivity over the characters and the production of their comic branch, as well as video games licensing. The most likely reasoning behind the removal of the dlc IS (believe it or not), a collector's / GOTY edition, or licensing issues. If it had anything to do with MS you would have seen the dlc available for xbox by now. In any case, it was a very unscrupulous and stupid business decision to do this, for the sole reason that there was no "notice" with the dlc that there was any sort of time limit before it expires. Great way to piss off your customers, Activision. A big motivator for me to buy this game was the "promise" by Activision of a great deal of dlc (specifically more characters) in the future. I'll be surprised if we see any more after this crap . . . . .

Worst thing, as far as I can see, how do people who got the game later play with those who were able to get the dlc, the compatability packs were removed from the store as well, so that kinda screws things up even more, doesn't it?

Do you have ANY idea how much it costs to copy paste a file?