Linkb8s (XBL: Tenku no Link)

@StarcasM

I'm sorry to break it to you, but this year was a remarkable year for Single Player games, and basically proved that Single Player is in fact not dead. I find it hard to find any multiplayer experience released this year that was more compelling.

I'd say my only complaint might be the lack of Gears 3 in that list, simply because it was truly the complete experience of Single Player, Co-op, and Competitive where everything felt good.

Yea...good luck with that EA.

@Punchdrunkbrian

Rabbit Link with pink hair heading to stairs in ground.

@Raffi256

I'm so sorry to hear that. It's a real shame that it is only now once Ken Levine blatantly points out the parallel's that you lose interest. Forget the fact it's always seems pretty apparent that you could draw parallel's between to two with all the information and videos we've seen release so far.

Ignorance is bliss.

@INTRO

Thank god, that's good news. He's been who I play as since Gears 1, would feel so wrong changing characters now.

I personally don't see any reason for removing any previously playable MP characters just because I know people are attached to them, it's who they like representing them. And there is definitely no reason to cut old characters and throw in multiple versions of the same character (3 versions of Marcus, Dom, Baird, and Cole? C'mon!)

No Kim? I am saddened by this. I wanted Mr. Clean back!

The best map in Halo finally comes to Reach. SO EXCITED FOR THIS MAP!

Now we just need Turf and Terminal (with working Trains) to complete the Earth levels from Halo 2.

@Red Runner

You still haven't made any argument. You are just whining. Don't sidestep the issue that keeps getting brought up against it. Until then all your name calling and Defense Force labeling only backs up the fact that you really have NOTHING to go on.

You have no intelligent discussion to bring to the table, all you have is whining, bitching, and moaning with no argument.

@Red Runner

This is the worst argument I constantly ALWAYS here. What do you mean it "should have been there in the first place"? How do you know it should have been there in the first place? How on EARTH do you know that in order to make the actual deadline this was NOT going to entirely cut and never even come close to being developed?

You don't know the development cycle of these games and you don't know what had to be cut or even what really was important to finish to make sure the game shipped. They can't just postpone release to get such content added in. If the developer does that they run the risk of missing that window of opportunity to get people to purchase the game and run into competition from other big name titles. Because of their actual release, they not only had relevance with little competition, but now with this DLC the game can stay within the public eye of those who DID purchase the game and thus bring in extra sales too.

This goes for EVERY SINGLE ONE of your anti-DLC argument. You have no clue what the development cycle was for this game, unless you would like to provide proof that you are on the development teams for every single one of these titles you claim are "ripping off the customer".

The fact of the matter is, YOU DON'T KNOW. You have never...EVER given good arguments on this matter, you just want to sound like some moral crusader...which is so incredibly hypocritical of you when you even posted the the Gears Season Pass news that because of that you would forget about Gears because they are ripping off the customer in favor of:

Batman Arkham City (which is already confirmed for future DLC episodes)
Halo: CE Anniversary (which is a glorified port/Halo: Reach map pack)
and Metal Gear Solid Collection (which are just ports of games that have been out for YEARS)

Seriously...stop it.

@Rob Liv

You make it sound like games coming out with 15-20 Multiplayer maps on disc is Standard...and I don't believe that's ever been the case.

Out of the box 10-12 is usually the standard. More so, the $15 is still a reasonable price when you look at what the purpose is. You a selling a supplement to a single component of the game. It's an extra add-on if you care that much about getting more out of your game.

Whenever you bundle the original game together, you are ALWAYS going to get it for a cheaper price than had you purchased everything separately, however, just because you get all that content doesn't mean you will play it, so you could throw a chunk of that $60 Price Tag down the drain. But it's similar to what happens with Rock Band releases. The Discs sell for $60 with 80 tracks or so, but DLC tracks (used to supplement you experience if you really want it) sell for $2, the the better value is with the Disc for sheer content. Does that mean the DLC is too expensive in comparison? No, not at all. You can't promise that everyone who buys the game will continue to buy content, but you continue to provide it as an option (though for slightly more to compensate for a decrease in sales between the original game the DLC packs).

But breaking it down, let's say the breakup goes $20 for all 3 components. CoD games usually come with about...10 maps or so. That averages to $2 per map. That makes the maps in the map pack about $1 more expensive, not that big of a deal.

But if you want to further break it down you can redistribute the money of how you think you are spending it based on time. Let's say that you barely touch the Singleplayer and Spec Ops mode, so will give them a value of $10 each, while the Multiplayer where hours to days will be spent time wise, would equate to $40 of your $60 purchase, thus the maps you payed for run for about $4 each, $1 more expensive than those in the map pack...so now the cost of the map pack doesn't look nearly as bad.

In all honestly, there are so many ways to break it down, it's all about where you are going to get your time in with the game, how much time you will invest into it, and if you want to continue the experience that determines what makes the value. Just because it cost something doesn't mean anything.