*slow clap*Quote:In December of 2012, I bought an Xbox, Halo 4, and a subscription to Live. Based on what everything I purchased said, these were the purchase requirements for unrestricted online play. So that's about $350 for equipment, and another $50 or so for the subscription (don't remember if I had a discount). So far as I knew, I was all set.
And then IS was made DLC required.
To those who say, "It's only another $10," I really don't care. That's not the point. Forums and customer service feedback is great, but there really is only one way for customers to influence corporate behavior: by choosing to buy - or not to buy - a product. I choose not to buy the product.
I do not choose this because $10 will break the bank. I choose this because I do not like having additional conditions placed on the service that were not present at the time I made the purchase. Choosing not to buy is the most effective way to provide this feedback, so long as a sufficient number of other people do the same. So your arguments that it is only $10 fall on deaf ears.
To those who say, "It was this way in past Halos," again, I really don't care. I did not play past Halos, and even if I did, that doesn't change the fact that I do not like when companies charge for additional gameplay-critical items beyond the initial purchase. That's precisely akin to arguing that since lynchings have been practiced for thousands of years that we should be okay with them occurring today. Simply because something was done in the past does not automatically confer the status of "right". The nickel-and-dime mentality (along with the increasing tendency of game developers to avoid full disclosure on the cost of making the game fully functional) is why - after almost two decades of playing EA sports games - I refuse to purchase anything else from EA. My PS3 sits gathering dust in a cabinet, and has done so since 2010.
To those who say, "What about those who bought DLC?" again, your frustrations should be with the company that sold the product without providing an adequate means for you to use it. Do not blame me. Do not tell me that I must be the one to shell out additional money (however small) or restrict my service that I also paid for so that you can use your optional purchase. It was not my decision for you to buy the DLC, nor was it my decision that a proper means for you to use it was absent. If you bought it with the full knowledge that usage might be limited or impossible, the fault is yours. If you bought it without that knowledge, the fault is 343i's or Microsoft's. In no case is the fault mine. My obligation to your use of your DLC purchase is precisely zero . . . and emphatically so, as I disagree with the pay-to-play marketing method to begin with.
And finally to 343i, based on the current IS population, it would appear that there are a number of others who feel the same. That DLC owners do not have sufficient use of their purchase is your doing. Feel free to take responsibility for selling a product without the providing the ability to use it. Note that passing it off onto the remainder of your customer base does not constitute taking responsibility.
There are several solutions to this, should anyone at Microsoft or 343i be willing to listen. The first general solution is to sell only items that are not critical to gameplay as DLC (such as skins, commendation packs, avatars, early release of features, etc.). There is still a fairly large market for those items, and the barriers to purchase are less, as anyone who is thinking about purchasing knows that his or her use of the items is not dependent on others making the same purchase.
The second solution is to provide the community the proper tools to develop their own content, thus limiting your financial obligation to testing and implementation and avoiding the more costly development phase. Profit comes from both increasing revenue or decreasing costs, and this addresses the latter.
By proper tools, there are Forge-related items discussed here. There is a discussion of a true developer kit here. Were these implemented, there would not be a need to charge for gameplay-critical items like maps because you would have no development costs to recover. The aesthetics, framerate, and gameplay aspects of maps developed with these tools would be just as good (or better) than the CA-produced ones. While testing and implementation costs would remain, feel free to use revenue from cosmetic items for the former, and the latter is trivial in comparison. Alternatively, feel free to use prominent members of the community to provide testing services without charge to handle the bulk of the testing - thus removing virtually all of the cost of providing DLC maps in the first place.
In the meantime, I suggest you try something other than obliterating the population of your playlists to provide DLC owners with a means to use what you sold them.
Team Slayer Feedback
OP MM Systems Team