The Shrine

In case there was any doubt at all, Valve confirmed it's Microshaft shafting its customers, further solidifying the use of my name for them

http://www.1up.com/do/newsStory?cId=3176140

Guess I'll just have to wait for the GotY edition to come out next year and get a used copy before I can play it

Umm, it's 7 dollars =/

Don't forget that Valve gets to pocket the money when it's sold on Steam but Microsoft doesn't get as much when it's sold on the 360.

Little unfair to compare the two when one of them is the publisher and the seller.

The point is, this quote confirms that Valve doesn't want to charge you for it. They want to give it to you for free. When given the opportunity to do that (on PC), they are. Their business model is based on supporting their games with significant updates for free for the long-term to get people to keep buying their games instead of the price drops that you see occurring within 2 to 3 months with most games. Look at L4D, it's only dropped $10 in an entire year. That's quite rare.

I'm sure to them, they see their 30% cut of the $7 (I'm making an educated guess here) as actually a losing proposition since they're losing out on sales of their game from late adopters or people who sold the game but may want to come back with the new content. And they make a fuck-lot more from game sales than they do from DLC. I'm sure they're annoyed as fuck that they couldn't keep Team Fortress 2 supported properly and, hopefully, kept the sales of The Orange Box on 360 going a bit longer too. That one dropped in price pretty quickly.

But Microshaft (and let's be clear here: it's 100% M$'s fault you're getting shafted) is attempting to set/reset the marketplace (that's the "value" part of the quote) and part of how they're doing this is forcing you to pay for something that the creators want to give you for free. They probably figured that people got enough with the Survival Pack (and the Cagney update for Burnout Paradise) to whet their appetites but now they're gonna goose ya for the rest (someone please explain why it's 560 points instead of the standard 400 points for an expansion of this size?). Even if it's against the developer's and publisher's wishes. They're a monopoly in one market who's still acting like one even when they're not in another market. You pay for this, you're telling them "please, fuck me in the ass some more".

That's why I'm only going to get the GotY edition when released used instead of new, to ensure that M$ doesn't get any profit. I'd love to support Valve, I'm a big fan of their approach. But I can't support Microshaft and their predatory tactics.

Think about it from the perspective of covering costs. Valve owns Steam, and their model is to support their games with DLC to maintain steady full-game sales. For Valve, the cost of the DLC on Steam is covered by the game sales. This includes both the cost of making the DLC and distributing it. (In theory, of course. I don't know if their model works, but it would be nice if it does.)

On Live, it's again in Valve's interest to give away the DLC for free. But Microsoft spends money on infrastructure to maintain Live, and they don't recoup any losses when more copies of L4D are sold. I recognize that it's possible they could recoup those losses by selling more 360s, but that's not the model they've gone for.

(Again, every time you present an argument peppered with "Microshaft," I have to fight the irrational part of my brain to focus on the argument. The reason being "Microshaft" is a value judgment independent of your argument, and it takes mental effort to separate the reasoned argument from the value judgment.)

It's only 7 dollars. This isn't worth arguing about in light of that point.

As Kupek said, the free price on Steam is as incentive for other users to buy that version. The tiny fee of 7 dollars is what it costs to use Microsoft's system. No one is putting a gun to your head. Get the PC version if you don't want to spend 7 dollars, the equivilent of sodomy to you.

Kupek wrote:Think about it from the perspective of covering costs. Valve owns Steam, and their model is to support their games with DLC to maintain steady full-game sales. For Valve, the cost of the DLC on Steam is covered by the game sales. This includes both the cost of making the DLC and distributing it. (In theory, of course. I don't know if their model works, but it would be nice if it does.)

On Live, it's again in Valve's interest to give away the DLC for free. But Microsoft spends money on infrastructure to maintain Live, and they don't recoup any losses when more copies of L4D are sold. I recognize that it's possible they could recoup those losses by selling more 360s, but that's not the model they've gone for.

(Again, every time you present an argument peppered with "Microshaft," I have to fight the irrational part of my brain to focus on the argument. The reason being "Microshaft" is a value judgment independent of your argument, and it takes mental effort to separate the reasoned argument from the value judgment.)

I more than understand the BS M$ puts out trying to "explain" things, but it's just that, BS. Live is a competitive advantage, that's why they spend the money on it. They're actually more than recouping their costs yet they still have convinced their customers that they should pay for it. It's mentalities like Seek's that allows them to shaft the customers. Yes, it's only $7, but it's not something we should pay for, period. The people who created the game don't want us to pay for it. But M$ realized they could or forced the customers to not only develop for them one income stream from the release of a free scenario (increased/continued sale of the game, which M$ manufactures and charges a license for) but they even convinced their sheep fanbase it's OK to fleece them for another revenue stream. It's pure marketing BS and lack of principles by their customer base that allows them to get away with it. Then again, these are the same people that vote for the clowns we've had in office in both countries for the last 50 years so I shouldn't be too surprised.....

Look at their other hit games. Why did Call of Duty 4 sell WAAAY better on 360 than PS3? Simple: MUCH better multiplayer on Live. Does M$ make money off of every copy sold, even two years after release? Damned right, over $10 a game if my memory serves me right (exclusive manufacturing plus licensing to be played on the system; Nintendo used to charge $33 or so on the N64 back in the day but that's gone down with the introduction of CD/DVD). That's how they SHOULD be recouping costs, increased sales of the games, which brings them in licensing revenue. Halo 3 still sells relatively regularly as do the Gears and CoD games, 10k or 20k a month (look at the weekly Sep 19 sales chart at http://vgchartz.com/aweekly.php). That's $100G+ in revenue per game and that's before you even start talking about any other newer games. Still don't think they're more than recouping their costs of maintaining Live?

Like I've said a few times, they're trying to re-write the rules and we're allowing them to do it. Remember, it's both Valve and M$ that make money off of every copy of L4D sold on the 360, not just Valve. So the argument you (and others) have presented that M$ needs to recoup costs just doesn't make sense. They already are, they're just forcing you to spend even more because they know you can and the sheep will just say "it's only $7, it's less than lunch. Whatever".

My use of the nickname is an expression of my frustration. Tell me that they haven't earned that nickname with bullshit like this.

Zeus wrote:They're actually more than recouping their costs

You're assuming that, unless you have numbers showing how much they spend on infrastructure and how much they bring in everywhere else.

I had forgotten MS still gets a cut from each sale, but without all the numbers, I don't know if it's enough to cover costs.

You're free to vent your frustration, but as I've said before, it gets in the way of making your point.

Zeus wrote:My use of the nickname is an expression of my frustration. Tell me that they haven't earned that nickname with bullshit like this.

Okay. I will, at least from my perspective. I regret not one dollar I have given to Microsoft over the years. I'm almost always satisfied with their products, they have a wide range of exceptional ones (especially these days), and I've had far worse from other companies. I have no problem with their pricing.

You want to stoke my wrath? Start talking about my early experience signing up for Rhapsody, in which they allow you to sign up online but REQUIRED YOU TO CALL THEM and sit on hold for awhile to cancel the fifteen-dollar-a-month account. I've had far worse than Microsoft's "gouges".

Tupac Seekur wrote:It's only 7 dollars. This isn't worth arguing about in light of that point.

As Kupek said, the free price on Steam is as incentive for other users to buy that version. The tiny fee of 7 dollars is what it costs to use Microsoft's system. No one is putting a gun to your head. Get the PC version if you don't want to spend 7 dollars, the equivilent of sodomy to you.

Seek, one of these days you'll understand that it has nothing to do with the cost involved. Whether it's 10 cents or $100, the bitching/complaining is exactly the same. Until then, don't bother getting involved in these conversations with me, you'll just get ignored (by me, anyways).

Kupek wrote:

Zeus wrote:They're actually more than recouping their costs

You're assuming that, unless you have numbers showing how much they spend on infrastructure and how much they bring in everywhere else.

I had forgotten MS still gets a cut from each sale, but without all the numbers, I don't know if it's enough to cover costs.

You're free to vent your frustration, but as I've said before, it gets in the way of making your point.

You're right, we don't know exactly how much it costs to maintain their infrastructure. I'm assuming that they are considering their "evergreen" titles make them so much coin years later. But my point stands: Live is a competitive advantage for them to increase their licensing revenue but we're allowing them to fleece us more than we should with their marketing BS and our ambivalence.

Also, "M$" is still potentially not even in the black on the Xbox experience as a whole. The first generation was a complete loss leader so they could get their foot in the door, and they've had a hard time staying profitable on this one because it's entirely possible that continuing repair bills from the hardware problems have wrecked their profits entirely. Now, is that their own fault because of the hardware design? Yes. On the other hand - at least for me - I understand the magnitude of their undertaking and that the real world is full of shit, and overall, the 360 is such a pleasing experience for me developmentwise and entertainmentwise that I don't mind their pricing, even if I have been hit by surcharges like this before, and I probably have as a fairly regular Live download purchase customer.

To put it in not so many words, I feel like I am getting what I pay for from Microsoft these days. This is especially true of Live. I have tendered them dollars, and they have provided me a generally spectacular entertainment experience with which I am incredibly satisfied. The videogame business is very, very risky and I don't think this is much of a case of a profit grab as you think. Call me when it's 100% confirmed that Microsoft has actually made a net profit on the XBox division as a whole and ask me again. This has not happened so far.

I think you don't understand the notion of some people's high levels of consumer satisfaction with Microsoft. If you recall, I used to bitch about them a lot, and I don't anymore. The reality is that for me the 360 and the associated technology set as a whole has opened a lot of doors personally and professionally. For others, it has provided a superior and relatively comprehensive entertainment experience. There's a reason they're racking up a lot of brand loyalty right now. I wish I could tell you why I don't care much about stuff like this - one is because I don't plan on buying this particular item, but two is because, in general I have come to feel recently that I am getting what I pay for, from them.

Zeus wrote: I'm assuming that they are considering their "evergreen" titles make them so much coin years later.

Please read my above comments on how much confirmed money Microsoft has made from the XBox so far. This kind of a business is not cheap to run.

Replay wrote:

Zeus wrote:My use of the nickname is an expression of my frustration. Tell me that they haven't earned that nickname with bullshit like this.

Okay. I will, at least from my perspective. I regret not one dollar I have given to Microsoft over the years. I'm almost always satisfied with their products, they have a wide range of exceptional ones (especially these days), and I've had far worse from other companies. I have no problem with their pricing.

You want to stoke my wrath? Start talking about my early experience signing up for Rhapsody, in which they allow you to sign up online but REQUIRED YOU TO CALL THEM and sit on hold for awhile to cancel the fifteen-dollar-a-month account. I've had far worse than Microsoft's "gouges".

Oh God, yes, there has been other companies who attempt the fleecing to even greater levels and the sheep have allowed them to get away with it. My hatred for Bell's and Rogers' cellphone business models is extremely well documented and puts M$ to shame. What do those three have in common? They are/were all monopolies and still try to act like it even when they're not.

Really, you've been satisfied with M$'s products? I'm thinking back (I started with DOS and Windows 3.1) and it wasn't until Windows XP that I was finally satisfied with their Windows (don't get me start on Vista). But I liked DOS, limited as it was. 3.1 was neat but was really nothing more than a visual DOS. I preferred using DOS. Then there's Office and it wasn't until Excel 97 when I started to not hate every second of using that program but I was by no means satisfied. I still hate Word to this day and Powerpoint is OK but I'm not overly fond of it. Same with many of their other software products which seem to be lesser versions of competitors'. I tend to actually avoid their software now so I don't really look at anything else they have.

As for hardware, I've had 4 pieces before I made the permanent switch over to Logitech: a wireless keyboard, a mouse, a wireless mouse, and a Sidewinder. I used the Sidewinder very sparingly but it was a decent flight stick. No complaints. The mouse I loved.......for the first 6 months until the wire frayed inside of it with decent use. The wireless mouse was alright until about a year later when it started jumping around on me. The wireless keyboard was fine, I just replaced it with the Logitech combo when the mouse broke.

For the most part, I haven't had very good experiences. And like everyone else, all Windows before XP caused me so much headache it put a very bad taste in my mouth. Then again, I do tend to avoid them so the only real exposure I get with them at all now is some Office updates and the 360.

Your point only stands if the the cost of Live is covered by other means. We agree that is an open question.

I suspect it is not, and that the reason Live is so much better - in the position to be a competitive advantage - is that it's a pay service both in subscription and products.

Kup: word.

Zeus wrote: And like everyone else, all Windows before XP caused me so much headache it put a very bad taste in my mouth.

We all hated that shit. You know what I realize I sure must have hated worse, though? Apple's complete lack of support for PC gaming as an experience, a business model, and a worthwhile activity from the period 1988-2000 inclusive. My first computer was a Mac. I could have gone back at any time, but I didn't. If you had bad experiences with multiple versions of Windows, I suspect it's for the much the same reason - for awhile, Microsoft was a much buggier operating system who just happened to do a spectacular fucking job of encouraging PC gaming development. It all matters.

Where do you think we'd be as gamers today if *both* Microsoft and Apple had decided, fuck the kids, these are business machines? It could have happened. I'm grateful that Microsoft decided as it did, and while you're right, we all had nightmares with either 3.1, Win 98, Win ME, Vista or some other godforsaken inevitable wrong turn for the OS, it's the aggregate that really ends up making the difference.

To put it in still other terms: about two years ago, I had to realize that for somebody who "hated" Microsoft products and all the bugs and shit as much as I thought I did, I sure had stuck with them an awful long time. I ended up realizing I must love them more than I hated them, or I would have ditched them for a competitor a long time ago.

Kupek wrote: I suspect it is not, and that the reason Live is so much better - in the position to be a competitive advantage - is that it's a pay service both in subscription and products.

Seconded. Between Nintendo's non-existent online service and Sony's hugely disappointing Home, Xbox Live has always been a great service that continues to expand its features and improve on itself. Steam doesn't come close either, being more of an online distribution center for games than an actual multiplayer service.

You assume that such a service should be free, yet there's nobody who has been able to come close. Until someone does provide a service at least on par with XBL for free, I think a healthy helping of STFU is in order. You spew the same tired argument every time while making nothing but baseless assumptions about how things do work along with baseless assumptions about how they should work in your mind. It's getting old

Zeus wrote:

Tupac Seekur wrote:It's only 7 dollars. This isn't worth arguing about in light of that point.

As Kupek said, the free price on Steam is as incentive for other users to buy that version. The tiny fee of 7 dollars is what it costs to use Microsoft's system. No one is putting a gun to your head. Get the PC version if you don't want to spend 7 dollars, the equivilent of sodomy to you.

Seek, one of these days you'll understand that it has nothing to do with the cost involved. Whether it's 10 cents or $100, the bitching/complaining is exactly the same. Until then, don't bother getting involved in these conversations with me, you'll just get ignored (by me, anyways).

There's no mystery to your bitching about this, quite simply you love to whine, that's why you have all of these juvenile made up names; they're not clever and only serve to reflect badly upon you. Your love to whine in combination with your obvious bias against "Microshaft". With this you make up some justification to satisfy both your need to whine and your bias.

In the end, Microsoft is a business, they don't owe it to anyone to support free programs on their service, they're a business not a charity. Like everyone else, you have the choice to buy it or not to buy it. They could have chosen to charge 0 dollars, but they chose to charge 7.

While you pretend to support some great justice against these evil corporations, in the end it's only 7 dollars and we know your whining just to whine and that you're biased against Microsoft. You're not fooling anyone into believing it's any more than that. Personally, I feel comparng rape to being charged 7 dollars for a product you don't even have to buy makes you somewhat of a lunatic.

Kupek wrote:Your point only stands if the the cost of Live is covered by other means. We agree that is an open question.

I suspect it is not, and that the reason Live is so much better - in the position to be a competitive advantage - is that it's a pay service both in subscription and products.

I don't necessarily think so. They've been working on Live for what, 8 years? Sony just started taking an active approach to their online system only a couple of years ago (PS2 was hands off) and Nintendo is still hands-off and likely always will be. And what does play on PS3 plays well, it's just not as convenient or well-organized on Live not to mention FAR fewer people have a PS3 vs a 360.

Theirs works better because of their focus on it. That gives them their competitive advantage over their rivals and only because they have no real competition are they able to charge for it. In Japan, online is nothing and Sony and Nintendo will always be Japan-centric. Why do you think I want Sony to get their act together? They're starting to sell a lot of systems and if their online service works well (my cuz tells me it worked very well for Killzone 2 and apparently it's fine for the Resistance games; we'll see how Uncharted 2 works) and they start outselling M$ in cross-platform titles, the 360 Live service will start getting cheaper. They will have to since Sony doesn't seem to want to pay to play online.

Live is the only service you have to pay for. Not on PC (aside from some MMOs), not on DS, not on Wii, not on PS3. It's better, yes, but that should be (and is) the reason to purchase their games, which is where their income stream `should` come from. They just realized there's no
competition and they're taking advantage of the situation.

Even so, that doesn't mean that they have the right to override their third parties who want to give us something for free. My original reason for this post's bitching still stands.

Can I just say, it's really not worth the seven dollars. You aren't missing much.

The first level is too easy (though longer than I expected) and the second is too difficult... especially in expert. Versus? Meh. It sucks running around on a new map you aren't familiar with as an infected because there's a little more misleading and dead ends on these maps. Regardless, I would have been happier with just L4D2 rather than this filler to keep the boycotters at bay.

I was shocked to find out it wasn't even a full scenario, more like 40% of one (2 missions - 1 safe house - instead of 5 missions or 4 safehouses)

http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/102/1029763p1.html

It's still supposed to be fun, which I expected it to be since the original kicked so much ass. But the fact that it's not even half a scenario screams of a rush job to save face.

That makes my bitching even more relevant

Your bitching has never been relevant. This is a product which no one ever forced you to buy.

TL;DR this thread, but I think Valve's mistake was releasing one new level as an "add-on". This should have been a patch, like one of those updates on the game.

SineSwiper wrote:TL;DR this thread, but I think Valve's mistake was releasing one new level as an "add-on". This should have been a patch, like one of those updates on the game.

You honestly think they could get away with that? What they call it doesn't matter.

Zeus wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:TL;DR this thread, but I think Valve's mistake was releasing one new level as an "add-on". This should have been a patch, like one of those updates on the game.

You honestly think they could get away with that? What they call it doesn't matter.

You don't get charged for patches. It's not like a XBox screen comes up and says "We need to update this game, but we need your money first."

SineSwiper wrote:

Zeus wrote:

SineSwiper wrote:TL;DR this thread, but I think Valve's mistake was releasing one new level as an "add-on". This should have been a patch, like one of those updates on the game.

You honestly think they could get away with that? What they call it doesn't matter.

You don't get charged for patches. It's not like a XBox screen comes up and says "We need to update this game, but we need your money first."

Sorry, maybe I should have worded it differently: you honestly think Microshaft would ever have allowed this DLC to be disguised as a game update like the Survival Pack was? M$ probably thought they had sacrificed a lot with that free update and the Burnout ones and internally, they probably thought "no more free shit, dammit!"

Kupek wrote:

Zeus wrote:They're actually more than recouping their costs

You're assuming that, unless you have numbers showing how much they spend on infrastructure and how much they bring in everywhere else.

I had forgotten MS still gets a cut from each sale, but without all the numbers, I don't know if it's enough to cover costs.

Well, considering the indie games are sold for a dollar and the amount of cash required to shovel bits from one server to a console is not a lot, I'm going out on a limb here in saying that their costs are not the issue here. Seven dollars is a lot of money, especially when it's added up to the amount of people who are going to download it.

If value is the issue, than the value should be lower than $7 for a single level. There are plenty of XBLA games cheaper than that.

Indie games being sold for less is a good point, but "just shuttling bits around" is not. You work for an ISP. You should be intimately familiar with the fact that what is physically done with technology is not where the cost comes from. What's expensive are the people who have to maintain the infrastructure.

Sine, it's scenario, not a level. Big difference considering the full priced game only had 4 of them. Many people were quite happy, including myself, to pay $50 for 4 scenarios in the original game.

The issue is artificial value created by M$ for what is a partial campaign (40%). Valve wants to give it to you for free on the 360, they're just not allowed to. So you're expected to pay $7 for about 30 minutes of content (that's what the IGN review said). Even by the excessive XBLA standard M$ is trying to set, that's ridiculous.

I'm gonna go with Sine here and say that the incremental costs are minimal so if a publisher wants to give us something for free, they should be able to. M$ is still making money off of it anyways with increased game sales. At the end of the day Kup, we'll never agree on the methods in which M$ should be recouping their costs for Live as we do not agree on what the value of Live really is. I see it as necessary for them to provide it to increase the value of the games on their system as it provides them with a competitive advantage. You see it as an extra service they are providing to the consumer and thus has additional value.

Kupek wrote:Indie games being sold for less is a good point, but "just shuttling bits around" is not. You work for an ISP. You should be intimately familiar with the fact that what is physically done with technology is not where the cost comes from. What's expensive are the people who have to maintain the infrastructure.

Yes, which is exactly why I have the experience to say that the cost is low in comparison to what they charge.

My ISP charges around $40 for people to download an unlimited amount of bandwidth for that month, but for the sake of argument, let's say $50. If we were to figure the caps being discussed throughout the industry, Comcast is capping at 200GB per month, so we'll use that. This is a cap which a major corporation has internally vetted to ensure that it would still generate a profit. (Not just break even, but generate a PROFIT.)

So, we're looking at a quarter a GB for the costs (and profit margin) to maintain all of those servers, routers, backbone links, and all of the employees. I'm sure the level/scenario/add-on/whatever for L4D is less than 2GB.

Fifty cents. Fifty cents is all we are talking about. And fifty cents is to make a PROFIT. This is FAR less than $7. I'm not saying that they should charge 50 cents, but $2 would have been more reasonable, and I would have forgiven that the PC version was free.