PDA

View Full Version : PC DLC - PLEASE Put it on STEAM Too



Gimpymoo
16th Sep 2009, 14:09
Eidos, for all that is good in the world.

PLEASE do not force us to have to use MS XBOX Points to buy the DLC.

I dont have a XBOX so have little to no use for any points which are leftover.

Please place the DLC's on STEAM.

Thanks for supporting the PC community with such a great game and not some shabby port.

pleomax
16th Sep 2009, 14:11
The dlc is freeeeeeeeee.

Gimpymoo
16th Sep 2009, 14:47
WOW

Extra Kudos to Eidos then.. you guys rock.

Thank You.

Armandeus
26th Sep 2009, 09:10
Free or not, Eidos, please put all the DLC on Steam. If you can't do that, then allow the DLC to be distributed to all regions where the game is available on Steam. Currently it is not.
I live in Japan, and Steam has made the game available for purchase and download. I bought the game and can play it in English.
However, my Games for Windows is in Japanese because long ago I replied honestly when registering, not knowing that I would be locked out of 99% of all content because of regional control garbage.
So I cannot see or download any of the DLC in GFW, although I am allowed to purchase the game in Steam.

serenity44
26th Sep 2009, 15:50
it's a GFWL Game. you could kiss every employees feet and give them a billion dollars and it wouldn't change a thing.

All GFWL content must be on GFWL. NO OTHER SERVICES ALLOWED. It would be like microsoft letting people download xbox stuff from PSN or Zune stuff from itunes. it's not going to happen. don't even bother asking.

Armandeus
26th Sep 2009, 23:47
Who appointed you spokesman for Eidos?
The Fallout 3 DLC was later sold in stores, although I have yet to see it.
After searching the net, I have found sites explaining how to fraudulently register a US account for GFWL, in order to circumvent the regional garbage. See? It makes no difference, all regional shut-out garbage does is slow down and anger legitimate paying customers, possibly driving them to consider piracy - the exact opposite of what I assume GFWL is supposed to "prevent."

serenity44
27th Sep 2009, 18:08
Who appointed you spokesman for Eidos?
The Fallout 3 DLC was later sold in stores, although I have yet to see it.
After searching the net, I have found sites explaining how to fraudulently register a US account for GFWL, in order to circumvent the regional garbage. See? It makes no difference, all regional shut-out garbage does is slow down and anger legitimate paying customers, possibly driving them to consider piracy - the exact opposite of what I assume GFWL is supposed to "prevent."

STORES, yes. but not on steam or ANYWHERE else on the internet. So unless Eidos decides to bundle the DLC and sell it in a store, you have NO OTHER CHOICE but LIVE.

It's as simple as that.

And even the DLC that you bought for fallout required an online profile to play unless you hacked it.

Armandeus
28th Sep 2009, 13:08
Yeah, well fine. My point is that it makes no sense to allow worldwide distribution of a game on Steam and still restrict the DLC to only a few countries.
And still, I would rather have an answer from Eidos than one from somebody who is in no position to know what Eidos is thinking.

serenity44
28th Sep 2009, 15:33
your right. it dosn't make sense. dosn't make sense for microsoft to have certain themes only in japan, or europe, or the US. or not sell the Zune HD anywhere outside of the US. MS does a lot of stupid things.

And Microsoft is in charge of all DLC when your game is live. it's just like the xbox. The new Left 4 Dead content comes out this week. it's 100% free for PC owners because they get it through steam. Xbox owners have to pay 560 points because microsoft wanted to charge for it.

So because batman is a LIVE game. all Eidos can do is ask for MS to publish the DLC at a certain price or region but Microsoft can do whatever they want. And because it's a LIVE game, it's locked to the LIVE marketplace. it can't be sold online anywhere else

So the point i'm trying to make to you is that it honestly dosn't matter what Eidos is thinking because microsoft won't let them do anything else. yes it sucks, but thats just how it is right now.

Quanta
28th Sep 2009, 23:16
And even the DLC that you bought for fallout required an online profile to play unless you hacked it.

So copying the datafiles to your main Fallout 3 folder is hacking now?

Armandeus
28th Sep 2009, 23:47
Serenity44, thanks for the concern, but would you care to explain why you think you are an authority on this matter? Do you work for Eidos or Microsoft?

serenity44
29th Sep 2009, 16:43
@Quanta: technically it is because your not suppose to do that. Your suppose to leave the DLC in the original folder. though as any fallout player knows, that sucks, leads to crashes, and makes it so you can't run certain mods. I do it too but yeah it is technically hacking it. just a very simple way of doing so. and i bought all mine through the store, not on the disk.

@Armandeus: i don't feel that i'm an authority. I've been on way to many game forums and see the same thing everytime, and i've become incredibly knowledgeable about the situation being a GFWL user and an xbox user. I'll flat out admit that i am a microsoft supporter (i even own a zunehd) so i strive to learn a lot about the things they do. even the bad ones so i can explain it at a place like this.

Unfortountly this is one of those situations that casts microsoft in a very bad light, and it should because these are very stupid things that they're doing. i'm not trying to stand up for them or anything like that with this, i'm just simply trying to explain why things are they way they are. Eidos, if they could, would say the same thing. But for one they have other **** to worry about, and they probably don't want to speak out against microsoft. not really a smart thing to do.

lawsie
29th Sep 2009, 20:18
what makes you think that microsoft would force anyone to charge for the DLC they create? Thats the most absurd thing i have ever heard. Its more of the opposite, microsoft would be getting paid to allow game developers to use there GFWL program to enchance its product. If they want to release free DLC then microsoft has no say in the matter. It is not there product they are just a means of distributing it.

What your saying is the equivalent of you wanting to give something away for free at your shop, but the lease holders (the people who own the building you trade in) have other ideas and make you sell it so they can get a profit out of it.

serenity44
29th Sep 2009, 20:45
what makes you think that microsoft would force anyone to charge for the DLC they create? Thats the most absurd thing i have ever heard. Its more of the opposite, microsoft would be getting paid to allow game developers to use there GFWL program to enchance its product. If they want to release free DLC then microsoft has no say in the matter. It is not there product they are just a means of distributing it.

What your saying is the equivalent of you wanting to give something away for free at your shop, but the lease holders (the people who own the building you trade in) have other ideas and make you sell it so they can get a profit out of it.

apparently you don't know much about how the Xbox works. Microsoft decides on the final cost of ALL items on the XBLM. movies, shows, DLC, avatar items, gamerpics, themes. Microsoft has final say. and if they don't want something to be free, it isn't.

Why do you think all the map packs are $10 on the xbox but the PC gets everything for free? This is 100% confirmed from bungie, epic, infinity ward, valve, and other companies. Microsoft decides the final cost of everything. The developer can ask for a certain price point, but it's up to microsoft whether or not they want to use that. This is just a fact of the xbox. hence why you always hear xbox owners complaining that everything is way to expensive.

Sorry but this is exactly how it works. Microsoft has final say. Many times they let stuff go for what the developers want, but in the case of L4D, halo, and a few other games microsoft decided on the price. this is just how it is. I believe sony does the exact same thing with it's dlc.

lawsie
30th Sep 2009, 00:03
sorry i totally disagree, there is a lot of noise about GFWL and microsoft does this, and microsoft does that but in my experience, and from what i can see they do nothing but hold back patches on games so they can be done on GFWL. They dont run the DLC set by other companies, they dont run the other companies they are a means of distributing stuff. How else do you explain all the other free DLC across other games such as this one and beyond, across all platforms, for all games across GFWL life cycle and that indeed of xbox's live. do you think they limit some companies in providing an addon to make their product better by not making them able to sell it as a 'patch' of sorts? Of course they dont. What right would they have? Your listening to severe propaganda towards MS that stems for some peoples unrational hatred towards this system and mistaking it for reality. If a game publisher / designer wants to give away DLC, then its given away. No ifs and buts from MS.

As far as games selling value go for an x-box, yes microsoft do have a say in that. Just like nintendo and sega before them and so on and so on. But my point is about DLC and how it is NOT controlled price wise by microsoft. Of course we cant as consumers know for sure, so i guess arguing and guessing about it is pretty pointless i suppose.

serenity44
30th Sep 2009, 01:09
sorry i totally disagree, there is a lot of noise about GFWL and microsoft does this, and microsoft does that but in my experience, and from what i can see they do nothing but hold back patches on games so they can be done on GFWL. They dont run the DLC set by other companies, they dont run the other companies they are a means of distributing stuff. How else do you explain all the other free DLC across other games such as this one and beyond, across all platforms, for all games across GFWL life cycle and that indeed of xbox's live. do you think they limit some companies in providing an addon to make their product better by not making them able to sell it as a 'patch' of sorts? Of course they dont. What right would they have? Your listening to severe propaganda towards MS that stems for some peoples unrational hatred towards this system and mistaking it for reality. If a game publisher / designer wants to give away DLC, then its given away. No ifs and buts from MS.

As far as games selling value go for an x-box, yes microsoft do have a say in that. Just like nintendo and sega before them and so on and so on. But my point is about DLC and how it is NOT controlled price wise by microsoft. Of course we cant as consumers know for sure, so i guess arguing and guessing about it is pretty pointless i suppose.

i've yet to hear them do it on GFWL so you may be correct as far as GFWL goes. And that would make sense since they have to compeat against valve and other companies that give stuff for free but on the xbox it's widely known that MS does decide on the final pricing for DLC

As far as the patches go, yeah thats on both the 360 and the PC. Microsoft has to certify all patches which is how games like castle crashes have to wait like 6 months for a simple patch.

Believe me man, i wish you were right but unfortountly thats not how it works. Just look at left 4 dead. All PC owners get it for free, but the the 360 version is 560 points. Does that make any sense? valve could charge the PC owners if they wanted to but they didn't. Why is that? Because it's on Steam, their service, so they get to choose. Microsoft decided that the DLC is worth money and there for decides to charge for it.

Epic Games with Gears of War 2 was the same thing. As much as i hate epic, the pricing for the all fronts and dark corners packs were decided by microsoft, hence the same $20 price point for both. It wasn't until the massive amount of complaining to epic and microsoft that it changed.

and epic said flat out that both prices were decided by microsoft and not them. sorry man but this is just true. Bungie even said the same thing with the halo 3 maps being $10

Armandeus
30th Sep 2009, 05:37
I'm still waiting for Eidos' opinion.
A related question. If I "just happen to have" a new GFWL account with a US address, can I transfer all my GFWL game registrations and saves to the new account? I don't care about "accomplishments."
I'd rather not have to lose all the game saves and be forced to start over from the beginning.
The reason to do this, of course, would be to receive the BAA DLC that is strangely not available for GFWL registered with a Japanese address, even though Steam sells the game worldwide.

lawsie
30th Sep 2009, 07:22
you may be right serenity, its just i and we cannot be totally sure. Most of it is hear say, but for a massive corporation to do such a thing would not surprise me in the slightest bit. After all, they need there gold plated toast in the morning as much as the next person.

Gimpymoo
30th Sep 2009, 08:03
what makes you think that microsoft would force anyone to charge for the DLC they create? Thats the most absurd thing i have ever heard.

LOL - Lawsie, you are very uninformed.

Valve wanted the Left4Dead DLC to be FREE across PC and Xbox, HOWEVER, due to restrictions imposed by Microsoft on the Marketplace, if DLC fulfills a set criteria, they HAVE to charge for it and the 560 points Valve are charging is the MINIMUM price MS allow you to charge.

lawsie
30th Sep 2009, 08:27
LOL - Lawsie, you are very uninformed.

Valve wanted the Left4Dead DLC to be FREE across PC and Xbox, HOWEVER, due to restrictions imposed by Microsoft on the Marketplace, if DLC fulfills a set criteria, they HAVE to charge for it and the 560 points Valve are charging is the MINIMUM price MS allow you to charge.

at wicki is says this :

Microsoft has since then been known to force developers to release their content at a charge, when the developers would rather release their content for free.[13] Some content has even been withheld from release because the developer refused to charge the amount Microsoft required.[13][14] Epic Games, a developer known for continual support of their older titles with downloadable maps and updates, believed that releasing free downloadable content over the course of a game's lifetime helped increase sales throughout, and had succeeded well with that business-model in the past, but was forced to implement Microsoft's strategy of fee-based downloads when releasing content for their Microsoft-published game, Gears of War.[13][15] so yes, maybe i am wrong. At least i am man enough to admit it i suppose. Nah not really.

Gimpymoo
30th Sep 2009, 09:56
;)

It is VERY sad though.

I also believe in that business model and I think it is one which may not be around for much longer in favour of "Micro Transactions".

Sure, Valve and Epic STILL subscribe to this method but many are being sucked in.

I like Microsoft (I think), it is just their practices like this which make me question their intentions.

The reason why they dont want FREE DLC is simple, you can only buy DLC with points purchased from Microsoft which they make a profit on.

I wonder why they dont allow you to pay with Credit Card / Paypal? It is all a scam and one of the many reasons I will never buy a console.

You pay to go online, you pay for DLC, you pay extra for the games because the console maker has to "license" it. What a crock (killer) :)

serenity44
30th Sep 2009, 16:00
it is incredibly sad and 360 owners are getting screwed because of it.

Gears of war 2 is a perfect example. me and all my friends bought the collectors edition. $70. Then another $35 for all the maps. So $105.

Then the GOTY edition comes out and it costs $40 for everything we just paid $95 (i take out 10 because it's the regular edition, not collectors)

The price point of the GOTY edition is 100% epic, but epic did not want to charge the $10-$15 per set of maps. that was all MS.

And Gimpymoo is right, if it's free, MS makes no money off it. If it's paid, the dev still makes money, but so does microsoft. And as much as i support microsoft, they're still a greedy company. no where near as bad as some other ones (which will remain nameless to keep on topic) but still pretty damn bad.

though the credit card/paypal thing is because MS would have to pay to use them.

When you use a credit card at a store, the store has to pay the credit card company like 5% or something like that. Thats why many stores say cash only for anything under $5 because they then loose money if you use a card. Paypal is the same thing i believe. So not so much of a scam here as just microsoft wanting to make 100% of their money.

The licensing, well, it is true that they do have to pay to license it, but yeah it's BS.