Mod tools > Map packs. Sure, most won't feel as official as map packs, but mods are a potential never ending stream of content for a game that's only as passionate as the fanbase, while map packs only come out when the devs make them.
Idk man, I had some negative experiences from map packs back in the day. If a friend or 2 that you played with didn't have a map pack, we'd either have to play without them, or we would just have to play in different playlists without the new maps, and at that point, it felt like buying the map pack was meaningless. The only kind of monetization that I like in shooters are single-player expansions. Every other kind of monetization for them causes issues, and there's not really a good solution to circumvent those problems. That's not to say I don't also hate microtransactions, cause I very much do.
Halo 3 nailed it, though. If you didn't have those packs, you were doing yourself a disservice. They were objectively upgrades to the game. If a company NEEDS to make money, and the result is selling actual upgrades a user enjoys as much as we did, then yeah. Worth every penny. Especially if modern gaming can't even recreate that level of content for cost and not be shallow
@@JuiceboxCE Okay... It still split the player base and divided the community regardless. Poor people got excluded from those "objectively upgrades" of yours.
@@JuiceboxCE You say that because you had the option to do so. Not many of us were able to buy these map packs leaving us gamers out of half the experience. At least skins are optional extras you don't need to enjoy a game.
While Map-Packs were easier to understand and overall cheaper for the full game access than Battlepasses nowadays, it teared the playerbase apart. I remember times when I couldn't find lobbys in Battlefield and CoD because I didn't own alle the packs and couldn't play at all. On the other hand, Battlepasses and Cosmetics are criminally overpriced and too time consuming for casual players. There has to be something inbetween...
For maps, there isn't. You either have them or you don't. Lowering the price of premium skins and having free earnable ones on the side is a more reasonable method.
It especially doesn't help when you go back to play those games today but don't have the map packs so it takes even longer to find a match then when you have them
I disagree with you. By buying map packs I was able to find better players. People who cared more about the game and were willing to work as a team. Therefore my game experience was better.
Back then if you didn’t have the newest map pack and you tried paring up with a buddy of yours that had it. It made it difficult to play with them because it separated the player base and made games harder to find or just took longer to find them. No I’m not defending micro transactions but map packs also came with their fair share of issues.
I still remember not being able to play Halo 3 matches because I didn't open my wallet and give bungee more of my money after I just bought the game at full price.
"The addition of map packs had no adverse effect on those who didn’t buy them." Uh… yeah they did. They arguably made the biggest adverse effect out of all MTX methods. As a kid, I was always bummed out at the fact that I couldn’t play certain maps with my friends simply because I was a 12 year old not being able to purchase anything digitally. Say what you want about the current MTX prices with skins, but I’d rather have expensive optional skins with free access to new maps instead of free skins while locked out of half the game’s experience.
@@firstlast19956 Bringing them back isn't going to change that until game developers shift their prioritites. If they did come back today, we'd still have the same problems, but with half the game's features locked behind another paywall.
I’m sorry you missed out on some map packs in the OG days homie. Those were some of the best times. New multiplayer maps in cod or halo, plus the zombie maps in cod… I miss ittt. Definitely wouldn’t want map packs returning. Think about how split player bases are without them right now with how many games are available. Paid dlc would straight up kill some games lol. Most games nowadays are unfinished anyways it’d be a kick in the nuts to charge for dlc
As much as I hate microtransactions in modern gaming, I never liked how map packs split up the player base between the players that paid money and got to play on the new maps and modes and the players that didn’t get to since they didn’t buy the map packs. Sure, it’s better than what we’ve got now, but I just wish there was an even better alternative than the lesser evil.
The problem with map packs, at least in mp, is that it splits the player base and makes games harder to find. Everything else about map packs is defendable tho, in comparison with today's monetization standards, at least
The argument is always “player retention” because it splits the player base and with a lower population leads to even fewer matches, snowballing. But ironically player retention has nose dived in recent years for mainstream triple A games due to all of these terrible systems and mitigation strategies.
@@cataclysmicdelta1828 yes. Its a difficult thing to balance when money is on the line. Even with map packs, if the game has sbmm and even if it doesn't in some cases, those who pay for new maps are most likely those hardcore players that are good at the game. Which makes sbmm even worse!
@@cataclysmicdelta1828 it's not just player retention, but keeping the servers unfragmented. With mappacks there literally has to be completely separate playlists for those who have and those who don't, which not only lowers player counts for both types of servers, but compromises the overall health and cohesion of the game. If Infinite's live service was delivering content faster, the player count would be much healthier. The issue isn't the live service model itself, it's the speed they have been delivering content. If DLC map packs took 6 months between each release, the player count would drop in the same way.
This is why this entire video is rose colored glasses. Nobody gets shafted more in this map pack business than people without the extra money to get the maps. They're essentially left in the dust despite paying for original game.
I'm super mixed on this cause Map packs have had my favourite DLCs for games (Battlefield 1 Apocalypse and Star Wars Battlefront Rogue One) but on the other hand I loved black ops cold war zombies and playing it with my friends but I know that my friends wouldn't have paid for the new maps had it been in a map pack.
That's my main argument against Paid DLC as well. It sucks that now we usually get much smaller content drops, but they are free, and we get far more of them(Cold War ended up with some of the most content we've ever seen(especially for Zombies)). People forget that if you tried to play Multiplayer without the Map Packs, you'd be kicked out of a lobby if a DLC map came up(even if you were just missing 1 that'd still mean there were 4 maps that'd kick you out). Bundles are overpriced and not always great, but they are at least completely optional, while DLC wasn't if you didn't want to miss out. I remember being bummed if I couldn't get a Zombies map day 1, but with Cold War that didn't matter.
If someone had EOD, Recon, and Katana, you knew someone worked their arse off to get it, getting something through actual achievements was the best reward
The release of new World at War map packs is still one of my favorite gaming memories. Getting super hype for them with my buddies counting down the minutes till they would go live, and with ps3's old game sharing you used to be able to share games and dlc on up to 6-7 consoles so only one of us had to buy it. Ahh the good ole days of gaming.
Everyone from gaming past will forever be missed. All the old map packs, weapons and armor, everything. We all miss those days, those were the good old days. The days of when we spend 10 bucks and got new everything, weapons, skins, maps, experiences, all of it. Those were the good old days.
Except it was more like $15 and you only got 3 new maps, no new weapons, no new cosmetics, and it split the player base. Not to mention mappacks created far more FOMO than optional cosmetics ever could. Live service (if done right) objectively provides more content that you don't need to spend money on at all, unless you want optional and completely non game altering cosmetics. There's tons of free cosmetics as well, so the paid cosmetics are even more optional.
@@realdealneal3189 The battle passes are NOT timed in any way; they don't expire in Infinite. On top of that, they are essentially free by earning back all of the credits you spent to buy it. I never said mappacks were timed, FOMO doesn't necessarily mean something is timed. But I'd say you are way more incentivized to buy map packs that all your friends are playing then to buy something in the store. If you want to play new content, or play stuff that your friends own and you don't, you're practically forced to buy them. That is the definition of FOMO. Versus in Infinite where the only FOMO is whether or not you'll have cat ears on your spartan. See the difference? Not to mention, we've seen that items return to the shop, so it's not really like you will miss out on something forever once it's left the store. The split playerbase was a huge issue, in fact it's probably one of the biggest reasons no games do mappacks anymore. As for the free cosmetics you earn, you said yourself they're pretty cool, but you also downplay it. I'd say in these last couple events the free rewards have been better than anything in the store, but that comes down to preference.
To be fair, if we still had Map Packs games would still be unfinished, we'd just now be paying for the minimal content we get from Seasons instead of it being free.
While I agree that cosmetic monetization is awful and incredibly invasive feeling, I think you've missed a very specific point against map packs. Map packs were far more damaging to a community. Sure, those new maps for Halo 3, Reach, Gears 2/3, Cod4, MW2, Black Ops were all maps I enjoyed, but they ultimately ended up segmenting the community. You gotta remember, if your friends didn't have the map pack, you could not play with them in a fair amount of cases. This also would mean people would be less likely to even see the maps they paid for unless EVERYBODY in the lobby had the maps, or specific playlists where only those maps would be playable, further segmenting the community. Some companies would end up just letting lobbies where at least one person who bought the map to be playable for everyone, and at that point, why even have map packs at all? As much as I dislike cosmetics, they're not preventing me from playing with friends, or segmenting the community.
Not a fan of how paid map packs split a game’s population, it was cool to get a bunch of maps at once but at the end of the day I’m glad the industry moved away from paid map packs to maps being free DLC. The problem now of course is that the paid DLC model that used to be just map packs and expansions has since been replaced with lootboxes, skins, emotes, costumes, charms, armor, etc
At this day and age, with everyone my age and older being able to buy what they want game wise(so early 20s+), you won't have to worry about a player base being split. And as we've seen with games like Fortnite and everything else. Kids and teens today will have no problem getting those map packs either. Fortnite skins literally cost the same amount as map packs. And so do CoD bundles and 25+ tier skip battle passed. I wouldn't be too concerned about that.
@@pHixiq I think you underestimate how many free to play players exist and misunderstand the appeal of paid cosmetics. Cosmetic unlocks in modern game design are now considered optional to the game's experience. It has changed from a feature that added replayability, to a vessel for monetization. Maps are considered standard, free content for an fps game. I guarantee you if 343 released a paid map pack, the majority sentiment from the community would be that 343 are just trying to sell us content as dlc that should have been there from the beginning. The paid map pack business model is outdated, and only a vocal minority want them back.
@@pHixiq Not everyone has the luxury of having mommy and daddy's credit card readily available. I came from that golden era of gaming, but I was never fortunate enough to be able to buy map packs. Not a day goes by wondering how cool it would've been if my adult self could go back and purchase all the DLC map packs as they launched and played them with my friends, but I can't, meaning I'll never experience the same experience as my friends did simply because a paywall stopped me. No new gamer should have to have that issue. Plenty of gamers would gladly sacrifice shiny skins that hardly change the game for more playgrounds and modes to play with.
@@CR0WYT I understand that and I also feel the same about past experiences. I was unable to experience most dlcs and map packs. But you know how much money these companies make off MTX ? It seems like a very large part of their profit comes from that alone. The point im making is only relevant to this topic. Im only for map packs in a vacuum.
@@jackcolson4745 once again, just talking about it in this context. Outside of this, I don't want them. We all lived through that portion of gaming and you are correct. We all would say it should have been there. Only on this topic of map packs vs what we have now, I would choose to pay 15(well now more like $25 due to the economy), to get what is mostly guaranteed content than not knowing if I'm going to ever get it or not. And recently, most of it has been bad quality Trust me it all should be free and it definitely should be free if it was supposed to be in the game in the first place. And maybe I dont understand the free to play player base. But from my experience with the things I see and how much money these companies make, I would consider most players nowadays, new and old, to not be considered Free2play players with every single game they play. Even if they buy a. $5 skin, no longer free to play. Because as far as im aware most people I talk to are F2P. Yet these profit margins and the constant loop with Almost all game companies putting stuff behind pay walls says otherwise. We all know that people online are the vocal minority, not the other way around. Majority of players are not watching RU-vid videos or complaining about how horrible these companies are.
While I'm aware that 343 has put some terrible monetization in the game in terms of customization, I'm pretty sure we all know how fans would react if they made a map pack we had to pay for. What was once celebrated back in the day would be considered another example of corporate greed today
Only because of the other forms of monetization, if everything was directly and reasonably earnable through gameplay, and the monetization was closer to something like how black ops 2 did it with its actually reasonably priced packs, followed by actual meaningful map packs, people would see it as a beautiful return to form
@@Potatoboi732 Back then, yeah. Nowadays you can buy quality indie games for $15 which is why that may seem ridiculous now, but back then you wouldn't really be doing that. Plus 3 maps back then meant something different than 3 maps today.
@@Potatoboi732 it's more like, seasons give nice bouts of content. Say, 7 new maps, 3 to 4 new guns, 10 to 15 new sets of armor to work for, and about 40 new forgable pieces. That's the evolution of map packs. The expansion. Not battle passes season passes and that trash. Expansions. That's what we need. Not DLC. Expansions.
You say that now, but how would you feel if you had to pay $50 every season for a map pack? And if you don't you can't play x playlist since the maps are there? I rather not be forced to pay for something just to play the game.
@@jw7665 or you know, todays devs can just make a finished product and not release something half assed then sell the solutions later, boycotting with a valid cause and voting with your wallets work It's how Fallout 76 crashed and burned, why MWII is on life support, and why Gears of War stopped being made after 5 bombed
it was fun, but i think the playerbase split and the total population falling at the end of a games life cycle or popularity hurts it. i would suggest that after a year, those maps get put in the regular map pool.
I bought every map pack and rarely got to the play the new maps. There are several maps I almost totally forgot about because I only played them once or twice after purchasing the map pack. Halo 4 was especially problematic.
This whole video ignores ALL the actual issues with Mappacks lol. He says at the beginning it's not just nostalgia talking, but it 100% is. The gaming community wanted to move away from paid mappacks and towards optional cosmetics for a reason.
As a free player, who doesnt spend any money on microtransactions, i prefer not having to buy map packs. At least in halo infinite, I can enjoy any content that's in the game without having to pay for anything. Customization is second to fun gameplay in my opinion and eventually after playing for a while, you do unlock varied customization items. Map packs are definitely not something I want back.
The problem with map packs is you had to be lucky enough for everyone in your match-made lobby have the map pack to even play them. Playing DLC Maps was a rarity & I ended up missing out on 1 Achievement Reach because I couldn't match players with the DLC. and if you make DLC only playlists it either splits the player-base or has low population to the point that finding a game is difficult. but I would still prefer Map Packs & Story DLC 1,000x over Micro-transactions....
The sad thing about aggressive monetization nowadays is it works. I have seen people in halo forums talk about how good of a deal it is to get 3 armor skins for $20. Its saddening because they really think its not anti consumer and thats what publishers want
First off @hiddenxperia, been subscribed for years. Second off, you smashed it like the Hulk. DLC map packs, and expansions, have felt less grimey. Over the years, I feel like the DLCs I've purchased over the years has held up far better than any paid lootbox.
I too always loved map packs. They were always a mini game release to me, and I loved staying up waiting for them. But the free content updates we get bow are also great. It's just a shame we had to sacrifice so much for something that could've been insanely player friendly
Unfortunately the free stuff released is abysmal and isn’t even worth it. I’d gladly pay for expansions/DLCs if it meant we would get the same amount of content it used to have back in the day.
The map packs never split the community, it just showed the fractures. Let me explain. When the halo2 map pack came out you had to buy the physical disc most of my friends were able to buy it/ get it as early birthday/Christmas present. However that was not the case for everyone. I remember doing chores, mowing lawns with my friend to earn the cash to buy the map pack for everyone. The experience brought us together and made the game even more enjoyable.
You neglected to mention the one major downside with map packs is if you chose not to, or couldn't afford a map pack, often times you were locked out of playing with your friends who DID have the extra content.
The Premium Pass for Battlefield was another good example of good monetization, you pay once for several map packs, maybe some exclusive skins or something too, and you are guaranteed them even if said map packs aren't even MADE yet.
Honestly. Waiting for map packs like the Mythic map packs, to come out for vidmaster achievements. The ones that were going to net you the mythical unobtainable thousands of rick roll how to videos for Recon Armor was absolutely Legendary. 💛 Not only were those maps bomb. Hundreds of hours forging. The fact that you could get Recon armor with uncountable kids online telling how to get it, it finally in your grasps. Even had people with a task of searching for one hidden skull per map was just amazing. That map pack was the best buy of a lifetime. 800€ points no problem. *Never Forget*
So you liked that the Recon armor was behind a pay wall from the base game? While the price is the biggest issue with new monetization it isnt the point. Especially when prices all around have gone up...and the level of complexity to design has gone up.
@@alectravis-daugherty3095 recon I think was the only one. It was a Pre-order bonus. And later unlockable.. I rather have a bundled dlc pack from back in the day than pay heavy green bags for a single item. $10 map pack with unlockable/hidden cosmetics vs $20 armor kit. This is a no brainer.
@@djbusx wrong. Recon for Halo 3 was locked behind other games and dlc packs. What you should be wording is "$10 map packs, that split player base and lock achievements with mostly "free" limited customization" or "free maps and game types with auto updates and over priced but" larger selection" customization pieces and zero player splitting". Sounds like a no brainier to me. No matter what you know they would have jumped the price for the maps if they kept doing that. Those maps should have been free in Halo 2 and many veterans argue even that. Nothing should have gone past the base game besides new games. You think that comparing the prices of over 10 years ago is the same as comparing now? You're ignorant. Current halo and games aren't the solution but they make more sense.
As much as I despise morden MP live service models, at least they don't split the player base and increase queue times. Usually they don't hide content behind pay walls it's mostly cosmetics for MP games except perhaps MMOs. I understand where you're coming from but to me map packs were more of a hindrance. It's amazing how BO1 Nazi Zombies map packs are still full price on steam 😂
For me, the big kicker is how the Halo map packs became free after a period of time, so the smaller remaining playerbase could remain united. Halo 3 integrated them oddly, but at least it had a large enough playerbase to help offset that. But it gave everyone a chance to play them and have them once the game had somewhat moved on unlike other games (*cough* call of duty *cough*) that forever charges full price for them. Another one I remember fondly is the somewhat obscure DLC/title update for classic Battlefront 2 which added gorgeous remakes for some of the first game's maps that didn't originally make it. Still miles better than the aggressive, intrusive monetization that we see today. Even some older COD games, like Black Ops 2, had a pretty set list of gun skins to buy, so it was more like a small catalogue you could look at rather than a rotating store with dozens of items trying to one-up each other.
The way we look back on gaming during the last golden era (2001-2009) when we were 10-15 years old (speaking as a now 33 year old) it's sad to think that todays 10-15 year olds are going to look back and think they had it good with pre-alpha AAA launch titles, live services, the dime-a-dozen battle royales, emasculation of male characters, shoddy ports, rising game prices, and a handful of companies that have a monopoly on the entire gaming industry. The technology is there for there to be truly great games, but the games industry has become a business to make money, not a way to make video games. Truly, it's the best of time; it's the worst of times.
As consumers it has regressed but for corpos, smaller content = less effort, More purchases = more profit so they have progressed. And part of what made map packs so great and DLC's is that they are never time limited and are priced fairly compared to the amount of content your getting. Even if some of them were cut content. 10-15$ for a few campaign missions or a fully re-playable multiplayer map is better than paying the same price for an armor set or simple appearance modifiers and not a hundred of them either just like 1-5 of them depending on the customization available in the game and the amount of custom animations that went into each cosmetic. Now a days they only have value if it's coming from a collab and everything else either relies on looking better than everything else earnable or being the easiest fastest way or even the only way to get cosmetics or bein time gated with no certainty as to when it will return giving it some kind of value to the person contemplating on buying it that or a combination of multiple of these fake values derived from psychological marketing strats.
Nothing like splitting the multiplayer based on who could afford a new map pack versus who couldn't. Is Xperia gonna have nostalgia for Online passes next?
It's exactly this topic that leaves me playing older games (the most recent games I typically play are TF2 and Payday 2) because they just feel like complete games. TF2 doesn't lock features I find important behind pay features (aside from any purchase activating the newer "premium account" generalities), and while a lot of the better Payday 2 things are in DLC: you don't NEED them to have an enjoyable experience, and THEY GO ON DEEP SALE ALL THE TIME.
All maps should be accessible through matchmaking. But if you wanna play a private game on a dlc map then you gotta pay for it. This would be the best approach. You don’t have to worry about splitting the player base between the haves and have nots when it comes to public games or competitive modes, but you still incentivize interested players into paying for more custom experiences. It also encourages the devs to put their best most creative energy into making maps unique and awesome. Ideally the base maps wouldn’t suffer but I wouldn’t bet on that.
It sounds nice, but it would ultimately be pointless. Queuing for a public lobby is much more convenient than making a custom game and most gamers don't even play custom games that often. Even those that do play custom games can agree that putting one together can be a hassle at times. People don't want to pay for hassles and developers need to find ways to get our money willingly. If there's no demand, there is no money.
@@CR0WYT I think if you give people the best tools to make even better experiences with something like forge then there will absolutely be a demand for it. The way it is now, they don’t make any money off new maps. At least they’d get something back if they did it the way I described. And if they are smart about promoting custom game maps and modes through file share, RU-vid, and the community in general, people will pay for it.
@@agimb2381 I didn't need him to convince me. I've always had this stance. So you're saying a £10 armour set is worth more than a £10 map pack with on average 3 maps plus extras? And games these days are broken before any dlc is even brought up, so at least it worked back in the day for a bit XD Halo definitely had better longevity with map packs since it had Forge. I mean come on, people still play these maps to this day. You think anyone is gonna care about your skin in games 10+ years down the line? Only downside to map packs is it split the playerbase, that's it. As for not being able to play previous map playlist when the next one comes out, that's no different than now when a new map is out.
@@CmdrBrannick Agreed. And the split player base can easily be moderated by simply making it so that if you're partied with someone who doesn't have a certain map it will auto exclude it from the search, but if you solo search the newer maps will be given a priority placement in the matchmaking process and queue. This way you can still play with friends without the maps, but will also still see and play the new maps on your own. Granted that only works in "social playlists" but still. I miss the days where social playlists were actually social, and casual. Not just as sweaty as ranked but with a new game mode/objective.
It was a shame that Halo 3 handled the map packs the way they did. Not downloading them meant you were locked out of certain playlists. Another thing some of the older games did that was poor was not having a dedicated map pack playlist. These maps would be integrated into the main playlists, but if just one player didn’t have the maps, the players who did would never get to play them.
I remember playing battle maps for battlefront 1 2017 and I remember having good memories on the matches sadly they are hard to get into matches now since most of the player base moved to battlefront 2018. :(
A lot of the free maps we get feel like they have no passion put into them at all. Developers knew that if they wanted your money for their map packs back in the day, then they had to make their maps good. These free maps we get are either remakes or new maps that feel terrible to play on like they were just pumped out in an hour or so. Shit if it wasn’t for the Heroic map pack in Halo 3, bringing in Foundry back in the day, I don’t think forge would have ever became the staple it is for Halo now. That one map pack added so much for us to do we basically created a whole game for ourselves to play.
@@Major_Zephyr 800 ms points were $10 USD, that price isn't the same in other countries. The British pound was worth nearly double a US dollar back in 07. And with maps like sandbox and others, they technically, only gave one map, but there were multiple iterations, and arguably different maps made on the template, put into matchmaking, all built on that one map. That's like saying any of the maps made on forge world during halo reach were just 1 map. That's silly.
@@Richard_Frost that is true, but also inflation. $10 back then is $15 today. Despite that, idk where you're getting 14 new maps haha. Map packs were 3 new maps, each costing 800 Microsoft points. 14 maps would cost at least $40-$50. Also isn't it kind of problematic they put the best and only truly functional forge map behind a paywall? People would be freaking out today if that were the case, you couldn't even play those maps without paying. Vs today where all maps and forge updates are free
These videos are getting me sad man. I feel old. I am ready enjoying the new video content. This is great stuff. Turok, UI, Monitization great vid series keep up the great work.
Man, the comments section here genuinely depresses me, and I don't know if it's just because I'm old. As someone who grew up with an Arcade Xbox 360 who couldn't install any DLC I have to say I wholeheartedly disagree. Not getting to play with any of my friends in BTB in Halo 3 for nearly two years because I couldn't afford a stupid hard drive just sucked and it just excluded people from being able to join their friends if they couldn't afford the packs. As a matter of fact, I remember when the DLCs first came out, people were complaining about missing the good ol days of gaming when everything was in it. Need I remind you guys of Arby n' The Chief's very first episode where Arbiter questions the worth of the heroic map pack for ten bucks? And here we are, a decade later and now we've come full-circle where that horrible shit was considered the good ol days. Really is crazy how times change and new generations of gamers grow up with certain standards. Fuck map packs, I'm so happy they're gone. I hate battle passes too but at least its usually for just cosmetic shit. At least now all the maps are free going forward, excluding people from being able to play with one another was the reason why map packs (thankfully) died. Map packs should be the one way monetization should never, ever return. Fuck me I'd even take loot boxes over it.
Totally feel you man, he says at the beginning of the video that it's not just nostalgia talking but it absolutely is. Mappacks were terrible, and the gaming community wanted to move away from them for a reason. I'd rather monetized optional cosmetics over monetized gameplay content any day. That creates far more FOMO than cosmetics ever could.
I'm mixed on it. In a perfect world, current monetization practices would be perfect, and while I don't care much about cosmetics, I know many do. I'm personally more about playing content instead of being forced to play it by a paywall. If you start doing that, I'll just start playing mods or another game. World At War on PC actually had it's map packs for free, and it was the way I played those legendary maps for the first time (as well as over 100 custom maps). I personally think mod support is a thing that every game needs, not just something that is relegated to Valve games, old games and the occasional modern game. Sure, you can argue that mods don't have the quality of officially made content, but mods like Entropy: Zero 2 really feel like dev made content.
Map packs themselves are a good way of monetizing a game but I have to say the prices on a lot of them were definitely too much. $50 pn top of the $60 for COD was ridiculous and the season pass shouldve been at most like $25 imo
Black Ops 4 trade in system they introduced after the games life cycle makes the most sense as a middle ground. You earn them through playing and can save them up for something you want and can trade them in for bundles, skins, or weapons
Live Service is defintely worse but we shouldn't advocate for the idea of bringing back one bad system because another is worse. Map Packs had SEVERE issues not just with pricing not equaling the real value but also splitting playerbases.
I think that the Treyarch Call of Duty map packs had the best value. You got 4 Multiplayer maps + a Zombies map (which that alone gave you hours of content) every 2-3 months. I'll never forget when i was a kid and i got my first Microsoft points, i was so excited and instantly bought the Black Ops Map Pack which gave you moon and all the World at War zombie maps remastered for BO1. It made me happy because i was buying and playing new content in one of my favourite games at the time and it also felt like a lot of effort went into those map packs back then
The problem with monetisation Vs paid map packs/expansions (passes) is that the latter had to often *promise* content. Like compare BF3/BF4/BF1 Vs BFV/2042 for Battlefield, we saw a massive reduction in post launch content and content droughts. What's the incentive to make maps when you can make MTX or Battle Passes?
I think after a certain amount of time that has passed, map packs should be completely free. At least Microsoft eventually made map pack DLC free for Halo and Gears games on the 360. COD games are still charging full price for their old DLC.
i remember getting diamond camo in black ops 2 and feeling cheaped out when paid camos came out and looked cooler than my diamond. But the journey of getting diamond was so frustrating and worth it in the end for me. (snipers and ARs)
I was literally talking about this with my friends when we were downtown last night. Having like a $4-$5 map pack that had like 3 to 4 maps was awesome and it meant you didn't have to get it to enjoy the game. I remember at the time my friends were freaking out about the price but now we're at this state with microtransactions. It's truly insane to see how much this has changed over the years. Great video!
@@nikkivaughan2524 same principle, but not sure how you arrived at those numbers haha. Also you don't have to get optional paid cosmetics to enjoy the game so you could say the same thing for today's system. If anything, optional cosmetics actually create less FOMO than mappacks did
@@Major_Zephyr I was thinking about cosmetic packs when I typed that. I realized the mistake after that. And when you have games that are offering paid DLC that gives unfair advantages to those who buy it, whether that be weapons or cosmetics, it ruins the game for anyone else, so there are games that make it only enjoyable for those that spend a lot of money on the game
Problem is how devs ruined MTXs. I don't think it is bad, but they messed it up. Kinda like how you said Halo 3 didn't do Map Packs right. Titanfall 2 I think did MTXs well without impacting gameplay at all. I would 100% rather have Map Packs than what we currently have for MTXs, but I would rather have Titanfall 2's type of MTX's than Map Packs...haha Great Video!!
Aren't map / expansion packs now supposed to be season passes? It doesn't seem like these expansions would be priced reasonably seeing how extremely monetized they make cosmetics. One of them bars new content behind a fixed price while the other just offers visual skins that don't affect game play at all. We haven't even discussed just how much content can the devs hide behind an expansion pack. Sounds like a double-edged sword to me.
I agree to an extent, but I can't fully agree for a couple of reasons(I'm going to be using COD for my argument because it's what I'm most familiar with). 1. All playable content being free means more people get to play them(if you didn't buy the DLC, you'd be unable to stay in the same lobby if a DLC map comes up). 2. Similarly to #1, you don't have to pay $60 on top of the then $60, now $70 games. 3. When done right, we've gotten overall more content than 4 Map Packs ever gave us. Cold War did its post launch content near perfect(content filled seasons, actual good cosmetics, good progression, etc). Your argument isn't that Map Packs are better, it's that the new system isn't ideal. If we still had Map Packs, we'd still be getting the same content just behind a paywall(it already went down that path with weapons being locked behind loot boxes). I'd rather pay $10 for a battlepass to get weapons than spending anywhere between Zero and Thousands of dollars for the chance to get a weapon from a supply drop. I miss getting huge content drops, but as someone that really only cared about Zombies, I had to drop $15 a pack(or $60 for the season pass), just to end up with what is only really a $5 value($20). On top of that, if I wanted a new weapon in Zombies(depending on the game), I'd have to grind MP or spend COD Points to get Supply Drops. I know you didn't really use it as an argument, but Season Passes Guaranteeing content is false. Publishers can and will cancel announced DLC if they deem it necessary(FFXV being an example), plus the content in said Season Passes can be changed on a whim. I'd love to go back to getting a huge content drop every 2 1/2-3 months, but getting more, "sometimes" smaller drops isn't too bad. Of course, MWII and Vanguard didn't do this well, but Cold War pretty much nailed it, so as long as Treyarch bring their A Game to their next game, I'm perfectly content.
I forgot to add that there were some Map Packs that people regret buying(at least for full prince). Here's an example. My older brother asked my Mom for Map Pack 2 for BO1, but he ended up not liking Call of the Dead, so he regretted not getting a DLC for a different game(I liked it so it wasn't a total loss), then he asked for Map Pack 3 in order to get Shangri-la when it came out, which he also didn't end up liking(I'm not a huge Shang fan either)so it was another waste. My point is that Map Packs came at the risk of not liking some, if not all of its content, while bad, free content drops might just make you not play the game as much.
It is truly impressive just how poorly thought out this video was to not point out the elephant into the room that was the way map packs split player bases. If you got the map pack but none of the boys did you're screwed. If you happen to find a lobby with no map pack buyers, you're screwed. If you get on with 4 of the boys and even one doesn't have the map pack. You're screwed. Map packs were a giant fucking waste of money.
I like to call bullshit on map packs being better for gaming. Map packs divided the player base for many multi-player games. Just because I bought the map pack doesn't mean everyone else, and as time moved on the servers and for the new maps became more empty and we just went back base maps. Do I like live services and drip-fed content? Hell no! But I also don't like something I paid for being worthless within a few months. Also, monetization was worse than what we have with battlepasses, and we all know what we are talking about. You spend $60 on a game, $50 on the season pass, and an ungodly amount of money on a digital slot machine for chance to get what you want. Call of Duty, Battlefield, Halo, Overwatch, all had this money stealing nightmare detriment their games. Battlefield 1's only real customization were weapon and vehicle skins. COD locked all of their new weapons behind slot machines. The only way you could get anything in Overwatch was through loot boxes. And put this in mind that this was before cross play, so you would have to gamble again to get your favorite weapon/skin on another platform. In conclusion, all systems are broken, and 2007 to 2011 aren't coming back.
map packs really extended the life and the hype for the game throughout it's life cycle. For example: bo2 and bo3, every time they announced their dlcs', the hype was real.
I'm all on board with trash talking modern monetization but optional cosmetics > optional gameplay additions. It's straight-up false that not getting map packs had no negative effects, and anybody who played with a group of friends knows this. The answer isn't going back to the days of splitting player bases, the answer is not paying for poor content and lackluster games at launch, but no one is willing boycott these practices when every purchase includes a victim card to pull out right up till the next purchase. If the average game came with great content at launch, and the purchasable items were affordable and additive to an already great pool of choices, nobody would miss map packs. Nobody is nostalgic for not being able to play new content with their friends because their parents told them they couldn't buy the DLC.
That was my thought too. I remember buying a map pack for BF1 back in the day and even back when it was the only BF game, it was still hard to find games on those maps.
Best way to do Map-Packs now would be what Payday 2 has been doing. The biggest issue with map packs was splitting the playerbase but that doesn't matter when anyone can play the DLC maps as long as the host owns them.
The Black Ops one incentivized treyarch to put out banger MP and Zombies maps and Bungie to put out PvP maps in Destiny. I loved and miss map packs, the only game that was really hurt by it was Dices first Battlefront, where players were locked out of content and the playerbase dwindled…
I hear ya dawg, but I guess the golden era was just that. A memory we will all cherish. It's all about the money. The gaming market has risen to new heights in my opinion, and I would be doing the same thing if I was a developer right now. It's a business at the end of the day dawgs.
People give them a hard time for the way dying light 2 has turned out so far, but one reason I have a lot of respect for techland is because they use the old style of monetization that doesn't harm our bank accounts in a nasty way, but also blend it with consistent improvements and updates, essentially being the best of both worlds
Halo 2 & 3 even reach map packs were awesome. only issue that they rarely went on sale if at all so you had to pay full price (luckily they were only $10-15)
and trying to get into older games that have Season Passes/DLC now is terrible. If you want to play an older COD, you can get them pretty cheap, but the DLC is pretty much never on sale, so you still have to pay over $60 for a 10+ year old game.
They where good in the early days when there where only a handful of multiplayer games, but I remember as there became more and more options they used to create issues where if you got a map pack for the first few weeks match making times would be abysmal and you'd constantly be playing with the same people, then after a few weeks you'd pretty much never see the old maps as everyone just played the new ones. They also started to get more and more expensive and to the point they almost cost as much as a full game, and rarely went on sale, meaning players who wanted to get into it later on in the games life needed to effectively buy 2/3 games so they could play with the bulk of the community. I remember the community campaigning to get battlefield switched over to a free update system like other games as their map packs where just destroying the match maker. Not saying the current system is better, but I think we need to push for a new system that works with modern gaming, rather than lament an out of date system that we started to hate for good reason.
