While I agree with what you're saying here, I feel like Gears isn't the best example. The sheer amount of maps and modes that will ship with that game (along with a campaign that is apparently more lengthy than the other two) is going to be well worth the $60. The game is obviously finished months before its release date. If they know they're going to make DLC maps, are they really going to sit around twiddling their thumbs just so people don't feel like they're shorting the retail game? Of course not. They're going to get to work on the maps they know they're going to make anyway.

But you are implying that they did the retail maps and the DLC maps at different times.  I am saying that they do ALL of the maps at the same time (develop, test, etc.) and then just set 12 of them to the side to release at three later dates.  I do agree that the retail game will be worth the $60, I just feel that for my $60 I should get all of the content that has been developed for the game at the point of retail release.  I know this isn't how it works, it's just how I feel.

I agree with you to some extent, but it's a little more complicated than that. There will be a generous amount of maps in Gears 3 and that's why I won't complain about the DLC being tested now rather than later. That means we'll all get maps sooner. By all means, though, complain about Halo or CoD. I'll use Reach as an example. $10 for 3 maps, one of which is a Firefight map for a mode no one plays? Waste.

My point is, what's the cut-off point for when they're allowed to work on DLC? Are they supposed to wait until after the game releases just so they won't piss people off? More than likely people will complain about the extra wait and claim that they're not supporting their game.

Here's the problem:

One of the biggest complaints made against the CoD series and the FPS genre of late in general is a lack of creativity. The new game is not much different from the old one but with a different (often slapped together) single player storyline. Instead of becoming more creative with their content however, Treyarch and Activision did what essentially equals a copy and paste operation (WaW and BLOps use the same engine) and charge $20+ for an absolute work of laziness. But because they tellt he customers it's a "must have", they snatch it up by the millions.

Now consider that other companies see this as a successful business model and do the same thing. Stuff sold a year ago gets relabelled and resold to the same people that they sold it to last year. It's not creativity, it's laziness, and this action promotes laziness.

Yes, Treyarch and Activision are businesses, I do not argue that. The issue is that they give the message that they need to be "supported" and that they need consumers loyalty, while thinking behind closed doors "What a bunch of stupid idiots!" Consumers need to wake up and realize that they must be treated like a business and to stop encouraging this lazy crap and certainly to stop defending it.

I think Bob summed it up quite nicely for me.

Who makes these complaints? It's definitely not the majority of the hundreds of thousands of people who bought the game and continue to play it nearly a year later.

You act as if people are buying this content against their will, but you can't name any real problem with the business model other than the fact that you seemingly want the maps for free.

Seriously, how is this a problem? You claim people are upset that there is a lack of creativity in Black Ops. Who wants creativity? People want fun, and that's what CoD's multiplayer has been delivering to fans for years now. You can't deliver the huge number of customers Black Ops did just on name and marketing alone.

So, what's the problem? Are all of these customers pissed off, yet still playing for some reason? Are they just ignorant and stupid? I honestly can't understand what you're complaining about unless it's simply that you don't want to pay for the maps, and even then, I don't see why you can't just play without them. I do, and it's still great.

Obviously we make these complaints, as well as the several dedicated gamers who bother joining online communities. Just look at any video on MW3 and you're bound to find several people who openly state their distaste towards the series now.

The majority of people who buy these map packs are casual enough to not bother with online forums, hence why you never see them defending the content.

As for the "problem": Oversaturating the market with a specific type of content not only implies greed on the part of the developer/publisher, but it also waters down the quality of the core game. I think Star Wars re-releases whenever stuff like this comes up.

Not to mention the point that several other have made: charging upwards of 15 dollars for something that used to be free...more often than not, anyhow.

You few are hardly representative of the average Call of Duty player, so why would you expect Activision to cater toward the vocal few when the happy lot are too busy playing or simply satisfied and don't mind paying for additional content?

And how is charging for something that used to be free some terrible thing and not just good business? Put yourself in the shoes of Treyarch and Activision. People are dying to play your new game the moment it comes out and are eager for new content in the form of multiplayer maps. Why, then, would you take the time and effort (aka money) to provide that additional content for free? If anyone is on the fence of buying the game because of this additional content, they are an extremely small minority that don't hold a candle to the amount of money the majority are willing to spend. You would be crazy to pass up the opportuinity to make that money, as would they.

As for watering down the market, Call of Duty is doing no such thing. It's the dozens of knock-offs and wannabe developers ignorantlyt trying to cash-in on Activision's thunder that are watering down their own games. Franchises like Call of Duty, Battlefield, and Halo are the lush, tropical islands in a boring sea of nothing. People like to pit the big franchises against one another, but at the end of the day, they're all really fun, really successful games that do what they do well. Annual Call of Duty and premium DLC isn't watering down the franchise. People are eager to pay for it and Activistion is happy to deliver.

You represent a vocal minority that, for some reason, isn't satisfied with content that hundreds of thousands of people are. I'm not sure why, though. I'm totally satisfied with Black Ops without the maps, and I've been playing since December. If I had a lot more disposable income, I'd probably have the maps, but they're obviously not essential to my having fun with the game.

So, what's the problem? What do you want out of the franchise, something other than what so many of us fell in love with in Call of Duty 4? Loads and loads of people are happily on board. We don't need radical departures or free DLC to be happy. Why do you?

Good Lord, Chas, we're not saying that Activision isn't doing what's good for them (business wise). It's obvious they're reaping some benefits from this constant supply of minor content; otherwise, they would have stopped doing it at Black Ops' first map pack.

Still, one could argue that supplying constant upgrades is bad business now, the same as it was for SEGA during the Genesis days. There are plenty of people out there (not exclusive to this site, as you implied I was assuming) who would rather pay for the entire car, than small parts over time...if you know what I'm trying to say.

If MW3 is going to release one overpriced map pack after the other, then I see no reason for me to buy the game at all...because it will feel incomplete to me. That, in many ways, is "bad business."

Short-term versus long-term gains is an important aspect to a successful product, yet it's something that Activision didn't quite think through with this series.

Still, what I wonder is why you defend minor, pointless transactions with such fervor. It's not like you, nor consumers really benefit from such things.

The only ones who benefit from it are in a category far from yours...who see you as more of a statistic than a supporter.

No, I don't see how "supplying constant upgrades is bad business" in this case. That's because the maps don't offer anything so radically different that you're missing out on a drastically different experience. You're still playing Call of Duty multiplayer with or without the new maps, and it's sill great. Your car comparison doesn't apply here because it's not like the DLC is essential to the game's basic features. I don't need or bother with the maps for the same reason I don't need or bother with a better sound system or nice rims.

If you choose to pass on MW3 because you know Activision will sell a handful of additional maps for a price after the game is released, then I have to question why it is you enjoy playing Call of Duty at all. These maps are just something extra, just another field to run around in and kill people in the event you got bored with the wide variety offered with the disc. It's not new weapons or perks or anything else that makes the people who pay better than the people who don't.

I defend the business because so few people who are passionate enough to discuss games online have any sense when it comes to the business aspect of the industry they claim to love. We argue that games that bomb are somehow good and failed because of poor marketing or "casual gamers" and that games that sell like crazy are boring and watering down the market despite their continued success. In this case, I'm defending Call of Duty DLC because I just can't understand how anyone can justify a claim that map packs that sell so well are somehow bad when all the evidence points to fans and developers alike agreeing they're a good thing. The customer is always right. If the customer decided this DLC was bad, Activision would eventually realize this and come up with a strategy that worked. So, again, I just can't understand all the venom for something that is so obviously well-received by all but a vocal minority.

I spoke with some Sony guys about the Black Ops map packs yesterday, and they love them -- the fact that they bring in so much bank.

I guess these things sell better than we'd like to admit...

I've gotten countless hours of replay from the zombie mode maps alone.  Couldn't tell you a thing about the other maps in the map packs, sadly.  But we're talking 20-40 hours EACH ZOMBIE MAP.

Five... Verrukt... Der Riese... Call of the Dead... based on fun and time spent, I'd call each and every one of those maps more exciting than most games I've played this gen.  When compared to full-fledged games, I know for a fact my buds and I have spent FAR more time replaying A SINGLE MAP using different strategies and techniques than we have spent on any other game.  Borderlands may be the only exception.

I'd go so far as to say some of my favorite moments in gaming this generation have come during the Nazi Zombie maps.  

Look down on me all you want.  I don't care.  I'm busy trying to make it to level 30 on the Moon map....