LogFAQs > #902691934

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Microsoft did a lot of good things for consoles
Smashingpmkns 06/07/18 12:57:20 AM #25:	1337toothbrush posted... Darmik posted... 1337toothbrush posted... Free DLC was rare on the 360. Epic, a major partner, had to beg Microsoft to let them "sponsor" a free map for Gears of War. Microsoft was the publisher for that game though. You made it sound like you were talking about third parties. The same policy applied to third-parties. If they wanted to release free content, it'd be considered a "patch". After the first patch, the developers have to pay a substantial sum. Also, a patch couldn't exceed a certain size (and it was a very restrictive size) in order to fit on the memory card for Xbox 360s that didn't have a hard drive. This restriction didn't exist for paid DLC. I assume if Microsoft let them upload all of that for free on their servers they would be eating a ton of cost. The companies had the option to not charge for their DLC though as long as MS wasn't the publisher of the game. But to assert MS should host their stuff for free is a little crazy. Also, restricting data size of DLC was more consumer friendly than anything. Not only for bandwidth but if you happened to buy the cheaper versions of the hardware you weren't 100% fucked when it comes to DLC. Now we have 100 gig game downloads, but back then was different. --- Clean Butt Crew <cite>Smashingpmkns posted [p:902691934] in Microsoft ... [t:76681743]...</cite> <quote><cite>1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Darmik posted...</cite> <quote> <cite>1337toothbrush posted...</cite> <quote> Free DLC was rare on the 360. Epic, a major partner, had to beg Microsoft to let them "sponsor" a free map for Gears of War. </quote> Microsoft was the publisher for that game though. You made it sound like you were talking about third parties.</quote> The same policy applied to third-parties. If they wanted to release free content, it'd be considered a "patch". After the first patch, the developers have to pay a substantial sum. Also, a patch couldn't exceed a certain size (and it was a very restrictive size) in order to fit on the memory card for Xbox 360s that didn't have a hard drive. This restriction didn't exist for paid DLC.</quote> I assume if Microsoft let them upload all of that for free on their servers they would be eating a ton of cost. The companies had the option to not charge for their DLC though as long as MS wasn't the publisher of the game. But to assert MS should host their stuff for free is a little crazy. Also, restricting data size of DLC was more consumer friendly than anything. Not only for bandwidth but if you happened to buy the cheaper versions of the hardware you weren't 100% fucked when it comes to DLC. Now we have 100 gig game downloads, but back then was different. --- Clean Butt Crew</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1