Halo 3: ODST Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Read my post before voting!
  • Subject: Read my post before voting!
Subject: Read my post before voting!

Yes we are paying for something twice. All that is new is the campaign and Firefight. The second disc includes Halo 3 MM, theater and forge, which I already have on my Halo 3 disc.

  • 07.06.2009 11:14 AM PDT

ლ(ಠ_ಠლ),ಠ_ಠ,ʘ_ʘ,ಥ_ಥ,ᶘ ᵒᴥᵒᶅ ,ᶘ ಠᴥಠᶅ,ᶘᵒᴥᵒ ʘ‿ʘᶅʕ·͡ᴥ·ʔ@[393703897340448:]

Posted by: The_omen
Posted by: Armedsavage01
Ok im going to break this down in retail sense.
lets say odst is a set of silver wear
Now lets say you come into my store
You have already bought a fork in the past
You just want a knife and spoon
But they are sold in a set with some forks which you already have :O
You are upset and want to break the set so you can only purchase the knife and spoon
I tell you you can not do this
You ask why I say because the knife and spoon can not be sold seperatley
You tell me you have already payed for the forks
I say well I can not verrify this and that not everyone owns forks
You get mad or realize that you have to buy every thing in a set as a whole even if you payed for it in the past.
You now want the priced lowered but I also cant do that because I would be giving away free stuff I would get fired for giving you free forks.
Do you understand yet?


Did you only read my first question in the post that was addressed to you? Read it all please.

Secondly, why does it matter if there are some that aren't paying for something twice. Why does it matter if there are those that didn't buy the forks? As long as there are those that DID buy the forks, they should have a silverware set that doesn't include it. In real life, there are both sets with forks&knifes, forks on themselves, and knifes on themselves. In this case however, there aren't two different versions of the game.

I bought a bag of chips. That was a week ago. Now I want to buy some cookies. Well I can't unless I buy a bag of chips again. Of course, there are some that haven't bought the chips. But isn't it better for those that haven't bought the chips to buy them separately if they want to? Instead of being forced to buy the chips with the cookies? This way it would help both groups. Those that bought the chips and those that haven't. That way, everyone wins and those that haven't bought the chips have something magical called choice, instead of being forced.
The silver wear is just a senario yes I know you can buy each of the items seperatly but you do understand alittle. It may seem unfair to make a customer to "possibly" pay for an item agian, well thats business and Microsoft is smart thats why they choose to do this they are smart and they are greedy bastards we all know this. Thing is they wont split ODST into seperate parts since they know we will buy it as is with little hesitation. If they priced it higher which they easily could have they would have more profit but many unhappy costomers which could hurt them in future sales. Sad thing is theres really no where else to go if your unhappy with Microsoft you could go to SONY or Nintendo but they do the same thing so its a never ending circle.

  • 07.06.2009 11:15 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Armedsavage01
Posted by: The_omen
Posted by: Armedsavage01
Ok im going to break this down in retail sense.
lets say odst is a set of silver wear
Now lets say you come into my store
You have already bought a fork in the past
You just want a knife and spoon
But they are sold in a set with some forks which you already have :O
You are upset and want to break the set so you can only purchase the knife and spoon
I tell you you can not do this
You ask why I say because the knife and spoon can not be sold seperatley
You tell me you have already payed for the forks
I say well I can not verrify this and that not everyone owns forks
You get mad or realize that you have to buy every thing in a set as a whole even if you payed for it in the past.
You now want the priced lowered but I also cant do that because I would be giving away free stuff I would get fired for giving you free forks.
Do you understand yet?


Did you only read my first question in the post that was addressed to you? Read it all please.

Secondly, why does it matter if there are some that aren't paying for something twice. Why does it matter if there are those that didn't buy the forks? As long as there are those that DID buy the forks, they should have a silverware set that doesn't include it. In real life, there are both sets with forks&knifes, forks on themselves, and knifes on themselves. In this case however, there aren't two different versions of the game.

I bought a bag of chips. That was a week ago. Now I want to buy some cookies. Well I can't unless I buy a bag of chips again. Of course, there are some that haven't bought the chips. But isn't it better for those that haven't bought the chips to buy them separately if they want to? Instead of being forced to buy the chips with the cookies? This way it would help both groups. Those that bought the chips and those that haven't. That way, everyone wins and those that haven't bought the chips have something magical called choice, instead of being forced.
The silver wear is just a senario yes I know you can buy each of the items seperatly but you do understand alittle. It may seem unfair to make a customer to "possibly" pay for an item agian, well thats business and Microsoft is smart thats why they choose to do this they are smart and they are greedy bastards we all know this. Thing is they wont split ODST into seperate parts since they know we will buy it as is with little hesitation. If they priced it higher which they easily could have they would have more profit but many unhappy costomers which could hurt them in future sales. Sad thing is theres really no where else to go if your unhappy with Microsoft you could go to SONY or Nintendo but they do the same thing so its a never ending circle.


I agree with you. MS will not think twice about this issue. This is unsettling but I will, like you stated, unhesitatingly buy the game. I will even force a small smile while I do it.

However, it is agreed that we are paying for something twice, whether or not there are those that haven't, right? That is the question after all.

  • 07.06.2009 11:20 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: darkops0
Not to be rude, but... Is that the only evidence you have? Could you use other sites as well?

Yes I can: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/11/microsoft-responds-to-incre ased-price-for-halo-3-odst/

  • 07.06.2009 11:22 AM PDT

Er, we're paying for something twice because we will buy it twice... business, business, business.

  • 07.06.2009 11:23 AM PDT

ლ(ಠ_ಠლ),ಠ_ಠ,ʘ_ʘ,ಥ_ಥ,ᶘ ᵒᴥᵒᶅ ,ᶘ ಠᴥಠᶅ,ᶘᵒᴥᵒ ʘ‿ʘᶅʕ·͡ᴥ·ʔ@[393703897340448:]

Posted by: The_omen
Posted by: Armedsavage01
Posted by: The_omen
Posted by: Armedsavage01
Ok im going to break this down in retail sense.
lets say odst is a set of silver wear
Now lets say you come into my store
You have already bought a fork in the past
You just want a knife and spoon
But they are sold in a set with some forks which you already have :O
You are upset and want to break the set so you can only purchase the knife and spoon
I tell you you can not do this
You ask why I say because the knife and spoon can not be sold seperatley
You tell me you have already payed for the forks
I say well I can not verrify this and that not everyone owns forks
You get mad or realize that you have to buy every thing in a set as a whole even if you payed for it in the past.
You now want the priced lowered but I also cant do that because I would be giving away free stuff I would get fired for giving you free forks.
Do you understand yet?


Did you only read my first question in the post that was addressed to you? Read it all please.

Secondly, why does it matter if there are some that aren't paying for something twice. Why does it matter if there are those that didn't buy the forks? As long as there are those that DID buy the forks, they should have a silverware set that doesn't include it. In real life, there are both sets with forks&knifes, forks on themselves, and knifes on themselves. In this case however, there aren't two different versions of the game.

I bought a bag of chips. That was a week ago. Now I want to buy some cookies. Well I can't unless I buy a bag of chips again. Of course, there are some that haven't bought the chips. But isn't it better for those that haven't bought the chips to buy them separately if they want to? Instead of being forced to buy the chips with the cookies? This way it would help both groups. Those that bought the chips and those that haven't. That way, everyone wins and those that haven't bought the chips have something magical called choice, instead of being forced.
The silver wear is just a senario yes I know you can buy each of the items seperatly but you do understand alittle. It may seem unfair to make a customer to "possibly" pay for an item agian, well thats business and Microsoft is smart thats why they choose to do this they are smart and they are greedy bastards we all know this. Thing is they wont split ODST into seperate parts since they know we will buy it as is with little hesitation. If they priced it higher which they easily could have they would have more profit but many unhappy costomers which could hurt them in future sales. Sad thing is theres really no where else to go if your unhappy with Microsoft you could go to SONY or Nintendo but they do the same thing so its a never ending circle.


I agree with you. MS will not think twice about this issue. This is unsettling but I will, like you stated, unhesitatingly buy the game. I will even force a small smile while I do it.

However, it is agreed that we are paying for something twice, whether or not there are those that haven't, right? That is the question after all.
Yes we are paying for the same thing twice ,thats taking in that we purchased Halo 3 . Thats not to say everyone has and thats where I agree with Microsofts choice to charge for this product. Is it completely fair? ... no but business is not fair and it never will be.

[Edited on 07.06.2009 11:26 AM PDT]

  • 07.06.2009 11:25 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

" Truth? You will Never know Truth!"

"My tears cannot cover the blood that has been spill."

"I lead my troops into battle. With strong morale and man power, we will overcome the invaders!"

Posted by: The_omen
Posted by: darkops0
Not to be rude, but... Is that the only evidence you have? Could you use other sites as well?

Yes I can: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/11/microsoft-responds-to-incre ased-price-for-halo-3-odst/



0.o *shocked* You just hit the bomb...

But people will still buy it Lol

  • 07.06.2009 11:25 AM PDT

http://www.phoinixugc.com

The AR is an awesome weapon, RESPECT IT AS SUCH!!!

why does no-one consider the ODST game itself to be worth $60?
originally, it was just an add-on, and now it is a full game. just accept the fact that the game by itself is a whole new game. the second disc, which everyone seems to agree is worth about $30-$40, meaning that the game should cost $90-$100.
this is why i dont think we are playing too much.

  • 07.06.2009 11:30 AM PDT

[quote]Chances are if you're a hardcore Halo player, you already own the multiplayer maps, so you'll basically be paying for content you already own.[quote]

Bungie, wake up and stop this nightmare of nonsense. It's crisis and they come with overpriced games -.-

  • 07.06.2009 11:49 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: UntouchedNic
why does no-one consider the ODST game itself to be worth $60?
originally, it was just an add-on, and now it is a full game. just accept the fact that the game by itself is a whole new game. the second disc, which everyone seems to agree is worth about $30-$40, meaning that the game should cost $90-$100.
this is why i dont think we are playing too much.


The game itself doesn't cost $60. Why? Now I don't know for sure, but common sense says it's not.. Here:

When Bungie said that the game was worth 35 dollars, they must have been close to finishing it. Why? Because if they weren't, then why would estimate a price? It wouldn't be fair to do so unless they were close to finishing. Now that was about 3-4 months ago. They couldn't possibly add content to constitute a $60 dollar price tag in that small amount of time. They couldn't because they would have had to change everything. The story. the dialouge, the scenery, think of new things to add, test it, make sure it works. They couldn't have done it that fast in that amount of time, specially since the game is being worked on by a small team (as bungie has stated multiple times in the Weekly updates).

Firefight couldn't have been added also in that time because bungie said in their latest podcast that they were playing this game in the pentathlon Olympic (thingies, which was this last Christmas).

So, since it is nearly impossible to add new things to the campaign, they added Halo 3 multiplayer to constitute the price.

[Edited on 07.06.2009 11:56 AM PDT]

  • 07.06.2009 11:49 AM PDT

LW45 TS40 TO40 TSW35 TSN35 TT30 SB30 MLG25

Yes, we are paying for the same thing twice. A short campaign, a co-operative game mode and three new maps do not constitute a full game. Can you imagine Epic Games selling Gears of War 2 for $60 if it only came with half the campaign, Horde, and three maps for Gears of War 1?

The maps are factored into the price tag. Therefore we are paying for them twice.

  • 07.06.2009 12:14 PM PDT

Duracell.
I don't keep going and going and going and...
but i Start, and just don't Stop.

So what if the saxophone is black?
it has better tone the the gold one.
damn straight i play Jazz.

Posted by: porkstein
Yes, we are paying for the same thing twice. A short campaign, a co-operative game mode and three new maps do not constitute a full game. Can you imagine Epic Games selling Gears of War 2 for $60 if it only came with half the campaign, Horde, and three maps for Gears of War 1?

The maps are factored into the price tag. Therefore we are paying for them twice.


the campaign is no longer 'short' it is now full length

  • 07.06.2009 12:57 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: darkops0
Posted by: The_omen
Posted by: darkops0
Not to be rude, but... Is that the only evidence you have? Could you use other sites as well?

Yes I can: http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/11/microsoft-responds-to-incre ased-price-for-halo-3-odst/



0.o *shocked* You just hit the bomb...

But people will still buy it Lol


And you know, that's why this problem exists. Because we will buy it. It's sad to see this but there's nothing we can do.

I've never felt so helpless. :P I wish we could all just say "NO WE WON'T BUY IT!" but that's never going to happen. And even if it did there's a slim chance that it will do anything. I wish bungie could publish their own games. (it's too late now, halo belongs to MS)

="(

[Edited on 07.06.2009 1:02 PM PDT]

  • 07.06.2009 1:01 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: Phoenix1330
Posted by: porkstein
Yes, we are paying for the same thing twice. A short campaign, a co-operative game mode and three new maps do not constitute a full game. Can you imagine Epic Games selling Gears of War 2 for $60 if it only came with half the campaign, Horde, and three maps for Gears of War 1?

The maps are factored into the price tag. Therefore we are paying for them twice.


the campaign is no longer 'short' it is now full length


VVVVVV

Posted by: The_omen
When Bungie said that the game was worth 35 dollars, they must have been close to finishing it. Why? Because if they weren't, then why would estimate a price? It wouldn't be fair to do so unless they were close to finishing. Now that was about 3-4 months ago. They couldn't possibly add content to constitute a $60 dollar price tag in that small amount of time. They couldn't because they would have had to change everything. The story. the dialouge, the scenery, think of new things to add, test it, make sure it works. They couldn't have done it that fast in that amount of time, specially since the game is being worked on by a small team (as bungie has stated multiple times in the Weekly updates).

Firefight couldn't have been added also in that time because bungie said in their latest podcast that they were playing this game in the pentathlon Olympic (thingies, which was this last Christmas).

So, since it is nearly impossible to add new things to the campaign, they added Halo 3 multiplayer to constitute the price.

  • 07.06.2009 1:04 PM PDT

LW45 TS40 TO40 TSW35 TSN35 TT30 SB30 MLG25

Posted by: Phoenix1330
Posted by: porkstein
Yes, we are paying for the same thing twice. A short campaign, a co-operative game mode and three new maps do not constitute a full game. Can you imagine Epic Games selling Gears of War 2 for $60 if it only came with half the campaign, Horde, and three maps for Gears of War 1?

The maps are factored into the price tag. Therefore we are paying for them twice.


the campaign is no longer 'short' it is now full length


You have no evidence to support that statement.

But even if you did, that still only leaves us with a campaign, a co-operative game mode and three maps for a two-year-old game.

  • 07.06.2009 1:04 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

Well the way I see it, Im paying for ODST and 3 new maps, for $60, with the addition of all the other maps. There are games far shorter, and with far less content than ODST has, and those are still $60, and you dont bat an eye when you buy those do you? For example,: X-Men origins: Wolverine, That game has a campaign and a couple side missions, thats it, however, no one complains about that games price. ODST has; a new campaign, new co-op game mode, the mythic maps, and all of Halo 3's multiplayer, and you people are whining your asses off because you think its overpriced? If Bungie had never said that ODST was supposed to be worth $35 then not a single one of you would be complaining about this.

  • 07.06.2009 1:49 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: cB4d93
Well the way I see it, Im paying for ODST and 3 new maps, for $60, with the addition of all the other maps. There are games far shorter, and with far less content than ODST has, and those are still $60, and you dont bat an eye when you buy those do you? For example,: X-Men origins: Wolverine, That game has a campaign and a couple side missions, thats it, however, no one complains about that games price. ODST has; a new campaign, new co-op game mode, the mythic maps, and all of Halo 3's multiplayer, and you people are whining your asses off because you think its overpriced? If Bungie had never said that ODST was supposed to be worth $35 then not a single one of you would be complaining about this.

You fail to see why we're "complaining". We're not complaining because its has little content. We're complaining because it is making us pay twice for something if we want ODST. X men origins didn't make us pay twice for something did it?

Do you understand now?

  • 07.06.2009 1:53 PM PDT

LW45 TS40 TO40 TSW35 TSN35 TT30 SB30 MLG25

Posted by: cB4d93
There are games far shorter, and with far less content than ODST has, and those are still $60, and you dont bat an eye when you buy those do you?


Exactly. I see those games as such incredibly poor value for money that I don't even think twice about not buying them. Plus, at least with games like those, content that customers already own aren't factored into the price tag.

[Edited on 07.06.2009 1:56 PM PDT]

  • 07.06.2009 1:55 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

Posted by: The_omen
Posted by: cB4d93
Well the way I see it, Im paying for ODST and 3 new maps, for $60, with the addition of all the other maps. There are games far shorter, and with far less content than ODST has, and those are still $60, and you dont bat an eye when you buy those do you? For example,: X-Men origins: Wolverine, That game has a campaign and a couple side missions, thats it, however, no one complains about that games price. ODST has; a new campaign, new co-op game mode, the mythic maps, and all of Halo 3's multiplayer, and you people are whining your asses off because you think its overpriced? If Bungie had never said that ODST was supposed to be worth $35 then not a single one of you would be complaining about this.

You fail to see why we're "complaining". We're not complaining because its has little content. We're complaining because it is making us pay twice for something if we want ODST. X men origins didn't make us pay twice for something did it?

Do you understand now?
I understood perfectly, and if you read my first sentence, you will see that i do not think we are paying for something we already own. I think we are paying for ODST and the mythic maps with Halo 3s multiplayer tacked on, with no extra charge.
The X: Men origins point was to demonstrate that we pay for things with far less content than ODST offers, and you dont consider that a rip off, do you?

  • 07.06.2009 2:00 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I'm going to add this for people that think it's more than an expansion. It's from this thread

Posted by: The_omen
Posted by: Phoenix1330
Posted by: The_omen
Posted by: Slegger
Posted by: The BS Police
It is an expansion, Bungie has stated that since they announced it last year.


Wrong. Bungie and Microsoft both said theres enough content in it to warrant the $60 dollar price tag and making it a full game. Bungie made the Campaign way longer then they originally did, which is one of the reasons it's a full game.

Dude.. Omg you guys took this the wrong way.

MS is saying it is not an expansion, why? BECAUSE IT HAS THE MAPS AND HALO 3 MULTIPLAYER. Without them, it would be an expansion. You guys have to read. The source you provided says:

"We believe this standalone experience is much more than just an expansion. Halo 3: ODST provides a new campaign from the point of view of an entirely new character. Combine that with three new multiplayer maps, the entirely new cooperative mode called Firefight, and the complete Halo 3 multiplayer collection on a standalone disc, we feel this is a good value and tremendous addition to the Halo franchise."

They're trying to say what I've said millions of times. The game in itself is an expansion without the maps and halo 3 multiplayer!

no they are not. they are making it very clear that this is not an expansion anymore, but a full game

No they aren't. You have to read to understand. Joystiq understood this perfectly that's why they mentioned:

By: Joystiq
Chances are if you're a hardcore Halo player, you already own the multiplayer maps, so you'll basically be paying for content you already own


Let me break down what MS said:

[Mentioned it is not an expansion anymore]. [Microsoft listed the content that constitutes the price]

The list includes the maps and halo 3 multiplayer. You took it out of context that's why you think they said that the game ON ITSELF constitutes a $60 dollar price tag. But if you read all of what they said, you would understand that they didn't say this at all.

  • 07.06.2009 2:17 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: cB4d93
Posted by: The_omen
Posted by: cB4d93
Well the way I see it, Im paying for ODST and 3 new maps, for $60, with the addition of all the other maps. There are games far shorter, and with far less content than ODST has, and those are still $60, and you dont bat an eye when you buy those do you? For example,: X-Men origins: Wolverine, That game has a campaign and a couple side missions, thats it, however, no one complains about that games price. ODST has; a new campaign, new co-op game mode, the mythic maps, and all of Halo 3's multiplayer, and you people are whining your asses off because you think its overpriced? If Bungie had never said that ODST was supposed to be worth $35 then not a single one of you would be complaining about this.

You fail to see why we're "complaining". We're not complaining because its has little content. We're complaining because it is making us pay twice for something if we want ODST. X men origins didn't make us pay twice for something did it?

Do you understand now?
I understood perfectly, and if you read my first sentence, you will see that i do not think we are paying for something we already own. I think we are paying for ODST and the mythic maps with Halo 3s multiplayer tacked on, with no extra charge.
The X: Men origins point was to demonstrate that we pay for things with far less content than ODST offers, and you dont consider that a rip off, do you?

I honestly could care less about it. I didn't buy it, and if I did I would have to be stupid to do so. I do consider it a rip off. But I consider ODST more of a rip off than X-Men origins (Since we're paying twice for something. I'm still going to buy ODST though.). The maps are part of the price, or so MS says. Which would mean that when we buy ODST, we're paying for those maps. Whether or not ODST is worth $60 is out of the question.

Are we paying for the maps and halo 3 multiplayer twice? Yes. If you don't think so then that's your opinion. It's fine. That's what this thread is, for people's opinions. =)

Also, thanks for not blowing out like alot of people did *cough*slegger*cough*. He just started capitalizing everything and screaming profanities! :P But really, thanks!

[Edited on 07.06.2009 2:22 PM PDT]

  • 07.06.2009 2:22 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

Posted by: The_omen
Posted by: cB4d93
Posted by: The_omen
Posted by: cB4d93
Well the way I see it, Im paying for ODST and 3 new maps, for $60, with the addition of all the other maps. There are games far shorter, and with far less content than ODST has, and those are still $60, and you dont bat an eye when you buy those do you? For example,: X-Men origins: Wolverine, That game has a campaign and a couple side missions, thats it, however, no one complains about that games price. ODST has; a new campaign, new co-op game mode, the mythic maps, and all of Halo 3's multiplayer, and you people are whining your asses off because you think its overpriced? If Bungie had never said that ODST was supposed to be worth $35 then not a single one of you would be complaining about this.

You fail to see why we're "complaining". We're not complaining because its has little content. We're complaining because it is making us pay twice for something if we want ODST. X men origins didn't make us pay twice for something did it?

Do you understand now?
I understood perfectly, and if you read my first sentence, you will see that i do not think we are paying for something we already own. I think we are paying for ODST and the mythic maps with Halo 3s multiplayer tacked on, with no extra charge.
The X: Men origins point was to demonstrate that we pay for things with far less content than ODST offers, and you dont consider that a rip off, do you?

I honestly could care less about it. I didn't buy it, and if I did I would have to be stupid to do so. I do consider it a rip off. But I consider ODST more of a rip off than X-Men origins (Since we're paying twice for something. I'm still going to buy ODST though.). The maps are part of the price, or so MS says. Which would mean that when we buy ODST, we're paying for those maps. Whether or not ODST is worth $60 is out of the question.

Are we paying for the maps and halo 3 multiplayer twice? Yes. If you don't think so then that's your opinion. It's fine. That's what this thread is, for people's opinions. =)

Also, thanks for not blowing out like alot of people did *cough*slegger*cough*. He just started capitalizing everything and screaming profanities! :P But really, thanks!
No problem, just trying to articulate my opinion without yelling at somebody. It's all just a matter of how you look at things. See for you, this is a bad deal, beacuase you have those maps and you feel cheated for having to buy them a second time. I however, find it to be a good deal, because I think that we are getting the Multiplayer as a bonus. (I have all the map packs too, if you were wondering) Its just about how you divide the price in your head. Its more like $50 for ODST and than $10 for the mythic map pack part two for me.

  • 07.06.2009 2:27 PM PDT

Riverside23: For all the women of the group, if you've got a real man at least let him have his big piece of chicken.

WhtButterflyLiz: lol. Bring home bigger chikkinz, then, real man!!!

DEATHPIMP72: *throws pterodactyl on table*
Suck it JoeSki!!!

There's no debate. You're not "paying for the maps twice." That's not an opinion, it is fact. Simply put, it doesn't cost Bungie anything to include the maps in the disc. The MS spokesperson pointed to the convenience of including all the H3 multiplayer content as value addition. ODST would have been $60 regardless of the inclusion of previous maps and map-packs. So don't freak out, you're not getting ripped off.

Edit: Also, citing an online gaming website is not a credible source. A properly recorded statement by an MS spokesperson is, but the writings of some person on Joystiq or no more credible than the ramblings of somebody trolling these forums.

[Edited on 07.06.2009 2:38 PM PDT]

  • 07.06.2009 2:32 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

Posted by: longhorn10
There's no debate. You're not "paying for the maps twice." That's not an opinion, it is fact. Simply put, it doesn't cost Bungie anything to include the maps in the disc. The MS spokesperson pointed to the convenience of including all the H3 multiplayer content as value addition. ODST would have been $60 regardless of the inclusion of previous maps and map-packs. So don't freak out, you're not getting ripped off.

Edit: Also, citing an online gaming website is not a credible source. A properly recorded statement by an MS spokesperson is, but the writings of some person on Joystiq or no more credible than the ramblings of somebody trolling these forums.

The writings of some person on joystiq are backed up by the MS spokepersons' statement. The MS Representative's statements were right on the article! What is there not to believe? I explained it perfectly in my last post. I don't know how much more clearer I have to be. Even on kotaku they said the same thing. OMG Maybe kotaku and joystiq are in cahoots!

We are paying for the maps and halo 3 multiplayer twice. Why else would it go up in price? Because ODST doubled in size? That's what it must have done to constitute a $60 dollar price tag, since it was $30 to begin with.

I doubt it would double in that short amount of time, specially with the small team that was working on it. I have a detailed post on why exactly it didn't grow, it's on the last page If I recall correctly, give me a few minutes.

EDIT: Here:

Posted by: The_omen
The game itself doesn't cost $60. Why? Now I don't know for sure, but common sense says it's not.. Here:

When Bungie said that the game was worth 35 dollars, they must have been close to finishing it. Why? Because if they weren't, then why would estimate a price? It wouldn't be fair to do so unless they were close to finishing. Now that was about 3-4 months ago. They couldn't possibly add content to constitute a $60 dollar price tag in that small amount of time. They couldn't because they would have had to change everything. The story. the dialouge, the scenery, think of new things to add, test it, make sure it works. They couldn't have done it that fast in that amount of time, specially since the game is being worked on by a small team (as bungie has stated multiple times in the Weekly updates).

Firefight couldn't have been added also in that time because bungie said in their latest podcast that they were playing this game in the pentathlon Olympic (thingies, which was this last Christmas).

So, since it is nearly impossible to add new things to the campaign, they added Halo 3 multiplayer to constitute the price.


[Edited on 07.06.2009 2:47 PM PDT]

  • 07.06.2009 2:42 PM PDT

Riverside23: For all the women of the group, if you've got a real man at least let him have his big piece of chicken.

WhtButterflyLiz: lol. Bring home bigger chikkinz, then, real man!!!

DEATHPIMP72: *throws pterodactyl on table*
Suck it JoeSki!!!

Posted by: The_omen
The writings of some person on joystiq are backed up by the MS spokepersons' statement. I explained it perfectly in my last post. I don't know how much more clearer I have to be.
Even on kotaku they said the same thing. OMG Maybe kotaku and joystiq are in cahoots!

We are paying for the maps and halo 3 multiplayer twice. Why else would it go up in price? Because ODST doubled in size? That's what it must have done to constitute a $60 dollar price tag, since it was $30 to begin with.

I doubt it would double in that short amount of time, specially with the small team that was working on it. I have a detailed post on why exactly it didn't grow, it's on the last page If I recall correctly, give me a few minutes.


You gotta read the statement made by the spokesperson and not make assumptions about it. The statement in no way, shape or form, insinuates the addition of previous maps is included as a price mark-up. Those writers made their own assumptions about the justification of the price increase.

I don't see where you get this "double in price" idea. Nobody ever stated that ODST would be $30. Only statements I ever saw said that they do not see ODST developing as a full retail game. Fact of the matter is, the price of ODST would be $60 whether or not the old maps were included. Why? It doesn't cost MS anything to include them. Basic pricing.

  • 07.06.2009 2:48 PM PDT