(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); DLC's are made to add in parts of a game unobtainable without downloading after release. Maps are fine, because it's not something that really affects everyone. But when someone in Afghan shoots me(after DLC) with a skorpion and I'm sitting there with the shitty gUMP45 that I have, I will most likely rage quit.

DLC's IMO is made for maps. Not for perks; and not for guns. You shouldn't have to pay $15 to get 3 guns and 3 perks. That should be out of the package, and made free, sperately.

Opinions?
EDIT: You guys completely misunderstood me. First off, my info came from a thread in this very section, just look around. Secondly, it doesn't matter what ****ing gun I'm talking about. I say UMP and everyone freaks out. **** guys, that's not the point. The point is someone PAID to get a new gun, when it should of been in the game already..

I don't like the entitlement attitude either.

The big question we all need to start asking ourselves is: Will the map pack provide a value?

If the answer is yes... then buy it.

I love the enthusiasm in this thread

Right on rjive. For those who don't understand, this is straight from Wikipedia..lol





Value is linked to price through the mechanism of exchange. When an economist observes an exchange, two important value functions are revealed: those of the buyer and seller. Just as the buyer reveals what he is willing to pay for a certain amount of a good, so too does the seller reveal what it costs him to give up the good.

Additional information about value is obtained by the rate at which transactions occur, telling observers the extent to which the purchase of the good has value over time.

Said another way, value is how much a desired object or condition is worth relative to other objects or conditions. Economic values are expressed as "how much" of one desirable condition or commodity will, or would be given up in exchange for some other desired condition or commodity. Among the competing schools of economic theory there are differing metrics for value assessment and the metrics are the subject of a "Theory of Value." Value theories are a large part of the differences and disagreements between the various schools of economic theory.

I disagree with you. Just think about it. Would it be unfair, say, if you went paintballing, and someone on the other team had a much better gun and much better equipment than you? Sure, they'd have an advantage, but it wouldn't make it much harder to "kill" them. Is it unfair? No, because they went out, they invested their money, and they are benefiting from that investment.

If IW wants to make part of the DLC guns, let them. If you're worried about people having an unfair advantage, well, its not actually unfair. It's not like IW gave only them the advantage, and not you. They gave both of you the opportunity, but you just decided not to take advantage of it.

If IW actually does include weapons in this DLC, there will be a couple of problems. Will players who did not buy the DLC be able to pick the weapons up off of a dead body? Will there be a separate playlist for people who bought the DLC, and they can only use the extra weapons on that playlist?

i dont think there coming out with new guns but there are going to be new camos. and the first dlc is free.

You're sort of right & a lot wrong. lol Let me see if I can break this down a bit more.

First off... A company (Activision) makes a product (mw2) that they think will have a value to their customers. The customer has every option to purchase this product or not. Once the customer purchase the product it doesn't assume any rights of the customer to say what the company can or cannot do. This is assuming the company doesn't break any laws.

You're thinking of the make an equal playing field in the game. you're discounting the actual goals of the company. ATVI's primary goal is not to make the product have a sense of equality across all categories. They're primary goal is sales. What drives sales? Demand. A marketable product. By releasing "new" guns and perks they're creating a demand. They're creating an illusion of inequality.

The developers try and make the game balanced. Think about it... there is always a counter to something. There is never a spot you can camp that doesn't have three or four different ways to get to it. There is not one gun that is just over powered without something to counter. Thermal scopes & HBS... you have cold blood and ninja.


Nothing personal... I think you need to start thinking like the company for a second and not the gamer. Think in terms of dollars and cents... supply and demand.

Well that's exactly what I meant. It seems extremely unfair, which persuades your average gamer to buy the maps, but the thing is, everyone had an equal chance to buy itm they just chose not to. It's an illusion of unfairness, meant to encourage people to buy the DLC, giving them more money. I was talking about it in a hypothetical point of view which viewed it as unfair, and then stating why it's not unfair and gives everyone a chance.

Who says that thread was legit information? I always have to tell my friend not to believe everything he reads on here...

They still had from 2007 to 2009 to work on it. It's their fault they waited so long to make it.