Would you pay for a XBOX 360 DLC/patch?

[TRC Subaru]

I understand in this world that money makes everything work faster and smoother.

To be very explicit in what I believe may be the only solution to our dilemma:

It's simple, basically; No patch - or - a DLC with the patch - Yes, I know its wrong, Yes, I know it is not fair, but unfortunately life is not fair, and if that is the choice presented to you...what would you do?

I personally love this game enough to put up the money - I do not expect everyone to agree with me, some may say, the hell with it, I'm going back to MW2 and not looking back, I would fully understand your decision, but for me, if $10 gets me a patch and a extra plane or two...I'm in.

PLEASE VOTE

Thank you

[mattmanB182]

Depends on the amount, but a patch would make this an entirely different game, so yes I would.

It would be nice if a fix for the 190 was in the patch...but id buy it anyway.

[imnotgeoff]

i'd pay for the patch because i think its the only way its gona happen

[Yakoff]

Not quite sure what DLC means, but I hope it would fix the AV8R dead-zone, or is that something only Microsoft can fix? I'm really not OK with PAYING for an XBOX patch. That would be like buying a brand new car with obvious steering problems, and then having the car dealer tell me I have to pay to have it fixed.

[gbtstr]

Not quite sure what DLC means, but I hope it would fix the AV8R dead-zone, or is that something only Microsoft can fix? I'm really not OK with PAYING for an XBOX patch. That would be like buying a brand new car with obvious steering problems, and then having the car dealer tell me I have to pay to have it fixed.

Agreed.

[stealth finger]

would pay for dlc depending of content and price. Not for a patch though

[stealth finger]

or is that something only Microsoft can fix? I'm really not OK with PAYING for an XBOX patch. That would be like buying a brand new car with obvious steering problems, and then having the car dealer tell me I have to pay to have it fixed.

Only MS can change the deadzone. It's on the console not the game.

[Yakoff]

Only MS can change the deadzone. It's on the console not the game.

Thanks stealth. Does anyone have any info on whether MS is doing something about the problem, or are we left to wander in the wilderness like we are with the IL2 Xbox patch?

[stealth finger]

probably not tbh. with only 2 serious fligt games available. I sent major nelson a message when i saw him playing il2 on his blog but suprise suprise i didnt get a reply lol

[Robotic Pope]

Can't really vote. Needs more options. I would NOT pay for a patch. That is something that should never be a cost. A patch fixes faults in the original product, so I don't think they could legally charge us.

Its up to the company who produced the game whether they want to also add/improve on things at the same time, but they can't charge for it if it is something that everybody who has bought the game will need if they want to go online.

DLC on the other hand I will buy depending on content and price.

[TRC Subaru]

Can't really vote. Needs more options. I would NOT pay for a patch. That is something that should never be a cost. A patch fixes faults in the original product, so I don't think they could legally charge us.

Its up to the company who produced the game whether they want to also add/improve on things at the same time, but they can't charge for it if it is something that everybody who has bought the game will need if they want to go online.

DLC on the other hand I will buy depending on content and price.

Pope, I should have been a bit more explicit in what I believe may be the only solution to our dilemma:

It's simple, basically; No patch - or - a DLC with the patch - Yes, I know its wrong, Yes, I know it is not fair, but unfortunately life is not fair, and if that is the choice presented to you...what would you do?

I personally love this game enough to put up the money - I do not expect everyone to agree with me, some may say, the hell with it, I going back to MW2 and not looking back, I would fully understand your decision, but for me, if $10 gets me a patch and a extra plane or two...I'm in.

[The_Goalie_94]

Now, if the DLC included more planes and cockpits, oh say maybe an avro lancaster or even a mosquito (its not the question "Can you put it in their?" its more "Why didn't you do it yet?"). When people think of bombing in Europe, the think more towards Lancasters and Mosquito's and even the JU-88. Not an A-20 or Bleinhelm. B-17...well thats a bit more global. So i would pay yes...if it had a worth while plane in it. I think all of us can agree, a Lancaster and a Mosquito and maybe a P-40 is the way to go. As for axis, fix up the 190 and add a JU-88 and thats worthy of my 20 bucks anyday of the week. agreed?

[condorz38]

I understand in this world that money makes everything work faster and smoother.

To be very explicit in what I believe may be the only solution to our dilemma:

It's simple, basically; No patch - or - a DLC with the patch - Yes, I know its wrong, Yes, I know it is not fair, but unfortunately life is not fair, and if that is the choice presented to you...what would you do?

I personally love this game enough to put up the money - I do not expect everyone to agree with me, some may say, the hell with it, I'm going back to MW2 and not looking back, I would fully understand your decision, but for me, if $10 gets me a patch and a extra plane or two...I'm in.

PLEASE VOTE

Thank you
I would probably pay for another DLC without the patch, so I would certainly pay for one with it. I might say a dirty word or too, but I would pay.

[zg26]

Hell no! I am not paying for the patch. That stuff should of been in the game from the start! I mean seriously the play-testers thought the game was broken because of the black-outs?! Easy! Get rid of em'! AA doesn't do anything and enemy AI is hopeless... Don't worry - the kids like easy games!

On the other hand I'd fork out 1500 MS for those German cockpits!

[Panzergranate]

Motorcyclist do it all the time......

They know that when they buy a OEM bike that it isn't running as good as it could or should do.

So they buy a kit to remove the power sapping cat converter or just replace the whole exhaust system with a louder and safer one, re-chip the fuel injection / re-jet or fit bigger carbs, remove the air intake silencer and, after much fettling, their bike performs as it should do.

Cars are the same.

[Robotic Pope]

Pope, I should have been a bit more explicit in what I believe may be the only solution to our dilemma:

It's simple, basically; No patch - or - a DLC with the patch - Yes, I know its wrong, Yes, I know it is not fair, but unfortunately life is not fair, and if that is the choice presented to you...what would you do?

I personally love this game enough to put up the money - I do not expect everyone to agree with me, some may say, the hell with it, I going back to MW2 and not looking back, I would fully understand your decision, but for me, if $10 gets me a patch and a extra plane or two...I'm in.

Thats what I mean. The two things cannot go together. You can't have a title update including DLC.
1. because there is a size limit I believe for patching and DLC would go way over that.
2. They cannot charge to fix a flaw in the original product.
3. Everybody playing online has to have the latest version of a game so what would happen to the people who refused to buy the DLC/patch? They'd be screwed unable to play online at all.

Title Updates and DLC are always separate things. Updates change the way the game works, replacing some of the game coding from the disc. DLC never includes anything that changes the actuall game, it only adds extra modes, maps, models or sp campaines.

[STINGERSIX78]

pay for dlc (mappack,more planes) ok.
pay for a patch, never...

[juz1]

any problem that gets fixed merely by throwing money at it isn't a problem, its just maintenance...

[TRC Subaru]

Thats what I mean. The two things cannot go together. You can't have a title update including DLC...(copied below)

That’s what I mean. The two things cannot go together. You can't have a title update including DLC.

1. Because there is a size limit I believe for patching and DLC would go way over that.

- Good point, but we may be talking about more then a “DLC”, see (3.) below.

2. They cannot charge to fix a flaw in the original product.

- Apparently companies can do whatever they please, and still get big bonuses (The American Financial industry comes to mind).

3. Everybody playing online has to have the latest version of a game so what would happen to the people who refused to buy the DLC/patch? They'd be screwed unable to play online at all.

- This is a real good point that I did not consider. This may have to be a “New Release” or “Upgrade”, as in a Birds of Prey 2.0 or something of that nature, and yes, that would split the MP community, but considering you can buy BoP (1.0) for around $30, it would be well worth buying an upgrade of $10 or so, in total, at $40, it would still be a bargain now that most new games sell for $60+. So 505 will get some money and we will get the patch and some planes, it’s a win-win situation. Again, I’m just trying to come to some conciliation that will get us the patch in the shortest time possible, because what I believe will happen is that we will not get the patch and have to wait a year for the sequel, and that is only if they decide to make one, a long shot at this point.

Title Updates and DLC are always separate things. Updates change the way the game works, replacing some of the game coding from the disc. DLC never includes anything that changes the actual game; it only adds extra modes, maps, models or sp campaigns.

[Deascendent]

They could release a GOOD dlc and if enough people buy it, patch the game.... the last one didn't count.

[DannyBooze]

i would only pay if they had cockpits and patch but i wouldnt pay for just part of game,:evil::evil: already did that once......

[Pudgy (V)]

This is pretty much what I wrote in my thread to the Publishers, 1c and 505. I would never give money to pay for a patch considering this was something they screwed up to begin with. Was it my fault that the product wasn't tested correctly or maybe a deadline had to be made regardless if the game was broke or not? What would happen to me if I made a mistake at my job, I would have to fix it or face being fired. Anyway, what is done is done. Now, I would be more than happen to buy a DLC but only after they patched the game first. I wouldn't trust them enough to actually patch the game after everyone purchased the DLC. Then what, we would all be out even more money. The DLC would also have to be a very functional plane and not a Mustang or a TA. Just imagine if they would have patched the game a week after its release and all the people who left were still here. The revenue they could have made off of DLC's alone would have paid for the patch and maybe even a sequel. This game would have been a money maker even when the price dropped to $15.00 a year from now. They could have released a new DLC every month and I am sure everyone of us would have paid for it. In the end their mistakes cost them a lot of money because they didn't release a patch. All we can do is hope for the best and see if they will correct their mistakes and make things right. Until then, keep up the petition work.

[Lexandro]

Would I pay for a patch? Hell no
Would I pay for DLC? Probably if at the right price.
Would I pay for a patch that also contains DLC? No.

Patches are by definition fixes for issues with a game title. These should ALWAYS be free as the end user has already paid for the product and fixing issues with a title is the responstability of the devs/publishers and they should pay for it.

DLC is a different story. But both together would be a totaly kick in the crown jewels to everyone who owns the title and has supported the game. It would instanly create a two tier online play mode, with "the have's" and the "have not's". With the way the playerbase is, any further erosion of the number of people eligable to play with one another would most likely kill of 90% of all online play.

[Robotic Pope]

DLC is a different story. But both together would be a totaly kick in the crown jewels to everyone who owns the title and has supported the game. It would instanly create a two tier online play mode, with "the have's" and the "have not's". With the way the playerbase is, any further erosion of the number of people eligable to play with one another would most likely kill of 90% of all online play.

Exactly. Remember people this is a console game so the publishers have to play by Sony and Microsofts rules. One of which is a game MUST NOT have multiple versions of the same game being played online on their (MS and Sony) servers. Everybody playing online MUST have the same game, patched or unpatched.

[TRC Subaru]

Exactly. Remember people this is a console game so the publishers have to play by Sony and Microsofts rules. One of which is a game MUST NOT have multiple versions of the same game being played online on their (MS and Sony) servers. Everybody playing online MUST have the same game, patched or unpatched.

I was playing FORZA 1 on-line after FORZA 2 was released, in fact, I believe you can still play it now - this is what I'm suggesting.

[Robotic Pope]

I was playing FORZA 1 on-line after FORZA 2 was released, in fact, I believe you can still play it now - this is what I'm suggesting.

lol But thats a completly different game. Microsoft and Sony would demand the publishers pay them like it was a new game. This is very expensive. The publishers would have to be insane to want pay twice to release basicly the same (low selling) game again.

[TRC Subaru]

lol But thats a completly different game. Microsoft and Sony would demand the publishers pay them like it was a new game. This is very expensive. The publishers would have to be insane to want pay twice to release basicly the same (low selling) game again.

Do not know a great deal on the pricing of releases, how much does it cost to release the patch? And how much for a new game release?

[delaner]

Sadly, I think this poll highlights the core issue. Everyone has undermined the purpose of this poll by arguing technicalities and definitions; unfortunately only 26 (now 7) people have voted. Hard to justify doing anything until more people speak up.

I don't see a major need for a patch, there are a few things I'd like to see in the game, but that's all for another thread... =)

[stealth finger]

I don't see a major need for a patch,


not played much multiplayer have you?

[kozzm0]

I wouldn't even pay for an xbox360, so no.

If someone gave me an xbox360 for free, I might, but first I'd have to pay for xbox live which I doubt I'd ever do

Especially after hearing about the bop patch, if xbox live is so great, they should go out of their way to make sure the developer can patch the game. They should pay them to make patches. They charge the price of their console for 3 years of service.

[SEE]

........Just imagine if they would have patched the game a week after its release and all the people who left were still here. The revenue they could have made off of DLC's alone would have paid for the patch and maybe even a sequel. This game would have been a money maker even when the price dropped to $15.00 a year from now. They could have released a new DLC every month and I am sure everyone of us would have paid for it.


Spot on Pudgy......never in the history of Gaming was so much F^&ed up by so few to so many! A complete and utter marketing farce!

[Rufus_the_Rat]

Yeah this was one of the more botched post-release jobs I've seen this generation of gaming. And they expect us to buy a sequel? They're seriously out to lunch. We can stick around to remind newcomers about this company's shady practices though.