$15 for 5 Maps? No Thanks.

What happened to the days when map packs would cost $10 and then become free after ~5 months? Halo 2 did it. Gears of War 1 did it. Halo 3 used to do it. What happened? Now Activision has the gall to charge 1/4 the original price of Modern Warfare 2 for three new maps and two remakes (one of which is more Overgrown, which was terrible). They charged $10 for three new maps and one remake (Chinatown was a remake of a Carentan) for Call of Duty 4, so I guess they feel an extra remake is worth $5. I was reading some of the reactions to the news on Joystiq, and they seem overwhelming negative. I just feel like this game is spiraling downward toward a disaster. Remember when Titanic had a 10-month run in theaters, became the highest-grossing movie of all-time by a landslide, and won a record-tying 11 Oscars? How many people do you know that still like that movie? It's starting to look like Modern Warfare 2 might get that same sort of backlash, and if that happens, the entire Call of Duty IP may follow. Honestly, it wouldn't really bother me, but it'd certainly be interesting to see.

Now that I've bashed Activision and suggested (you could say, 'hoped that') they may be in for a whirlwind of backlash, let's take their side for argument's sake. First of all, before you bring up Bad Company 2's free release that same day, know that they're not releasing two entirely new maps. A friend and I actually got into a game of Rush on Laguna Presa once (and we aren't the only ones), so clearly I already have that capability and it just hasn't been unlocked. That's not so much an argument for the $15 price tag as it is a knock on the argument for the other side (Also, I don't want to bash EA on that either because I completely understand the strategy, and I don't really mind all that much. They're going after Goliath.).
Anyway, let's compare this to Rock Band's DLC. They come out with new songs every week and charge $2 for each. Infinity Ward is offering 5 maps at $3 each. Wouldn't you say that a new map adds more replay to Modern Warfare 2 than a new song does to Rock Band? Wouldn't you also agree that a lot more work goes into creating a new map than goes into making a new song? I know a large portion of that price point is because of licensing, but wouldn't you still argue you get more bang for your buck paying $3 for a map than $2 for a song? I never hear people bitching about Rock Band's DLC pricing, yet companies charge for map packs and the world explodes.

All that being said, I'm not buying the "Stimulus Package;" however, I'm not going to ask you to boycott Infinity Ward because I think that kind of shit is fucking ludicrous. Let the market determine pricing, and if some yahoo wants to pay $15 for a map pack, then by golly, he should be able to do it without being harassed. Honestly, I don't think this thing is going to sell as well as Activision wants it to so I'm betting this won't happen again, but who knows? XBLA prices have skyrocketed ever since the success of Braid; $15 is the new $10. This may even become a common trend. I don't think it will, but we'll see. If 68% of the people who bought the Call of Duty 4 map pack buy this one, Activision will have made more money, and that's really all that matters to them (and for good reason, they're a business).

If you want to buy the maps, then go ahead. If you don't, then don't. I just know that I'm not, but a lot of that has to do with Modern Warfare 2's community becoming a cesspool of cheesers. Now, if you'll excuse me, I have a bracket to fill out.

--Chilly P

p.s. What's with the [noun] [preposition] [noun] naming convention of WWII games? Think about it. Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, Band of Brothers (HBO mini-series, but it still fits), Brothers in Arms, Day of Defeat, World at War, Hour of Victory, Company of Heroes, Hearts of Iron... I know not every WWII game follows that convention, but a whole lot of 'em do.