Map packs are typically the subject of much controversy and gnashing of teeth - do they represent value for money, or are they exploitative and overpriced? Black Ops' first map pack, 'First Strike', has just been announced and once again has us questioning the value of such packages.
Coming in at 1200 Microsoft points - the customary price for Call of Duty DLC - 'First Strike' will be released February 1 and contains four maps in total, but is this fair pricing?
The cop out answer is, of course, it depends. Value is relative and DLC generally costs as much as people are willing to pay - I would argue that the map pack's value is representative of how much people are willing to play.
As a Halo fan, I've bought every single pack released for the franchise and, to be perfectly honest, not once have I felt satisfied with the purchase. Most of these maps are slowly filtered into playlists through time and eventually they're made free which, as an early adopter, always leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Simply put: I buy the maps early, but only fully utilise the purchase when the maps are made free on the marketplace.
But in a sense the problem here is people like me. The folks who buy these map packs time and time again, never learning the lesson.
What about you guys - will you be picking up the latest Black Ops map pack? And what represents value for money when it comes to DLC?