Of Jumping And Guns: Rockstar Outlines Max Payne DLC

I bet he wears that watch entirely so that he can make bullet time jokes. I know I would.

Yes, there are multiple implications in that headline. You may read into them how ever you please. See, if you take a moment to consider the current state of your life and the world around you, you’ll probably come to a shocking realization: Max Payne 3’s gun-calloused caress has yet to gleefully clasp hands with your itchy trigger finger. You are painfully aware of your Payne-less-ness. And yet, Rockstar’s already seen fit to announce multiplayer DLC. For basically the entire year. Beginning with the Local Justice map pack in June, bullet-time (and, you know, bullets) will fly with seven packs in possibly less than as many months.

Summer will bring the Disorganized Crime map pack, Deathmatch Made In Heaven mode pack, Hostage Negotiation map Pack, and the New York Minute co-op pack. Fall, meanwhile, will see two more map packs in the form of Painful Memories and Trickle Down Economics. June’s Local Justice pack, meanwhile, has already been detailed. It’ll apparently include “the Police Precinct map for Gang Wars, Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, and Payne Killer multiplayer modes” and “two additional maps for Deathmatch, Team Deathmatch, and Payne Killer, new precinct-themed multiplayer avatar items, multiplayer challenges, and more.”

You can pick and choose from this bountiful bullet buffet, or you can grab a Rockstar Pass for $29.99/£19.99 and get all seven at a roughly 35 percent discount. Oddly, Rockstar hasn’t released an official number for one-at-a-time purchases yet. Regardless, this seems like a weird midpoint between Call of Duty’s (still non-existent on PC) Elite service, regular map packs, and pre-orders, except for DLC. It reeks of used-game-sale deterrent, which – of course – doesn’t really apply to PC gamers. The end result, though, is wonderfully convoluted, which doesn’t strike me as particularly in line with Max Payne’s quick, visceral thrill appeal.

Also, Rockstar really, really seems to be banking on multiplayer here – which, of course, scrunches more than a few faces into painful-looking perma-grimaces given Max Payne’s solely single-player lineage. I mean, the trailers look kind of interesting, but bullet time and other “bursts” could easily end up being gimmicky or even frustrating, so the jury’s still out. I’ll definitely give multiplayer a go, but I’ve yet to see anything it offers that could pull me away from, say, Tribes. How about you? Is this a thing you could see yourself pouring boatloads of time and money into?


  1. povu says:

    I don’t have much interest in its multiplayer. I’ll probably pick it up at a slight discount so that it’s worth it for the single player.

  2. Williz says:

    Great, more post release DLC announced Pre release…

    • SiHy_ says:

      It baffles me why developers/publishers keep doing this. It only creates negative press and it’s not as if a potential customer will think “Well, I’m not sure about getting Max Payne 3… but wait… there’s going to be a map-pack in June? Count me in!”
      At least wait until a few weeks after your product has shipped. You know, when the people who bought the game have probably finished it and may be looking for ways to extend their enjoyment?
      This sort of practise always seems a bit desperate and insecure. It’s like trying to sell you extra tyres; a better radio; and a nice air freshner for a new car before you’ve even given it a test-drive.

      • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

        You do realise after a certain point in development a game is content-locked and has to be bug-tested and polished for release, during which time a large proportion of the studio is idle so obviously for a game as sure a hit as this, plans are made for post-release content.

        They’re being transparent about it… would you rather they intentionally avoid speaking about what they’ve already formulated just to satisfy some psychological placebo; ‘Of course, they’re not planning any DLC! They’re better developers for this reason… somehow.’

        Unless you think optional, paid DLC for a game is inherently wrong, can you see how this might be… somewhat irrational?

        • Deadly Habit says:

          You do realize that it’s primarily console games that do this or PC games that become console ports.

          • subshell001 says:

            No, actually. That’s just good software development. If you keep adding new content, then you have to keep testing it – it’s a simple matter of fact. If you don’t test it, it’s bound to be terribly buggy. Which if a product launches with terrible bugs, that has a direct impact on sales. I’m guessing you aren’t in the software industry.

        • El_Emmental says:

          You do realise these “idling” developers crunched the last few months and need to rest to not burn out ? No wonder why all the veterans are leaving the video game industry for a better software-development place…

          And come on, 8 DLCs in 6 months, how is that not :
          1) Abusing the DLC business model.
          2) Breaking the multiplayer experience for the playerbase. (“lol”, yea I wrote playerbase in 2012, stop laughing >:[ )
          3) Showing a lack of dedication to the game, milking it as much as you can in 6 months before dropping it dead.

          ps: Bonus point => Rockstar has several projects (10 studios !) running at the same time, yet it can’t relocate its staff on other project, like it did in the last 10 years ?

          • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

            Your first and second points rely on assumptions, how is offering people the opportunity to buy new maps and modes every few weeks or purchase them all at once for a reduced price either exploiting the DLC model or will break the playerbase? The Battlefield series had how many expansions and DLC? All of which had far higher barriers of entry in terms of price.

            The third point I certainly must protest, look at the actual game and see how much effort and care has been put into the experience, to ascribe any evaluation of that to just DLC is grossly unfair; ‘Well I don’t care for how they’ve priced optional maps and modes for one part of their game, therefore over four years of readily apparent labour and enviable resources are suspect.’ Conversely wouldn’t no DLC be far more indicative of a lack of commitment?

            I understand it’s not the best form of support, which would be free DLC, but if the game is great and you deem the extra content to be worthwhile, what’s the issue?

          • El_Emmental says:

            Regarding the abuse/corruption of the DLC system, it’s turning something appropriate for developers to expand the initial experience (= adding more content to the initial game), to a simple way to sell as much DLC as they can in the shortest time period.

            When a game release one DLC 4 or 6 months after release, then a second one 4 months later, it’s expanding the initial experience with periodic “updates”.

            Depending on the content of the DLCs, their prices, and the initial game content (= if the DLCs are add-ons or removed parts from the initial game ; basically, the coherence regarding the “Game vs DLC” content repartition), it’s either good or bad DLC, money-grabbing DLCs or worthy-DLCs.

            When you’re releasing so much DLC in so little time, you’re basing your DLC business model on the effect caused by a DLC release (= a news in all news website, a spike of sales), you’re no longer caring about expanding the game. The multiplayer experience and its playerbase won’t have integrated the DLC, the bugs/glitches won’t be fixed, that a new DLC will be released.

            This is abusing the DLC business model, profiting from its DLC-release effect to maximize sales (and profits), with no regards to the game experience itself.

            Regarding the playerbase, you don’t need to be genius to know that 8 DLCs, involving maps and game-modes, will greatly split the ephemeral “community” : many people won’t have all the DLCs and won’t be able to share the same experience with other players.

            Regarding the dedication to the game, the fact it took 4 years of development to make the game won’t change the fact 8 DLCs are already planned and will be launched in the 6 months following the game release.

            With each DLCs splitting the playerbase even more, I find it really hard to think Rockstar actually believes the Max Payne 3 multiplayer experience will survive more than 6 months.

            Especially when the current situation of the video game market clearly shows multiplayer playerbases are growing and dying much more rapidly than a few years ago.

            If you look at all multiplayer populations of all AAA manshooter games, only the Counter-Strikes, Call of Dutys and Battlefields are not following the same “sudden spike then a long tail”, all other games are suffering from the same syndrome : marketing campaign built up hope and expectation, the game is released and people enjoy a new multiplayer experience, then people get bored of it quickly and leave it to play another game.

            By releasing 8 DLCs in 6 months, Rockstar clearly shows it doesn’t think the Max Payne 3 multiplayer experience will survive long enough to welcome a DLC release 8 or 12 months after release.

            It’s not only going to make any attempt at keeping it alive more than 6 months useless (= nothing to win, commercially speaking), it’s also sacrificing the multiplayer experience future in favor of the DLC releases (and their media attention and sales spikes).

        • SiHy_ says:

          To be perfectly frank – yes I would prefer less transparency here. I don’t know where this notion that being so open about things all the time is good business practice. Sometimes it is better to remain silent and be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
          This is how things worked in the olden days: first you advertised and then shipped the core game; then you advertised and shipped the expansion (or DLC as it is now); then you advertised and shipped the sequel. Now things are all higgledy-piggledy out of order. Regardless of when the parts were actually developed you never had the expansion advertised before the main game was out. It was simply unheard of.
          I’m not arguing the fact that they shouldn’t make/release DLCs or anything or that they should/shouldn’t work in the downtime between crunch-time and shipping, those are other topics entirely. I’m simply saying they shouldn’t advertise DLC before the actual game has shipped. Not because of any moral reason but because it creates a negative backlash. Surely you want potential customers talking about the game, not about the fact that they’ve already announced DLC for it. Also, mystery builds hype and makes the announcement worth a damn.

  3. Was Neurotic says:

    Yes, announcing post-release DLC before the main game is even out yet, is just horribly, horribly depressing and off-putting. Like putting the cart before the horse, setting fire to the cart and slaughtering the horse and then jumping up and down with glee, shouting ‘Ha ha! No cart for you! And fuck the horse too!’ You slowly turn and leave, saddened by this senseless display.

    On the other hand, fuck the multiplayer, Max is NOT what I want MP for. As long as the SP is still good, they can DLC to their hearts’ content if it makes them feel better.

    • wodin says:

      here here, sick to the back teeth of Multiplayer and MMO and Tablet and IOS and Android and……and….and…fuck off.

      Edit to say sick of DLC aswell…so fuck off.

    • Bonedwarf says:

      Best description of this horrendous activity I’ve ever read.

      Announcements like this to me are the publisher saying “Hi, you don’t need to buy this game new, as you’re only getting half of it at best, so dude, keep your money for now, and wait for the inevitable bundle a short time down the line which will include everything for half what the original butchered game will cost on release day.”

      For me the increasing incidence of publishers and devs shooting themselves in the foot by basically saying “GIVE US YOUR WALLET, WANKER!” is saving me tons of money so KEEP IT UP GAMES INDUSTRY!

  4. Toberoth says:

    This is baloney.

  5. JB says:

    “What time is it? It’s bullet time!”


  6. Paxmayne says:

    Single player games were all dead. The pre-release DLC was an exclamation mark to everything that had led to this point. I released my finger from the mouse. And then it was over. To make any kind of sense of it, I need to go back to last year. Back to the trailer in which the pain started…

  7. f1x says:

    Considering PC market/audience, it dosn’t look like a smart move
    They could instead follow succesful models in PC like be The Witcher 2 free DLC stuff or fine expansions like Shogun 2 Fall of the Samurai (even if Shogun 2 had a high amount of DLC)

  8. P7uen says:

    I have no idea what this means.

    Is it maps, or will people have weapons on the same maps against players who haven’t bought those weapons? Or both? And modes I won’t be able to access, or maps within those modes as well, or both?

    Should probably have waited until after I’d paid you before confusing me.

    • shaydeeadi says:

      It seems to just be a pile of multiplayer maps. Perhaps some dress-up bits.

  9. TormDK says:

    I think it’s great that they are prepared to say up front :

    Dear customers, this is what you can expect from us the next year.

    No one is forcing us to purchase this DLC, but I very much appriciate getting a hint at their plans for supporting the game post release before the game is out.

    • battles_atlas says:

      I’m glad you think that way: you’ll appreciate the news that I’m coming round your house next week to set fire to your cat.

      When did DLC become ‘supporting the game post release’?

      • Llewyn says:

        I’m glad you think that way: you’ll appreciate the news that I’m coming round your house next week to set fire to your cat.

        Is there some RPS commenter competition to see who can post the most moronic comments?

        • battles_atlas says:

          Ooo I do hope so! Have I won a stuffed Horace?

          It was an analogy. I’ll explain it if you like. The OP was celebrating Rockstar informing him of their plans. I was exploring whether this appreciation extended to any news of future events, regardless of its content. Have a go yourself, its easy. Here, I’ve made you a template to fill in:

          I’m glad you think that way: you’ll appreciate the news that I’m going to [bad thing] to you [at some future date]

          I probably should have just written it like that the first time.

          • Unaco says:

            Your analogy doesn’t really stand up though. You’re equating the release of DLC to setting fire to your cat… taking release of DLC as a bad thing. It isn’t. No one is forcing you to buy the DLC… you can ignore it if you like. Unlike a burning cat.

          • Llewyn says:

            I could rephrase it as a competition for the most moronic analogies, if you prefer. However I didn’t see any need to make it so specific. After all, why exclude so many other strong contenders?

          • battles_atlas says:

            No its the same – its the consumer choice that the OP was talking about. You can chose to not get the game, you can chose to not have a cat. It might be a more extreme example but its functionally equivalent. Just like you can chose not to use google or facebook in protest at their data policies. In all the situations your “choice” is to suck it up, or do without it, when the latter has considerable cost to you (you don’t get to play one of the best games of the year; you miss out on social events organised on fb; your cat is on fire).

            An alternative would be citizen choice – to chose the options, rather than chose amongst the options. Chose not to have someone set your cat on fire, or not to have games devs devoting ever greater efforts to undermine the notion of a game as a self-contained universe in aid of extracting more cash out of you. The consumer choice that gets used as a defence in these situations is nothing of the sort. “You have the choice not to have a cat” is absurd. That was the point.

          • Unaco says:

            No… It’s not the same. In one situation there is a videogame and some DLC being released for it. In the other, you’re coming round to set fire to my cat. These things are not equivalent. They are not functionally equivalent situations, there is no comparison possible between the situations, and you cannot equate the two to serve whatever lunatic point you’re trying to make. All of your babbling about choice options and optional choices will not make this any different.

            “Game being released with optional DLC for the multiplayer component” is in no way equivalent to “man coming round to your house to set fire to your cat”.

          • battles_atlas says:

            If you can’t be bothered to mount a defence beyond “they aren’t functionally equivalent” (ie show why they aren’t functionally equivalent) then it would be nice if you also didn’t bother dismiss my argument as “babble”. What with me actually having gone to the effort of presenting one and all, as opposed to just stating a claim. Its uncouth.

            I’ll try where you didn’t, and suggest your argument relies on all of us having a ‘right’ to have a cat, and a right to not have that cat set on fire, whilst we don’t have a ‘right’ to buy games that aren’t undermined as coherent standalone entites by the sense that an accountant has had more input into the narrative arc than the script writers have. I disagree. I think we have the right to what ever we collectively agree we have a right to, and that requires a choice of the choices, not amongst the choices. That goes for both cats and cultural products like Max Payne. Essentially, I’m arguing that we live in a democracy, and should act like it.

            Edit: actually they’re not functionally equivalent in one important respect – you already own the cat in a legal sense, whilst you only own the game in a shared culture sense (which is a valid claim but I can’t be bothered to make that argument). So instead – you have the choice to buy a cat or not, but the terms and conditions of purchase state I’ll come round and set fire to it at some later date. Would you be cool with that situation? You have a ‘choice’.

          • methodology says:

            please don’t set my cat on fire

          • Unaco says:

            They are not functionally equivalent, because there is no equivalence between the two situations. In the first I have a cat, with a guarantee that you’ll come round at some later time and set it on fire. End result, without any option being taken by me, I have a burnt cat. In the other situation, I have Max Payne 3, with a guarantee that at a later date, there will be optional multiplayer components I can purchase. End result, at worst I still have the game, at best I’m short some more money but have the game + extras. The first leaves me less than I started with. The second leaves me, at the least, with what I started with.

            There is no equivalence. DLC is not equivalent to burning my cat.

          • El_Emmental says:

            “No one is forcing you to buy the DLC…”
            => are you pretending nothing is made to incite you to buy it, by making the DLC important for the story (remember the Mass Effect drama, ended up less important but it showed the importance of story and DLCs) or the gameplay (= a completely new weapon/items/game-mode) ?

            You can’t establish that the lack of physical constraint (“BUY THAT DLC OR I’LL SHOOT YOU, AND THEN I’LL KICK YOUR PUPPY AND YOU WON’T BE HERE TO COMFORT HIM, HAHAHA”) equals the lack of any constraint, there’s so many ways to “force” people to buy your DLC : tying it to the story/gameplay/game universe, tying it to the multiplayer experience (I’ll detail it below).

            “The first leaves me less than I started with. The second leaves me, at the least, with what I started with.”
            => The first leaves you with less, yes. The second leaves you with less, too.

            Here this isn’t “just a DLC”, it’s a multiplayer DLC.

            1) It means anything added to the game and NOT fully separated is depriving anyone without it (weapons, items, maps in the map cycle), forcing them to change server when map changes to a DLC map and deal-with-it when an enemy use a DLC item/weapon. It’s dividing the playerbase between the DLC-have the DLC-have-not.

            2) Psychologically, it’s also turning your “Max Payne 3 Multiplayer” experience into a “Max Payne 3 Multiplayer but without DLCs” experience.
            “Oh, for only 30 dollars, I could play on more maps, use more weapons, too bad my current license is not complete”

            Amusement parks are making money on that : “Only 50 bucks per person !”, then the kids see that the best attractions/rides are only available to the Premium Pass, and parents either have to teach their kids plain frustration (protip: it doesn’t work, they’ll yell and cry) or pay the big fat price (promising themselves they’ll never get fooled again).

            Shrinking down the enjoyment of an experience to the pure material aspect of it isn’t wise, you perfectly know (same with all the marketeers with a degree/doctorate in psychology) that enjoyment is greatly influenced by the environment.

            Give a bike to a kid, he’ll be happy. Give him a bike, then give to the other kids motocross, he’ll be frustrated and sad.

            Even monkeys (capuchins) understand that : link to youtube.com (nb: it’s the cucumber/grape experiment)
            The capuchin on the left usually enjoy the cucumber, and no one force him to get/ask for grape. He should be satisfied with the cucumber. Then why he is throwing away food (which is a very strong signal for an animal !), to request grape ? Perhaps the value of what he gets also depends on what others get…

            The initial DLC business model was basically making smaller add-ons thanks to digital distribution, expanding the initial fully-satisfactory experience.

            I never heard/read someone complaining about an add-on featuring things that really should have been in the initial game. If such thing would happen, it was called a mistake and was perceived as less sales for the initial game (so less potential sales of the add-on), it wasn’t called a “shoddy business move” just to make more money.

            Simply because the add-on business model was never really corrupt to the point of drastically changing the initial game development.

            To sell an add-on you had to have a complete and successful initial game. Add-on projects were only greenlighted and correctly published (with the right marketing campaign, the right distribution) when the initial game was a commercial success.

            DLCs (DownLoadable Content) were supposed to allow developers to make more add-ons, for games that weren’t enough successful to greenlight a full retail distribution, but good enough to have an expanded experience. Fans of niche games were going to rejoice.

            The publishers instead thought “hey, the reduced publishing cost will allow us to make add-ons for worse initial experience” :
            – a game lasting only 5 hours can now have an add-on (in the DLC form).
            – a game without a decent marketing campaign can now have an add-on (in the DLC form).
            => any game can have an add-on (in the DLC form), no matter how short/bad/unpolished it is.

            The cost and risk of greenlighting a DLC project is so small, it’s a win-win situation for the publisher, the only thing “suffering” here is the long-term image of the IP – but do you know many people refusing to buy Call of Duty just because of the DLCs ? Less than 0.1% of their potential buyers.

            And when you’re making more money with DLCs (who cost much less than their price) than with the additional sales you “could” have made with a longer/better game (= 3 to 6 months of development), making average/somewhat-good experiences followed by tons of DLCs is just the “right” thing to do, money-wise.

            For the short term at least – and since your audience grow up and play differently every 3 years (very young players later play more (in terms of time and dedication) and want more depth-gameplay, then they get old (young adults) and play less (either students in their 2nd or 3rd years focusing on their social life, or workers focusing on their professional life) you don’t lose much.

            You don’t have such things as old fans waiting for the next title (that stuff is good for the old IP from the previous era of IP-building, or the few niche games).

            The DLC business model was corrupt, and is now no longer connected to its initial goal, expanding the initial experience. It’s so much easier and profitable to abuse it and spam cheap DLCs.

            Personally, it reminds me of the Free Market idea. On the paper, with perfect information, market and competition, it sounds lovely. When applied to reality, the idea is rapidly corrupted and is no longer connected to its initial goal.

          • Unaco says:


            Oh shock! They incentivise buying their DLC? They encourage you to buy their product? The monsters!

            Seriously though… again. That is not FORCING you to buy the DLC. You can choose, without loss, to not buy the DLC. There is no penalty to not buying the DLC. Not buying the DLC does NOT leave me with less. It leaves me with the same amount.

          • El_Emmental says:

            “Oh shock! They incentivise buying their DLC? They encourage you to buy their product? The monsters!”
            => As I already wrote, there is a difference between :
            – incentivising people into buying your DLC by making it an interesting DLC (price and content wise)
            – and incentivising people into buying your DLC by making it necessary to have a not-incomplete experience (multiplayer or singleplayer), both psychologically and content-wise.

            Also, I appreciate your effort into ignoring everything I wrote above, by simply repeating the same thing :

            “You can choose, without loss, to not buy the DLC. There is no penalty to not buying the DLC. Not buying the DLC does NOT leave me with less. It leaves me with the same amount.”

            I wrote 2 main arguments (supported by several external examples, such as amusement parks, the relative value of gifts given to a kid and capuchins behaviors when facing such situation) regarding this issue, but you decided to ignore them. I will then formulate them differently, in case these 2 arguments were misunderstood.

            “”You can choose, without loss, to not buy the DLC. There is no penalty to not buying the DLC. Not buying the DLC does NOT leave me with less. It leaves me with the same amount.””

            First, choosing is renouncing. In this case, you either renounce to a multiplayer experience (contained in the DLCs) or renounce to some of your money. Choosing requires an effort, it requires balancing the pro and cons regarding each DLCs, evaluating the risks and making a final decision, then accepting its consequences. I suppose you already know what “loss aversion” means.

            If you choose to not buy the multiplayer DLC, you will miss the opportunity to enjoy that multiplayer experience that won’t last more than 6 months (playerbase will rapidly die down, otherwhise Rockstar wouldn’t be regrouping all its planned DLCs in such a short time period + the current market clearly shows playerbase doing the spike-then-long-and-really-small-tail).

            Choosing not to buy is losing that multiplayer experience. It’s not a physical loss, it’s an abstract loss, it’s the loss of something ephemeral : the multiplayer experience with a big enough playerbase. It is still a loss.


            Second, there is a penalty to not buy the DLC : you do NOT have the possibility to share the same multiplayer experience, you do not have all the maps, all the game-modes, you do NOT have the complete multiplayer experience. It’s not only reducing the _relative_ value of the initial game multiplayer experience, it’s also psychologically tricking you into feeling unfairness when not having these DLCs (see the capuchins experiment, the example of amusement parks, the example of kids’ gifts).


            Third, regarding “not buying the DLC does NOT leave me with less. It leaves me with the same amount“.

            It leaves you with the same amount of “license granting you the right to an access to the non-DLC multiplayer experience”, YES. You “have” the same amount of maps, weapons, models, etc.

            However, it leaves you with less. The value of that SAME amount decreased (especially since we’re talking about multiplayer DLCs) when other players can have a better/larger access to the multiplayer experience than you. The cucumber vs the grape for the capuchins, the bike vs the motorbike for the kid’s present, the basic rides vs all the rides of the amusement park.

            There no unity between the type of license you buy, the price you pay, the content it “contains”, and the value it has (depending on your usage and the way you deal with unfairness).

            The value of the initial Max Payne 3 (without DLCs) license will decrease, for the multiplayer user, everytime a new DLC is released.

            Of course, it will increase the value of the “initial license + DLC licenses” package, this is why buying these DLCs is going to be worth it for some players (and why the “Rockstar Pass” sounds like a good idea – think of the loss aversion once again), but you can’t deny it will depreciate the value of the initial license regarding the multiplayer experience, this is precisely why Rockstar can put 8 DLCs in 6 months without fearing the DLCs won’t sell much.

            To keep the global value of your multiplayer experience, Rockstar is forcing you to buy their DLCs (exploiting the natural and illogical loss aversion), pretending that the (actual and real) benefits (= the new content) will greatly outweigh the depreciated initial multiplayer experience, making the DLCs a non-choice if you want to enjoy the Max Payne 3 multiplayer experience. This is why these DLCs -can- be worth all the depreciations they are causing on the basic multiplayer experience.

            Rockstar is taking hostage the multiplayer experience (that they legally own – but partially share with their playerbase in terms of commercial ethics and trust), tying it to their DLCs business plan. Like all the other developers of the industry.

            But the way they’re controlling the multiplayer experience is much more focused on maximizing profits than on providing an enjoyable multiplayer experience, in my opinion. This is why I qualify their DLCs business plan as “abusing” the DLC system.

            My final words : you can not reduce the question to a simple “amount” of content, the psychological aspect (the relative value, the loss aversion, etc) and the complex interactions regarding the multiplayer experience are way too much important to be ignored.

            However, if you don’t want to debate about DLCs, licenses and the relative value of experiences, you’re free to copy-paste the same sentence again and again.

            Maybe I’ll suddenly forget everything else and start complaining how Max Payne 3 is not “noire” enough and won’t be as good as the previous two games, that the bold-headed character design looks bad and how consoles are holding back innovations.

            ps: That attitude towards complex issues reminds me of the “I’ve got nothing to hide” motto regarding privacy : it sounds so logical, yet it fails to grasp the real complexity of the problem.

      • TormDK says:

        I would, that way I could prepare.

        Which is the same as the RockStar release.

        It will be like this for GTA V likely as well. I prefer publishers to be as forthcoming as possible regarding future plans for their triple A titles.

        That way we as customers can make informed choices, rather than cling to some absurd notion of “hope” for the future.

        • battles_atlas says:

          Fair enough. My response would be more along the lines of “I’d really rather you didn’t”. Its your cat though, and I’m sure coating it in flame-retardant foam wont diminish its quality of life too much.

      • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

        I’m glad you think that way: you’ll appreciate the news that I’m coming round your house next week to set fire to your cat.

        That’s a terrible analogy. DLC is really the equivalent of painfully killing the underlying game? Keep in mind, this is optional… it would be as if you purchased a cat and was offered special bedding suited for your cat for an additional cost. Though even that’s imperfect because feline bedding doesn’t directly provide you with the same enjoyment and pleasure as the cat itself.

        When did DLC become ‘supporting the game post release’?

        When was it not? So not releasing DLC is the real way to support the game post-release? You do realise this isn’t mutually exclusive to patches, updates and also free DLC (according to comments on their newswire) that will be released?

        • battles_atlas says:

          No it would be like you buy the cat, knowing that some element of it will only be available at a later date when you will have to pay again. Whether you value that element or not is subjective – but to me just the possibility of that extra element tarnishes the purchase of the original, and damages its sense as coherent thing, as opposed to a bit of a thing.

          As for ‘supporting’ the game, the clear use of this term traditionally has been free patches that address deficiencies in the original release. Its completely disengenuous to try and claim that paid DLC meets this defintion.

          • Deadly Habit says:

            So you want a cat? Cool it’ll be $60 oh and you’ll have to pay $10 later on if you want it to have a tail. Oh and purring will be an extra too.

          • Tyrone Slothrop. says:

            knowing that some element of it will only be available at a later date when you will have to pay again.

            So you consider fire to be an standard element for cats, in keeping with your absurd analogy or is this an implicit admission of wrong-headed hyperbole?

            to me just the possibility of that extra element tarnishes the purchase of the original, and damages its sense as coherent thing, as opposed to a bit of a thing.

            These are multiplayer maps and modes… it’s not like if it’s DLC that has a more fleshed-out narrative arc or reveals a character previously thought dead in the preceding games. How is it not a ‘bit of a thing’ as you put it?

            As for ‘supporting’ the game, the clear use of this term traditionally has been free patches that address deficiencies in the original release. Its completely disingenuous to try and claim that paid DLC meets this defintion.

            That’s what they’re doing in addition to paid DLC. It’s just one avenue of supporting a game, you know adding content to a persistent multiplayer experience in exchange for currency. My, what foul subterfuge!

  10. Spider Jerusalem says:

    well, that rounds out to a cool $90 for the whole max payne 3 experience.

    just say no to $60 pc games with pre-release dlc announcements.

    • noodlecake says:

      It’s not like they’ve made half a game and held some of it back. It’s taken at least 4 years to make this game. So you get 4 years worth of hard work for your $60 and then if you want to you can purchase some extra baubles that don’t really relate that much to the core game. This sounds fine to me. I don’t usually buy any of this stuff anyway. I think £40 for four years of intense work from a big team of highly creative people working on something that they feel highly passionate about is a fair deal.

      I don’t mind DLC and obviously the majority don’t either because they obviously sell enough to profit from. I think if people put this much effort into moaning about something important like LGBT rights or animal welfare or rescuing cows from abattoirs or homing the homeless the world could be a much better place for everyone.

      • Gormongous says:

        Who’s more foolish, the fool or the fool who complains about him?

      • Spider Jerusalem says:


        my next post on this computer games site in a thread about a computer game will be two lines of text decrying the poor treatment of my local crow population by the small children with alka seltzer tablets.

    • torchedEARTH says:

      $90 isn’t that much money nowadays.

      • Deadly Habit says:

        Yea $90 isn’t much when you live with your mom and dad, for those of us in the real world where the economy is shit it’s a lot of money.

        • torchedEARTH says:

          Who lives with their mum and dad now?

          I work hard. Try it sometime.

          • Deadly Habit says:

            As do I, but if you have $90 to toss around like it’s the cost of a fast food I wouldn’t mind some gifts on steam.

          • Bonedwarf says:

            And the winner of the arrogant twat award for 2012 goes too… *opens envelope*… TorchedEarth!

      • Spider Jerusalem says:

        same name on the forums? i’ll pm you my paypal address.

  11. shaydeeadi says:

    Whahey! Multiplayer community smashed into fragments before the game is even out. Good job R*.

    • El_Emmental says:

      They’ll shut down the servers 12 months after launch, what’s the point in building a community ?

      You won’t have anything close to a community, it’s just impossible : dedicated servers ? SDK (at least for game-mode/plugins) ? map editor ? Niet, you lose you get nothing, GOOD DAY SIR.

      There won’t be a community.

      Community and playerbase are useless, when more than 90% of your sales will happen in the first 30 days after release and mostly thanks to the marketing campaign.

      Community-based playerbase is a thing of the past, or the niche/indie games.

  12. noodlecake says:

    The game will be amazing (I think) and fully complete without the DLC. I will get this. I probably won’t get the DLC because I don’t want it. None of this makes me angry. I’m sure some people will buy the DLC and be happy with it. You don’t have to pay for anything that you don’t want to pay for. I never reall understood the anger around this issue.

  13. faelnor says:

    It’s no secret that publishers have decided to shift their models in order to extend the amount and duration of gamers’ payments for all kind of games, although more noticeable with multiplayer components. Free to play and pay to win, base game plus micro-DLC announced pre-release or day-1 DLC, “premium” service subscriptions including social and unlockables… All those are valid ways to increase profit from consumers, they make a lot of sense to me considering how the industry works today.

    Of course, they also can go rot in hell as far as I’m concerned but that would be a tad bit subjective.

  14. B1A4 says:

    Will it be as good as The specialists mod for HL1? ‘Cause it was multiplayer with kung-fu and bullet time back in 200something

    link to moddb.com

  15. Premium User Badge

    Bluerps says:

    The last thing I think about when I hear “May Payne” is “Multiplayer”, but maybe that is the reason they are announcing all that: To get people talking about Multipayne.

    I don’t have a problem with pre-release announcement of DLC, as long as it doesn’t look like the DLC is some vital part of the game. But I don’t think I’m interested in this DLC, simply because I’m not really a fan of multiplayer shooters. Also, the price seems to be very high for just some maps and modes (assuming the summed cost of the DLC is at least as high as the Rockstar Pass thing).

  16. MeestaNob says:

    Two things:
    – Pre-release DLC announcements are astoundingly rude.
    – Rockstar like to use GFWL, which means there is NO WAY IN HELL I’m getting a game with that much DLC. It’s a pain to buy GFWL-sourced DLC, and even if it’s available via Steam I’ll STILL need to plug the DLC cd key into GFWL to get it going. Fuck all that noise. Fingers crossed it’s at least pure-Steam, otherwise no sale.

    I’ll wait for a GotY version in 12 months time.

    • Bonedwarf says:

      I like DLC pre-release announcements. It’s like a dev saying “Don’t buy this game!”

      I appreciate the warning that their product is shipping incomplete. Like a car with only one wheel.

  17. Kyoss says:

    The guy on the screenshot is apparently right-handed, yet he wears his watch on the right wrist.

    • Janto says:

      As do I. It’s not that unusual.

      • Kyoss says:

        would totally kill the immersion for me

        • Deadly Habit says:

          Another righty here who wears his watch on the right hands wrist. Have I ruined your IRL immersion?

    • jaheira says:

      Yeah that’s quite weird but not as freaky as those guys who wear their watch with the face on the inside of the wrist. That shit is scary.

  18. Zulthar says:

    I don’t understand why they’re announcing this DLC when nobody has even played MP3 multiplayer yet. It could be terrible. It could die completely after the first month.

    • El_Emmental says:

      Then some developers would be fired, and DLC canceled or outsourced to a cheap third-party studio, and no one would care about a month-old news (Max Payne 3).

  19. best_jeppe says:

    *Sigh* well, must wait another 6 – 12 months then for the GOTY-edition. Or try to buy it during the Steam Christmas Sale where they hopefully will sell the game + all DLCs for about 50 euros. I detest DLCs and won’t buy the game until I can get a complete game at a decent price.

    • El_Emmental says:

      HA HA, but the price you’ll pay won’t be cheaper : the multiplayer experience in 6 months, with a declining playerbase and the few remaining players abusing the games glitches/flaws/unbalances (that the devs won’t fix), won’t be worth much money.

      The only thing you’ll enjoy is the singleplayer, and 2 hours of multiplayers (maximum).

  20. Gap Gen says:

    MaxPayneDev7 sucks. I want to see MaxPayneDev23 in action.

  21. Baboonanza says:

    I love your puns Nathan, and the fact that you’re willing to write a whole paragraph just to work in Payne-lessness. You sir are an artist.

  22. Freud says:

    I suspect this is the game where multi player will be dead within a few months after launch and it’ll be better to wait for the inevitable sale and play through the single player game once.

    • Puckoidiot says:

      I’m not sure. Both GTA IV and Red Dead Redemption still have active multiplayer and Rockstar quite often play with fans.

  23. torchedEARTH says:

    To all the naysayers, “oh it’s DLC before release, it’s my hard earned money, I hate success”.

    I say this, you’ll buy into kickstarter projects without a whine, yet you get grumpy when an excellent developer with a brilliant track record tries to sell you something in a similar vein.

    “Oh, but it costs more money than other stuff”

    Yeah? Perhaps other stuff is shit in comparison.

    • Deadly Habit says:

      Kickstarters don’t announce DLC in their mission statements.

      • shaydeeadi says:

        They have been actually, Grim Dawn, Nekro both offer it and starlight inception got flack for it.

        I suck with html so no links.

      • Unaco says:

        No. But some of them offer them as exclusives for throwing (more – ludicrous) amounts of money at them.

    • Spider Jerusalem says:

      hot damn this is stupid.

    • hypercrisis says:

      grade-A idiocy right here

    • Shooop says:

      The good ones don’t make a constant drip-feed of pay-for DLC seem like a reason to buy the game. Because it’s the exact opposite.

  24. El_Emmental says:

    Every 22 days, you’ll have a new DLC.

    This is brilliant, Rockstar. I am impressed and immensely proud of you.

    Being able to develop, test, polish so many high-quality maps and interesting game-modes in so little time, I am impressed.

    But when are you brilliant developers are going to have some rest ?

  25. kud13 says:

    This is almost as bad as Saint Row 3’s “a year’s worth of DLC content” deal. Which is why I still haven’t bought that game.

  26. Iskariot says:

    What’s with all the multi player only DLC?
    I thought Max Payne was primarily a SP game.
    To me it feels like Rockstar is focusing on the wrong thing here.

  27. Shooop says:

    Strike one then.

  28. DOLBYdigital says:

    I already wasn’t very interested in this game but this just seals the deal for me. The only thing that would put this game back on my radar would be full mod support (I would love to play kung-fu max payne, the original mod was amazing). I don’t have my hopes up though and will forget about this game for a couple years.

  29. Dhatz says:

    lets not get buffled by the logical, if it generates profits, it gets done.