10 Reasons To Hate Modern FPS Games

8. Overpriced DLC

All FPS DLC seems to be map packs. That would be okay, if they weren't so damn overpriced. 5 new maps for Modern Warfare 2 will set you back around 20 bucks here in Australia, that is insane. 7 Mass Effect 3 maps, with new guns and classes, sets me back NOTHING. For some reason, shooter expansions are just map packs that we have to pay crazy prices for. Even a smaller shooter like Killzone will cost way too much. Two maps is $15.95. TWO. They should just give you that for free as a thankyou for playing the game, especially considering the profit that the developers would already have made from the game's initial sale. The only expensive DLC I can get behind is the map packs for Battlefield 3. Not just map packs, each one brings new game modes, new maps, new vehicles and new assignments that carry over in the main game. While they are $23.95 individually (Yes, we pay 24 bucks for that crap here in Aus), the Premium subscription, oddly priced at $50, offers great value. The fact that the guns carry over into the main game is a nice touch. Move over onto a non-shooter genre, and things change a bit. A shooter rarely has no online play, so it is mainly the offline games that follow this rule. A lot games offer a significant incentive to buy new. Arkham City had the Catwoman DLC, which not only adds hours of new content to the game but can also be played through infinitely. Mass Effect 2 gave new users a few months of free DLC. Shooters give you an online pass, something will be in the game anyway. Doesn't seem like a fair deal, having to pay for stuff other games will give you for free.