PDA

View Full Version : GamerScore limit per game?


markd12
04-19-2009, 08:52 PM
I remember reading somewhere that there was a cap of 1250 per game
So did they raise the limit for all games or just for Gears of war 2 (1425) and halo 3 (1750)?

Tenacious
04-19-2009, 08:54 PM
Nobody knows anymore. The system is broken.

Fallout 3 is also going to either 1300 or 1350, I don't remember.

Boiled Frogs
04-19-2009, 09:04 PM
i think it's always 1000 for the basic retail, then a limit of 750 extra for any future DLC, but a maximum of 250 per DLC... I think.

Arcade is 200 max base, and 50 more for future DLC

Deyankees1
04-19-2009, 09:24 PM
It was never always a 750 cap it was always 250, Microsoft is just allowing there big named games to break the caps since achievements sell DLC. GTA4 is inevitable gonna break 1250 aswell.

Kaiyo
04-19-2009, 10:13 PM
Its 1000 while others that have DLC would have to cost money.

laundryman
04-19-2009, 10:46 PM
The original rule was 1000 in the retail package and a maximum of 250 for DLC. Halo broke that rule and now it doesn't really seem like a rule anymore.

lilluke13
04-19-2009, 11:31 PM
It seems there is always someone breaking the rules........


*glares at halo 3*

Glowin Smurff
04-19-2009, 11:43 PM
It seems there is always someone breaking the rules........


*glares at halo 3*

then glare at Gears 2, and GTA 4 as well. since they'd technically be breaking the rules too, oh and don't forget fallout3. that'll be above the limit too.

StolenKyle/
04-20-2009, 01:59 AM
Halo 3 will go to 2k.

I know it will.

M85A21
04-20-2009, 02:02 AM
System is now flawed. Dumb man, "Oh let's keep it 1250 only, but if a mainstream game comes out we will just change everything about it"

Kaiyo
04-20-2009, 02:48 AM
Games that have 1250+ usually have those DLC never free and cost MS points. So rule is never over 1000 unless it involves money.

Glowin Smurff
04-20-2009, 02:57 AM
crackdown goes to 1250 for free. :)

CyanideBreathMint
04-20-2009, 03:03 AM
I'd bet Smurff's right nut that you'll start to see a LOT of future games adopt this trend of adding more and more DLC to extend the longevity of your game. Personally I'm on the fence as I have a nice income and tend to spoil myself with buying a lot of games.

On the other side though, I recognize the fact not everyone can afford every new game that comes out and appreciates 'bit sized DLC' that adds replayability/achievements to their game(s).

Glowin Smurff
04-20-2009, 03:17 AM
I'd bet Smurff's right nut that you'll start to see a LOT of future games adopt this trend of adding more and more DLC to extend the longevity of your game. Personally I'm on the fence as I have a nice income and tend to spoil myself with buying a lot of games.

On the other side though, I recognize the fact not everyone can afford every new game that comes out and appreciates 'bit sized DLC' that adds replayability/achievements to their game(s).

only problem i have w/ bite sized DLC was the Fallout3 stuff being 800 points and only adding about 2-4hours tops of gameplay.

but i do think w/ the economy and all, DLC might be the way for some game companies to stick out some of this recession, i mean hell, you pay $5-10 for DLC that adds game life, they get most of that back in profit, as opposed to $60 for a new game, that might not sell because it's %600 more expensive, and some of that goes into manufacturing and marketing as well as distribution....but either way only time will tell.


and hey, don't bet my nuts. Besides, you already got 2 JuniorMints i think you should bet your own. :D

Blind x360a
04-20-2009, 03:36 AM
crackdown goes to 1250 for free. :)

http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/orly-35971.jpg

Glowin Smurff
04-20-2009, 03:49 AM
http://media.urbandictionary.com/image/large/orly-35971.jpg

yes i rly. (you might have to co-op w/ someone that paid for the pack though) but it's free to get to 1250 if u don't buy that pack :) i eventually bought it to start doing some things on my own w/o doing co-op but it IS possible to do 1250 w/o purchase of DLC (u might have to download some free crap though...)

Blind x360a
04-20-2009, 03:58 AM
yes i rly. (you might have to co-op w/ someone that paid for the pack though) but it's free to get to 1250 if u don't buy that pack :) i eventually bought it to start doing some things on my own w/o doing co-op but it IS possible to do 1250 w/o purchase of DLC (u might have to download some free crap though...)

There is a free thing, but I was under the impression that you needed to buy the DLC to be able to do the races, not just have a co-op partner have them.

Interesting&Thanks. :)

Glowin Smurff
04-20-2009, 06:21 AM
yeah, it actually makes it easier, they can block off other racers for you or whatever, but yes, you don't NEED to buy it, but if u want to play alone offline you do. some of the guns / cars aren't available i believe w/o buying it but playing co-op w/ someone that has it unlocks those for use until you stop playing, so finding a partner to play w/ is an easy way to save that money. I know the price did drop on the DLC though i believe....if u do end up buying it.

DENAz666
04-20-2009, 06:24 AM
A game that is released needs to have a cap of 1000 points, but then they are able to add to that through DLC, and i think DLC can only have a max of 250 points per DLC.

FonduYouLoveMe
04-20-2009, 06:33 AM
Halo 3 will go to 2k.

I know it will.

My friend and I were joking that in 2010 it will hit 3K lol

v_thorne
04-20-2009, 07:26 AM
I don't know why people always think there is a "limit" of gamerscore for each game.
The basic per retail is obviously 1000. Then with added DLC, the developer can add as little or as much as they like. It is, however, usually in the 100/150/200/250 range, but it's not like M$ is going to set a cap of how much or how little GS they can put out based on DLC.

jason86586
04-20-2009, 07:41 AM
Halo 3 will go to 2k.

I know it will.

i doubt it. Didnt bungie say no more Halo 3 work for them. Just ODST and thats it for Halo 3. Anyway if u want to count the ODST 1000 points, its technically 2750 for Halo 3

NoodleII
04-22-2009, 07:38 PM
So just out of curiousity, why is there a limit to begin with? I've only had my 360 for less than 2 years so I am curious what the rationale was at setting a limit? I understand the human factors involved with boosting a gamerscore, but it would seem to me there should be guidelines on how many points a given achievement should be worth (based on what you, a developer, are asking the gamer to do with your product) rather than capping a game's limit for total points they can offer. This seems to me like a stifle to the potential creativity of some developers. Don't flame me - I just trying to catch up to the debate :P

Rugger X
04-22-2009, 07:43 PM
So just out of curiousity, why is there a limit to begin with? I've only had my 360 for less than 2 years so I am curious what the rationale was at setting a limit? I understand the human factors involved with boosting a gamerscore, but it would seem to me there should be guidelines on how many points a given achievement should be worth (based on what you, a developer, are asking the gamer to do with your product) rather than capping a game's limit for total points they can offer. This seems to me like a stifle to the potential creativity of some developers. Don't flame me - I just trying to catch up to the debate :P

There's probably a limit to prevent some developer from making their game worth 25,000 points just so they can sell more copies to people looking to boost their gamerscores.

I have no problem personally with the fact that some games are going over 1250 with DLC because I would rather see developers continue to make DLC instead of saying "oh well, we've reach the 250 limit so let's stop making content for this game" or making content that doesn't add any achievements and probably wouldn't sell very well as a result

carter1412
04-22-2009, 08:10 PM
fall out and fable have both broke the "capp" now its stupid, microsoft rippin us off!

mksystem74
04-22-2009, 08:34 PM
So just out of curiousity, why is there a limit to begin with? I've only had my 360 for less than 2 years so I am curious what the rationale was at setting a limit? I understand the human factors involved with boosting a gamerscore, but it would seem to me there should be guidelines on how many points a given achievement should be worth (based on what you, a developer, are asking the gamer to do with your product) rather than capping a game's limit for total points they can offer. This seems to me like a stifle to the potential creativity of some developers. Don't flame me - I just trying to catch up to the debate :P

The 1000 on the launch of a game is the only thing that matters. Lets say there was no rule and a crap game like Avatar had a gamerscore set to 5000. That's just ridiculous. And not fair for harder games like COD4 that set theirs at 1000. So they capped it at 1000 for a min and max at launch. That's fine.

DLC is something people pay for, so they release more achievements to give someone to ACHIEVE new things during the game and DLC. Sure they could release DLC without achievements but the developers realise that people ENJOY collecting achievements so they want to give them more of what they want. It's also a clever way of pushing people over who are on the fence abour buying or not buying the DLC. It's smart business.

As for a cap for aditional DLC acheivements, it seems that Halo 3 has the most so far with 1750 total. With a lot of games coming out with DLC, it puts a hole in people pockets cause they are obsessed with their 100% on the games they play. Guess what? It's their own damn fault if they rent a game for the acheivements and new DLC comes out that adds more acheivements. They don't have a right to bitch since they rented the game FOR acheivements and now more are coming out. These people thrive on acheivements and gamerscore so it's rediculous for them to complain that more acheivements are coming out to boost there gamerscore cause thats what they were doing when the rented the game.Simple solution. Buy games that you enjoy and are willing to spend the money for DLC if you're worried about 100%ing a game.

vI-Youneek-Iv
04-22-2009, 08:38 PM
They bumped it up from 1000 from all of the DLC, and Fallout is going to be 1350.

Shelton
04-22-2009, 08:54 PM
I don't know why people always think there is a "limit" of gamerscore for each game.
The basic per retail is obviously 1000. Then with added DLC, the developer can add as little or as much as they like. It is, however, usually in the 100/150/200/250 range, but it's not like M$ is going to set a cap of how much or how little GS they can put out based on DLC.

There was a list of rules/guidelines on Gamerscore Blog. A site, which I'm quite sure, is a direct representative of MS.

They stated that a game had to ship with 1000 GS or provide free DLC to make it 1000 (Ala Crackdown). They also stated that there would be a limit of 250 GS added through DLC. Referring to retail games. Arcade has their own "rules" too.

Link (http://gamerscoreblog.com/team/archive/2007/02/01/540575.aspx), 2nd Link (http://au.gamespot.com/news/6165256.html).

"The blog acknowledges that in the past there have been some inconsistencies with the 1,000-point rule (Condemned: Criminal Origins still only yields a maximum of 970 points), but says that going forward all games will adhere to the 1,000-point rule."

^ Yes, sure:rolleyes:

*Edit. MKsystem74- I own all my games. It's not a question of enjoying them enough to buy the DLC. It's the fact that MS/devs believe they can charge exorbinate amounts for small amounts of content just because they include achievements.

Bullshit I say.

Tenacious
04-22-2009, 08:58 PM
If you guys actually want to do something about this, stop buying the DLC! The reason Microsoft does this is because DLC packs sell like hotcakes.