They need money for iron to create dlc and maps

They have said before and just recently that the new character skins are iron for the first week then coins after so they can make money to create dlc. I completely understand and agree with this as they are a business and need to make money. My point is that If we are giving money for iron and helping fund future dlc then atleast let us choose the dlc by a poll since our money is funding some of it. Majority of the money prob comes from Microsoft but when we fund it and you give us repeat maps over and over and maps from gears 4 then that’s like wasting our money for dlc. Give us a poll with maps that we want and know we are getting and I’m sure we would be more willing to use money knowing we are getting what we are paying for. Like river, mansion, jacinto, ruins, academy, azura. When you get our money and create blood drive and checkout again it’s like a waste. I really think that if we are giving our money then we should get the maps we want not what TC decides to bring over for the 5th time. I think TC is doing a fantastic job now and gears 5 is only looking brighter and brighter and excited for the future of this game. Just my opinion on the matter and I understand if you disagree.


Since when did Epic ever let fans vote on future content? Not to say it cannot be done but it has next to no precedent in the Gears franchise. I also think the idea is flawed because tons of people that have invested zero money (or even time for that matter) into the game will get just as much say as someone who has.

I think a better approach would be a poll but instead of it being decided by votes it would be decided by money… This would mean that the minority of fans who are super passionate about certain maps could force TC’s hand into making said maps, this could be exploited because say 1 Gears millionaire can decide if a map is remade or not, but all they would have to do is just cap it at a certain amount (say $20) to avoid this.

It sounds crazy but if anyone here remembers they did do a “save carmine” promotion in Gears 3 that was exactly that, in order to vote you had to purchase an avatar item or something (forgot exactly what you had to purchase) and its why Clayton is still up and kicking in Gears 5 :smile_cat:

RAAM was brought back for RAAM’s Shadow due to an online poll about favourite video game characters. Epic seemed surprised at how far he got and promised more content with him him largely based on that.

I mean this here was fans directly voting on future content.


If they said they would have a campaign add on to show what went on with JD and Fahz after the hammer strikes, then I would certainly spend some cash on Iron. Even if/when they have a skin for my homie Griffin I would. But other than that, not much more would interest me.

1 Like

I’m sure a lot of us would happily part with some money for like a map pack of 5 maps

ÂŁ10 (13 dollars) or something

1 Like

They (TC/Microsoft) did away with that model, too much player segmentation and frankly probably didn’t make anywhere near as much money as microtransactions do long term. Most games nowadays do a Season Pass if anything and even then its almost never worth the price.

If we’ve gotta wait until then I just hope with operation 5 we get a major influx of literally everything

Multiplayer is definitely on the up but we are a good 5+ maps short to me, play for a couple of hours you’ve played training grounds a hundred times.

The good news here is that they are very likely to have about 5 maps each operation going forward.

The bad news is that the majority will be Gears 4 ports…

As someone who enjoys PvE and PvP I care far more about PvE balancing and content far more than PvP, so maps are a non issue for me because if all I wanted was maps I could just play those in Gears 4 or Gears 3, I want certain things for Horde/Escape.


Gears 5 should have had all of Gears 4’s content at launch. The notion of having to wait/re-earn some of the same content all over again is ridiculous, and is becoming less and less accepted as time goes on. It’s an archaic design practice at this point.

The fact that both games run on the same god damn engine makes it all the more hilarious.


Tbf I wouldn’t mind some gears 4 maps as they had some decent ones in. 3 from there 1 old (river etc) and 1 brand new. As said though so many of the gears 4 maps should’ve been there from launch.

Never really took to escape personally, always loved horde and that’s clearly lacking too with the amount of bosses it does get very samey and predictable

@XeroShinobi that sounds like really cool theory, but I’ve never seen nor heard of any game that has done it. Porting all of one game’s content to its sequel is often times more difficult than it may appear, I also suspect that developers don’t like the idea of being weighed down by previous installments that much.

@Whelan902 I just wanna see some maps we haven’t seen in a long time, like Pavilion or Hail or maybe Highway or something idk, so many great maps that haven’t ever gotten the appreciation they deserve :rage:

1 Like

The current trend is that games very rarely get sequels. They get updates for many, many years before the idea of a sequel is ever floated.

Quite frankly, Gears 5 could have been Gears 4 expansions.

Microsoft should be looking at only having one installment of their main franchises per console generation and just updating them throughout that time.

Yep absolutely loads of unbelievable old maps which would no doubt make the old school players take a look

General consensus to me was this game was released far too early

I’ve always said that all of the maps should be available in a gears game. Microsoft is a trillion dollar company after all. Although at this point I can only assume that the player base is too small for MS to care a whole lot about gears. Seems like each release is more or less a money grab. Maybe if the game was much better, with all of the maps from previous games, the player base will grow more…

1 Like

I do agree with you man @U_Gunna_Get_Got TC should make polls on the things that we would like them to sell to us, so we could exactly expect on what to use our money for.

I’m more than willing to give them money for example if they could give us a full fledged Horde Map Editor or they could give us MAP PACKS for 5 never seen before maps on Gears 5 . … I don’t see a problem paying for such stuff.

For example if they released a " ENEMY PLUS PACK " where in horde it could be added more enemy variety I could also pay for that without hesitation.

I think TC instead of selling us " THE SHREK " on Texas Garments:


they should instead make more maps so its a win win situation . we for instance well have more fun and they will get more money.

If I spend iron it better be exclusive.

I don’t see the point when I have like 120,000+ coins to spend any iron.

Just saying.

Most fans think the same too.

1 Like

In-game premium currencies are a psychological scam used to disassociate the actual financial impact of monetary purchases.

I’m OK with games having some real-world money skins available, but they need to be available all the time in a real currency, and in no way be RNG.

The developers need to grow some balls and sell their crap upfront like adults.

Gears 5 removed the RNG from Gears 4, kept the FOMO, and introduced a disassociated premium currency. Literally one step forward, two steps back.

I would argue the one step forward (removal of RNG) was the more important step, but it’s still disconcerting.


I usually don’t agree with you man… but this time I really think you are on point with this hahahahah :slight_smile:


As far as how content delivery works, I think I’ve been unarguably on-point over the years. There are tactics that are pro-consumer and anti-consumer. They’re not very difficult to call if you’ve been paying any attention to the industry for any amount of time.

1 Like

Yup. Wanna sell you something’s that’s free in a couple days…

You can’t do that anywhere else & expect people not to wait for when it’s free.

They want to please the community that wants free stuff but want us to fund them, even though it’s not true premium.

It’s contradicting, as you well said.

1 Like