[hyduK]

No different. You guys realize they plan this shit far in advance (like, in the content planning stages). If it's on the disc it just means they happened to finish it before release.

[mclem]

Personally, I prefer using "scrambled cable channels" as an analogy. "Hotel minibars" aren't too bad, but the parallels aren't as solid. Also we've had lots of fun in a previous thread (or was it earlier in this mammoth thread?) running and running to a ludicrous extent with a pizza analogy.

[corporate cheerleader]

Yep. Also TotalBiscuit had a good video mailbox in regards to the issue of entitlement. Can't find it atm.

Here ya go.

[ihearthawthats]

not this again...

you want to know what game is terribly "incomplete"? skullgirls. but do i care? no. its hella fun and worth every damn cent. will i buy the dlc that they have announced to be planning when it comes out? who knows, but i won't let that stop me from enjoying the game as is.

the problem is that people no longer judge the product that the are purchasing on its own. dlc is always taken into account nowadays. the most annoying thing about this is when people shut out games with dlc before even giving it a chance. "dlc threads" often attract a ton of people whether or not they've even played the game or sometimes whether or not they even care about the game--people that just want to spout anti-dlc crap.

[VillageBC]

I held off on Final Fantasy XIII-2 for exactly this reason. Bought it for $15 at Best Buy with sale + coupon. Games that are clearly designed to nickel and dime to death with DLC (or "DLC" as it were) aren't getting $60 from me. Granted, I still have yet to buy any FFXIII-2 DLC. ^^;

hehe, I just picked that up at the BB sale to. I can pretty safely say I won't be buying the DLC.

[RoninChaos]

No different. You guys realize they plan this shit far in advance (like, in the content planning stages). If it's on the disc it just means they happened to finish it before release.

if they finished it before release, and planned it far in advance, I think enough people will say "Hey, this should have been in the final game". Shipping the game with DLC characters there, waiting to be unlocked at a later point pretty much reeks of "We had everything done, and we're going to sell you a 3rd of the characters because we can" rather than "Hey, would these guys be a cool addition to the game?"

[Rickenslacker]

I don't see how this is insulting you but your right you can vote with your wallet and should but I bet you'll be the first one bitching at Namco when they have costumes for dlc or at Reverge Labs when they release dlc characters.

People have complained about all of Capcom's updates since SF4, it's true. There are those that saw SSF4 and went on the "IT'S THE SUPER TURBO DASH TOURNAMENT EDITION HYPER FIGHTING + ALPHA 3 ALL OVER AGAIN" thing right off the bat because SF4 wasn't made with DLC in mind so it had to be another disc purchase. What I saw was a cool update for a game I played a whole lot and gotten my money's worth, so picking it up was a no brainer and I was pretty happy with it.

Then AE comes along, with another disc release albeit optional this time, and a DLC version that I can buy. Even though I had no interest in the characters and essentially bought it for the "balance" update it brought I still got it day one, happy to try out the changes for my characters despite it killing a lot of SF4's hype because of the Yun + character nerfs shenanigans. People complained about having another update to SF4 still.

So, Marvel comes along and it comes with preorder characters that you can purchase a month afterwards. That actually kinda sucks but they were just the two characters and no one seemed to use them anyway. Then a couple months later they announce Ultimate coming out in the same year being a disc update with no DLC upgrade for vanilla. It was essentially the same ordeal as SF4 all over again only accelerated. People kinda rightfully complained about that one too.

My point is that I didn't personally have a problem with any of the above. Now with SFxT coming along, we got the Lupinko leaks knowing the full roster months beforehand. So I was excited to see the 12 characters that were remaining before release, but they never showed up. Once they announced the Vita version with the new added characters (before the console version even released), it was evident that they would be DLC.

At that point, I was still fine with it. Clearly they weren't finished in time for the release date of the game, whatever.

Then SFxT releases, and immediately gets data mined. They find textureless models for all the DLC characters. "Okay, fair enough that they would have some of already preliminarily done and on-disc." Then they find all the textures. "Alright..." Then they manage to find a way to replace characters already in the game with the DLC ones they've found and use them in fights. "The way they're shown on the character select is pretty rough, maybe those animations and movesets aren't final..." Then they get the trials, proper character select screen, alt costumes, endings, everything.

"Oh come the fuck on!"

I was pretty much giving them the benefit of the doubt for the thing up until the very end. I mean I know that people can deflect this situation as something people would've complained about anyway, and it's probably true you can't get everyone on board with DLC and they have complained about these things in Capcom fighters in the past-- but this was the one to get me annoyed with them.

Sure, the easy defense is if they did the exact same thing but not on disc for you to download later you wouldn't have complained. You know what? That's absolutely true, because I would've still been giving them the benefit of the doubt on the situation as well. Completely different set of circumstances and I wouldn't have any means of knowing that they were already long done and ready for play. With DLC it's always straddling that line of hoping that they're not trying to abuse that sense of trust.

Anyhow, with this long post aside, I'd have preferred it had Capcom released it as an $80 game upfront, instead of an $80 game that you pay the rest of at the end of the year for the sake of the content complete Vita version that they'll sell for $40. Right now I'm more annoyed that the characters I'd wanna play are being held off while people that can tamper their systems have full access. That's just my opinion tho.

[Makoto]

i don't feel like discussing the topic, but i like the backlash against the word "entitlement," as a general thing

Same. It doesn't surprise me when video game "journalists" like Kotaku and Giantbomb who are already very friendly with the industry as it use the word. In between getting video games for free along with the other crap publishers send them to make them feel special, I question the notion that they know what it really means to be a consumer who can barely afford a couple games. But it's really depressing when consumers themselves use that word.

[RurouniZel]

if they finished it before release, and planned it far in advance, I think enough people will say "Hey, this should have been in the final game". Shipping the game with DLC characters there, waiting to be unlocked at a later point pretty much reeks of "We had everything done, and we're going to sell you a 3rd of the characters because we can" rather than "Hey, would these guys be a cool addition to the game?"

Exactly. There's a difference between buying a product that's shipped 100%, and then they offer you an addition 5-10% extra stuff for an additional price later down the road (like, you know, expansion packs) and buying a product that's 100% complete, but shipped at 80-90% completion for the same price and charging you for the remaining 10-20% (or more in some cases).

[ihearthawthats]

Exactly. There's a difference between buying a product that's shipped 100%, and then they offer you an addition 5-10% extra stuff for an additional price later down the road (like, you know, expansion packs) and buying a product that's 100% complete, but shipped at 80-90% completion for the same price and charging you for the remaining 10-20% (or more in some cases).

thats meaningless when you can't tell the difference with certainty.

p.s. day 1 dlc and on-disc dlc are not certainties, as much as people want to claim them to be.

[RoninChaos]

thats meaningless when you can't tell the difference with certainty. p.s. day 1 dlc and on-disc dlc are not certainties, as much as people want to claim them to be.

So what are you getting out of this? Can you honestly not see why people would have an issue with this?

[VillageBC]

thats meaningless when you can't tell the difference with certainty. p.s. day 1 dlc and on-disc dlc are not certainties, as much as people want to claim them to be.

It's pretty easy to tell really. If they are advertising day one dlc/ce bonus missions. Then they shipped a product they've held back on content, ergo incomplete.

[ihearthawthats]

It's pretty easy to tell really. If they are advertising day one dlc/ce bonus missions. Then they shipped a product they've held back on content, ergo incomplete.

i didn't realize games needed "bonus" content in order to be complete.

[Ogrekiller]

i didn't realize games needed "bonus" content in order to be complete.

Now you do.

[Glass Rebel]

I love that Total Biscuit video. The moment you defend corporate actions instead of your interests as a consumer, you lose.

[ihearthawthats]

Now you do.

so what should i think of games that have neither "bonus" content nor "dlc" available for purchase?

[Ogrekiller]

so what should i think of games that have neither "bonus" content nor "dlc" available for purchase?

Then you assume the bonus content and dlc are on the disc.

[Dartastic]

not this again... you want to know what game is terribly "incomplete"? skullgirls. but do i care? no. its hella fun and worth every damn cent. will i buy the dlc that they have announced to be planning when it comes out? who knows, but i won't let that stop me from enjoying the game as is.

You know what game that was released for 15 dollars, has completely new artwork and characters, an extremely small dev team of around 15 people, and has always been completely open to the community about how they are going to approach DLC? Skullgirls.

You know what game was released from a huge company for 60 dollars, has reused assets and moves, a large development team, and is trying to nickel and dime their customers to death with features that are already on the disk just waiting to be purchased at a later date? SF x Tekken.

Your argument is terrible. Skullgirls is not "incomplete." It shipped with everything that was done at the time, and they have been extremely upfront about their game from the very beginning. Capcom lied about a mode that was supposed to be in the 360 version, and on top of that have locked 12 characters, hundreds of gems, and tons of costumes away on a disk that I have already paid for. These costumes, characters, and gems are complete and on the disk. There's a difference between being upfront with your consumers and holding back content that you theoretically have already paid for. THE CONTENT FOR SF X TEKKEN IS SUBSTANTIAL, AND IT IS ALREADY ON THE DISK.

[Anth0ny]

A succinct analogy of on disc DLC and day one DLC

okay that's pretty good

[TAJ]

First, MVC2 wasn't the first iteration. MvC1 was, the game with 22 characters (2 of which were color swapped models). And 22 assists (characters that had only 1 animated attack)..

X-Men: Children of the Atom
X-Men vs. Street Fighter
Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter
That's not counting all the sprites recycled from the Street Fighter and Darkstalkers games.

[jett]

A succinct analogy of on disc DLC and day one DLC

That was actually pretty accurate.

[Jake Tower]

Analogy, or exemplification of how fucking stupid the "gamer" community can be?

Analogy.

I DESIDES WHAT A WHOLE ANALOGY IS FUCKFACE

[Ogrekiller]

X-Men: Children of the Atom X-Men vs. Street Fighter Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter That's not counting all the sprites recycled from the Street Fighter and Darkstalkers games.

SFxT isn't the first iteration then, Street fighter 1 arcade and tekken 1 arcade is.

[Chavelo]

It would be piss me off a lot more if this issue revolved around a good fighting game.

Luckily, that hasn't happened yet. :D

[LAUGHTREY]

Oh boy, another game company with a "We're right, you're wrong. We know best." attitude. I wonder how much longer they will last?

[Rickenslacker]

It would be piss me off a lot more if this issue revolved around a good fighting game. Luckily, that hasn't happened yet. :D

[Jackl]

Didn't.

Liquidate.

Cash.



When did companies stop fighting among themselves are started against their customers? Do all the major publishers have non-compete agreements? I can count the pro-consumer gaming corps on one hand now, and all of them are either private or indie.

[Tylahedras]

A succinct analogy of on disc DLC and day one DLC

Wow, thanks for that :)

*It's ok, Capcom has super cancer

[Zissou]

thats meaningless when you can't tell the difference with certainty. p.s. day 1 dlc and on-disc dlc are not certainties, as much as people want to claim them to be.

On disk DLC is an oxymoron.

[jetjevons]

No different. You guys realize they plan this shit far in advance (like, in the content planning stages). If it's on the disc it just means they happened to finish it before release.

So not always. Here's the way it sometimes works:

Most publishers create a P&L for every title and individual SKU they are going to finance and ship. They expect, hope for and plan for a certain ROI on each project they pay for. That's business. Sometimes the team finishes ahead of schedule, or members of the team have down time, for a plethora of reasons.

So there's these devs. Nothing to do. Technically no money to pay them. The advance on royalties (aka the game budget in most cases) is accounted for. To spend more would compromise the P&L that nearly all publishers rely on to function. They should probably be moved to a new project with a new P&L.

But hey, these guys could be creating additional content for the game we just finished! We could finance that content and sell it separately. Sure it'll require a new P&L (for the DLC) but won't gamers who enjoy the game be happy to have those additional characters or content available to them as an option.

Then, because of the great work of these devs, that extraneously financed content is ready at launch. Wow! Idea! We could put that content on the disc! People wouldn't have to wait for it to download it. They could just unlock it with a code they would pay for. They get the content in seconds. We fulfill our second P&L for the additional content we financed. Everyone wins!

Cue outrage.

[kunonabi]

So not always. Here's the way it sometimes works: Most publishers create a P&L for every title and individual SKU they are going to finance and ship. They expect, hope for and plan for a certain ROI on each project they pay for. That's business. Sometimes the team finishes ahead of schedule, or members of the team have down time, for a plethora of reasons. So there's these devs. Nothing to do. Technically no money to pay them. The advance on royalties (aka the game budget in most cases) is accounted for. To spend more would compromise the P&L that nearly all publishers rely on to function. They should probably be moved to a new project with a new P&L. But hey, these guys could be creating additional content for the game we just finished! We could finance that content and sell it separately. Sure it'll require a new P&L (for the DLC) but won't gamers who enjoy the game be happy to have those additional characters or content available to them as an option. Then, because of the great work of these devs, that extraneously financed content is ready at launch. Wow! Idea! We could put that content on the disc! People wouldn't have to wait for it to download it. They could just unlock it with a code they would pay for. They get the content in seconds. We fulfill our second P&L for the additional content we financed. Everyone wins! Cue outrage.

Guy and Cody make that scenario pretty unlikely in SFXT's case and especially doubtful considering Capcom's history. Characters shouldn't be DLC especially when they comprise a 1/4 of the roster.

[Jake Tower]

*It's ok, Capcom has super cancer

*bro fist*

Want a poptart? Poptart for a tru bro.

[Ogrekiller]

So not always. Here's the way it sometimes works: Most publishers create a P&L for every title and individual SKU they are going to finance and ship. They expect, hope for and plan for a certain ROI on each project they pay for. That's business. Sometimes the team finishes ahead of schedule, or members of the team have down time, for a plethora of reasons. So there's these devs. Nothing to do. Technically no money to pay them. The advance on royalties (aka the game budget in most cases) is accounted for. To spend more would compromise the P&L that nearly all publishers rely on to function. They should probably be moved to a new project with a new P&L. But hey, these guys could be creating additional content for the game we just finished! We could finance that content and sell it separately. Sure it'll require a new P&L (for the DLC) but won't gamers who enjoy the game be happy to have those additional characters or content available to them as an option. Then, because of the great work of these devs, that extraneously financed content is ready at launch. Wow! Idea! We could put that content on the disc! People wouldn't have to wait for it to download it. They could just unlock it with a code they would pay for. They get the content in seconds. We fulfill our second P&L for the additional content we financed. Everyone wins! Cue outrage.

Or maybe they had ALL the characters done, and then Sony comes up with a big cheque saying: "Hey! Give us something to make the vita version sell better!"

And then then Capcom goes: "We'll cut out 12 characters to save for the vita version! It'll be great! Everyone will buy a vita and be happy!"

And then they go " Oh, but the vita version isn't complete, so we'll sell the characters as dlc AND limit them so that they have to wait until the vita version comes out! IT's all right, they should be grateful for more content!"

And finally to cap it all off, they go "We're too poor to store all this data on our servers, let's just leave it all on the disc! They'll never find out, they're just a bunch of gamers who can't think beyond press start to play!"


Cure the 2 million lifetime sales charts! We gunna make some big bank on this one AND they all gunna luv us for it!

[MrPliskin]

Can you please elaborate on the entitlement part? I'm curious to see what you think about it. :)

Sorry, I went for a run and did some homework, but yes I'd be more than happy to elaborate.

The delivery method doesn't matter here. It's not the core of the problem what so ever (which is what I'm trying to argue). Capcom can opt to inconvenience everyone with compatibility packs, large patches, etc. They can opt to load said data onto servers and offer it as the semantically correct "downloadable content", but ultimately it doesn't change anything.

The "entitlement" comes from "well it's on the disc, it's robbery". How foolish is it to be upset no matter what Capcom does? SFIV they decide to deliver the DLC the "old" way, via a completely new disc. With AE, they offer the ability to download all the characters instead of getting a new disc (though that option is also available).

Here, they've simply removed the necessity to download a big file, nothing more, nothing less. The content would be additional no matter what in this day and age, and that is the reality of the industry. It being on the disc as a delivery method is 100% irrelevant.

The complaints in this thread read more like "I should absolutely be entitled to everything that was finished when the game released, regardless of the planned delivery schedule or business model". It sounds entitled. Mostly because Capcom planned for a seamless experience and forward compatibility out of the gate (a smart move) and they're being chastised for it...because? Well, plainly because gamers feel that whatever is ON the disc should be 100% accessible and owned wholly by them. I won't say that is a bad mentality to have, but it is entitled.


Essentially all that will come of this is inconvenience. Forward compatibility will go by the wayside as far as DLC, and instead will be replaced by inconvenient 800MB patches and compatibility packs, etc. Just for the sake of saving "face". The silly thing is, even then, the mere existence of DLC will upset gamers and they'll STILL complain. Which is 100% fine, just remember WHY you are complaining. Don't complain about the delivery method, just complain about the nature of the DLC, or the content. Should characters be DLC, or custom items? New music packs and stages? The problem with all of this may not be the DLC it self, or how it is delivered, but WHAT is being delivered.

To complain about the delivery method though, just sounds stupid to anyone who is looking at it objectively, simply because a changed delivery method will erase said complaints, and merely replace them with different ones.

Or maybe they had ALL the characters done, and then Sony comes up with a big cheque saying: "Hey! Give us something to make the vita version sell better!" And then then Capcom goes: "We'll cut out 12 characters to save for the vita version! It'll be great! Everyone will buy a vita and be happy!" And then they go " Oh, but the vita version isn't complete, so we'll sell the characters as dlc AND limit them so that they have to wait until the vita version comes out! IT's all right, they should be grateful for more content!" And finally to cap it all off, they go "We're too poor to store all this data on our servers, let's just leave it all on the disc! They'll never find out, they're just a bunch of gamers who can't think beyond press start to play!" Cure the 2 million lifetime sales charts! We gunna make some big bank on this one AND they all gunna luv us for it!

Serious? You're absolutely reprehensible. You just make up bullshit to suit your conspiracy theories. You make everyone in this thread look bad, honestly.

[Riposte]

SFxT isn't the first iteration then, Street fighter 1 arcade and tekken 1 arcade is.

You don't seem to be on the same page. A colossal misunderstanding.

SFxTK doesn't use assets from either of those games (big lol). MvC2 on the other hand recycled sprites like crazy. They added characters with reckless abandon and it shows.


EDIT: You can easily flip the script and say that companies feel entitled to more money for their product (which they've divided up for this purpose, that is the assumption anyway). Customers then feel like they are not entitled to that money for their product (because...). Everyone feels entitled to something or they wouldn't buy or sell/make it. People need to stop using this word like a message board atomic bomb to either cement their arguments or to dismiss those who imply people feel over-entitled about something. A pointless and distracting battle over a universal.

[Jake Tower]

Congratulations, you have officially shown that you have no valid argument.

'Entitled' is now part of Godwin's Law for gaming discussions.

[Ogrekiller]

Serious? You're absolutely reprehensible. You just make up bullshit to suit your conspiracy theories. You make everyone in this thread look bad, honestly.

And you? Justifying despicable business practices in an attempt to persuade people to stop people from not buying crippleware from a company you don't even work for?

[RDreamer]

Sorry, I went for a run and did some homework, but yes I'd be more than happy to elaborate. The delivery method doesn't matter here. It's not the core of the problem what so ever (which is what I'm trying to argue). Capcom can opt to inconvenience everyone with compatibility packs, large patches, etc. They can opt to load said data onto servers and offer it as the semantically correct "downloadable content", but ultimately it doesn't change anything. The "entitlement" comes from "well it's on the disc, it's robbery". How foolish is it to be upset no matter what Capcom does? SFIV they decide to deliver the DLC the "old" way, via a completely new disc. With AE, they offer the ability to download all the characters instead of getting a new disc (though that option is also available). Here, they've simply removed the necessity to download a big file, nothing more, nothing less. The content would be additional no matter what in this day and age, and that is the reality of the industry. It being on the disc as a delivery method is 100% irrelevant. The complaints in this thread read more like "I should absolutely be entitled to everything that was finished when the game released, regardless of the planned delivery schedule or business model". It sounds entitled. Mostly because Capcom planned for a seamless experience and forward compatibility out of the gate (a smart move) and they're being chastised for it...because? Well, plainly because gamers feel that whatever is ON the disc should be 100% accessible and owned wholly by them. I won't say that is a bad mentality to have, but it is entitled. Essentially all that will come of this is inconvenience. Forward compatibility will go by the wayside as far as DLC, and instead will be replaced by inconvenient 800MB patches and compatibility packs, etc. Just for the sake of saving "face". The silly thing is, even then, the mere existence of DLC will upset gamers and they'll STILL complain. Which is 100% fine, just remember WHY you are complaining. Don't complain about the delivery method, just complain about the nature of the DLC, or the content. Should characters be DLC, or custom items? New music packs and stages? The problem with all of this may not be the DLC it self, or how it is delivered, but WHAT is being delivered. To complain about the delivery method though, just sounds stupid to anyone who is looking at it objectively, simply because a changed delivery method will erase said complaints, and merely replace them with different ones.

I came in here to say some stuff, but you pretty much said what I was going to say. This whole problem is just silly and makes me embarrassed to even come over to the gaming side nowadays. You guys aren't going to solve anything. You're complaining about a problem that isn't a problem and if you got your way you'd gain nothing. As MrPliskin here points out, you'd still have the DLC, but you'd have to download compatibility files and all that sort of stuff, and it just wouldn't be as good of DLC. DLC made along side the game is probably going to end up better, because it can be made alongside the writers and artists and really fit well into the game. Alternatively you'd just get no extra DLC content. Really, complaining about this stuff and no one wins.

If you have a problem with a game "taking out part of the game to sell you," then the onus is on you to prove the game itself isn't worth your $60. Complain about that. The delivery method of the DLC should have no bearing on that. But people around here seem to complain about this stuff before the games are even released, so they don't even know.

I bring this up a lot, but the complaining about something like Javik was completely asinine. The game had easily enough content, and if you didn't know of his existence at all it'd be just fine. And when people were angry that he was on the disc I was angry that the whole freaking thing wasn't on the disc. I didn't want to have to download a large file in order to play my game. Give me DLC on day one and on the disc, and I'll probably purchase a lot more of it. Download on day one? Annoying. Download on Day 20? I'm probably done with the game.

[Riposte]

Also you can buy this game used (likely cheap in a few months) and buy the Vita one used and get the DLC on your PS3 that way if you really want this stuff and don't want to support Capcom. I think that would come out to around 60 dollars still.

[RedNumberFive]

Also you can buy this game used (likely cheap in a few months) and buy the Vita one used and get the DLC on your PS3 that way if you really want this stuff and don't want to support Capcom. I think that would come out to around 60 dollars still.

Nah, I'll just skip both and tell Capcom to go fuck themselves. There are other publishers out there that give me a better value for my dollar and don't insult my intelligence.

[Riposte]

Nah, I'll just skip both and tell Capcom to go fuck themselves. There are other publishers out there that give me a better value for my dollar and don't insult my intelligence.

You are still telling Capcom to go fuck themselves by buying it used. If the game mechanics didn't interest you to get it in the first place, then that's a very silent, inconsequential "fuck you". Matching the volume of a forum post they wouldn't read. (row row fight the power)

[Jake Tower]

Also you can buy this game used (likely cheap in a few months) and buy the Vita one used and get the DLC on your PS3 that way if you really want this stuff and don't want to support Capcom. I think that would come out to around 60 dollars still.

This.

I've posed this question before: in a situation where a game has on disc locked content or day one DLC, using only budget/money reasons, why should a costumer ever buy a game on day one at full retail price?

Surely training costumers to wait for price drops or to buy used to get the most cost effective way to get the whole game experience is not good for the industry.

[RedNumberFive]

You are still telling Capcom to go fuck themselves by buying it used. If the game mechanics didn't interest you to get it in the first place, then that's a very silent, inconsequential "fuck you". Matching the volume of a forum post they wouldn't read.

Used or new, it seems like a raw deal. I'd encourage everyone to skip it entirely. I don't like to reward companies that actively try to extort me.

[Riposte]

Used or new, it seems like a raw deal. I'd encourage everyone to skip it entirely. I don't like to reward companies that actively try to extort me.

Do you know how the used games market works?

Would you have honestly bought SFxTK if the DLC expansion worked as expected with the same price point? (Or if that bothers you, no DLC expansion to begin with and no extra characters on Vita)

[MrPliskin]

And you? Justifying despicable business practices in an attempt to persuade people to stop people from not buying crippleware from a company you don't even work for?

Welp, I want to add you to my ignore list, but apparently it doesn't work for me

Anyone got any advice? Tells me I have an invalid redirect when I try to add someone to the list. Browser issue maybe?

[RDreamer]

I've posed this question before: in a situation where a game has on disc locked content or day one DLC, using only budget/money reasons, why should a costumer ever buy a game on day one at full retail price?

In a situation where a game will have ANY DLC at all, ever, why should a customer ever buy a game on day one at full retail price? Because they want to play the fucking game on day one... No one's holding a gun to your head. You can wait if you want, but waiting solely because DLC is there day one rather than day 14 seems like a pretty darned silly distinction to me.

And you? Justifying despicable business practices in an attempt to persuade people to stop people from not buying crippleware from a company you don't even work for?

Okay, you've reached a whole new level of LOL

[MrPliskin]

This. I've posed this question before: in a situation where a game has on disc locked content or day one DLC, using only budget/money reasons, why should a costumer ever buy a game on day one at full retail price? Surely training costumers to wait for price drops or to buy used to get the most cost effective way to get the whole game experience is not good for the industry.

I believe I answered this question once before, and you just insulted me, laughed, and said my answers were entirely irrelevant.

Anyway, customers buy day 1 to play with friends, enjoy the new experience when everyone else does, and out of excitement / enjoyment. If you, as a customer, don't feel like the games you want to play are worth your money...then wait. YOU can do what every you want. The reality is, this doesn't "train" anyone to wait except for the very very small minority of gamers like you.

SFxT didn't well well because Capcom pumped out too many fighters this generation, particularly too many with short release schedules and expansions very soon after.

[DR2K]

300k in sales is no different than 900k either. Lulz @ Capcom.

[Riposte]

300k in sales is no different than 900k either. Lulz @ Capcom.

What two numbers are you comparing here? game/time (I assume the first is SFxTK)

[Jake Tower]

I believe I answered this question once before, and you just insulted me, laughed, and said my answers were entirely irrelevant.

Because you didn't answer the question using only budget/money reasons.

Anyway, customers buy day 1 to play with friends, enjoy the new experience when everyone else does, and out of excitement / enjoyment.

Oh, I see, you still won't answer the question using only budget/money reasons. Although that is the determining factor justifying publisher DLC plans in your explanations.

You fail again.

If you, as a customer, don't feel like the games you want to play are worth your money...then wait. YOU can do what every you want. The reality is, this doesn't "train" anyone to wait except for the very very small minority of gamers like you.

Customers making purchase decisions based on budget/money reasons ain't a very very small minority, brah.