[Gez]

Not sure if anything ever makes sense anymore, despite dogshit quality RE Operation Raccoon City still sold alot, and I kind of doubt what Capcom is doing in terms of on-disc DLC is going to hurt them, Capcom has some truly diehard fans and Capcom basically can do no wrong since the beginning of this generation.

ORC sold because it had the name Resident Evil on the box. Basically the same thing would happen if the words Mario, Call of Duty, Halo where on the box.

[Ogrekiller]

The best way to demand it is by not buying anything from Capcom until they change their practices, vote with your wallet.

The problem with voting with your wallet is that it's too general a message for Capcom to take away. They don't know WHY you aren't buying the game, only that you AREN'T.

In the SFxT case, they are already putting the blame on Ono.

[MrPliskin]

No, not demanding it is ridiculous. It's the publishers job to make me want the game and not mine to defend their practices. If I pay for a game I sure as hell want as much content as possible. I'm not doing anybody any harm by demanding it, am I?

Well, you're not going to change their practices, and ultimately you'll end up doing some harm in that the convenience of this "forward compatibility" will be gone next time, and replaced with the older model of massive patches, compatibility packs, etc.

Basically it'll fracture the user base once the DLC is released, because people don't like it being "on the disc" (even though it ultimately doesn't change a thing).

[MightyKAC]

You're not doing anyone any harm, but you are making yourself look ridiculous. I can demand a brand new Camaro for $2000 all I want, but the makers of the Camaro are just going to laugh at my silly ass, because that's not what they're going to sell it for. It's worth more than that.

Ok first of all I thought we were finally done with the whole car analogy thing. And secondly if this generation of games has taught me anything it's that the worth of a game is both fluid and HIGHLY subjective. And if you're allowing the retailers or publishers to dictate what a game is worth to you then quite simply YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.

[MightyKAC]

Well, you're not going to change their practices, and ultimately you'll end up doing some harm in that the convenience of this "forward compatibility" will be gone next time, and replaced with the older model of massive patches, compatibility packs, etc. Basically it'll fracture the user base once the DLC is released, because people don't like it being "on the disc" (even though it ultimately doesn't change a thing).

This is factually incorrect.

[Aaron]

ORC sold because it had the name Resident Evil on the box. Basically the same thing would happen if the words Mario, Call of Duty, Halo where on the box.

And Revelations sold like shit because? ORC sold because it's a four player co-op game that shooter fans can play with their buddies. Capcom knows this. That's why Resi 5 did well, and that's why they're making it clear Resi 6 will have co-op.

[RDreamer]

Ok first of all I thought we were finally done with the whole car analogy thing. And secondly if this generation of games has taught me anything it's that the worth of a game is both fluid and HIGHLY subjective. And if you're allowing the retailers or publishers to dictate what a game is worth to you then quite simply YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.

It is fluid and highly subjective, but if the mere existence of other content devalues the worth of your game, then you've got a problem. I'm not allowing the retailers or publishers to dictate what a game is worth to me. I'm allowing them to dictate what they charge for what they have budgeted and then I make the decision based on the content and my enjoyment of such content, not whether there's some other content out there. The problem for me comes in with the tons of threads of people bitching about these products having day 1 dlc before the product is even out there merely for the fact that some stuff is available on day 1.

[Jake Tower]

I'm so glad I resurrected this thread.

[MrPliskin]

Ok first of all I thought we were finally done with the whole car analogy thing. And secondly if this generation of games has taught me anything it's that the worth of a game is both fluid and HIGHLY subjective. And if you're allowing the retailers or publishers to dictate what a game is worth to you then quite simply YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.

I think what he's saying is that, objectively, SFxT has more content than quite a few other fully priced titles that released this generation. I mean, we can look at some of the most recent NFS titles and laugh at how barren they are, or Ridge Racer on Vita. Hell, I could make a list of dozens of titles that simply weren't worth asking price, even when they dropped $20.

The case with SFxT is that it does have a good amount of content, and depth. It isn't a shallow game (at least if you have gems turned off *bazingg*). The worth in a fighting game, ultimately, relies on the size of the roster, and the depth of the mechanics. To suggest that SFxT is only 3/4 of what it "should" have been, or that it wasn't worth what they asked because they planned for additional characters down the line, is a bit over the top. It is still a very packed fighter, though not without its own problems.

I'm still surprised that people aren't discussing the bigger issue, which is the DLC itself, not the delivery method. The delivery method should be the last thing we as consumers are concerned about. Instead we should be asking if we're comfortable with WHAT the DLC is, and asking ourselves what we would PREFER to see as DLC.

This content wasn't scrapped in the last week before going gold and magically turned into DLC. It was created, funded, and planned from the gate to be as much. This is evidenced easily by the hooks and systems in place to make it seamless for all players once it is released (as has already been shown by hackers). So yea, let's move on from "omg its on the disc" to "What would actually make for good DLC in a fighting game?".

[ZombiePlatypus]

*Content created solely for the sake of a second, extra charge is what's really happening... and that's ok.

Lol no it's not. I understand that games are made to make money, but if something is created solely to quickly make as much money as possible without any regard to quality or offering something substantial (even if DLC isn't implemented) then as a consumer I get to decide that it's not ok by not buying said shitty product.

Why does it matter when content was created? It doesn't. I don't give a crap if they create it the DLC before the game. What should any of this matter? It shouldn't matter to you, either. If your problem is with not getting enough content, then when you get the DLC doesn't matter. Your problem is with the content in the game. Complain about that. Prove to me that the game doesn't have enough content to be worth $60. But you're not going to prove to me that that's the actual problem most people around here seem to have, since a lot of you people seem to throw a complete fit before the game even comes out and you can actually evaluate what your $60 gives you. You guys assume they're cutting stuff out before you have any evidence whatsoever.

Yes it does. Because aside from technical limitations, the only other viable reason is that said content just wasn't created at the time when it could be packaged in the game. Anything else is nickle-n-dime-ing the consumer. I don't care how massive or minimal the game's content is. If a part of it is being held back just to charge the consumer a second time, then it's a rip-off.

Again, what do you people hope to accomplish by whining about all this? If you got your way it wouldn't be on the disc, they'd just release it later.

And then developers would have to offer said content in a compelling package, like a full-blown sequel or a meaty expansion-pack as opposed to fragmenting the original game into flimsy DLC packets.

If you got your way and they only sold you content made later as DLC, then they'd just make the content later,

Which is really one of the bigger issues withe DLC. It's set up in a way where consumers have no transparency. Developers can just opt to delay and spread originally created or thought of content over a long period of time for more profit and just claim that it was a work in progress or really just made later. (And this assuming it's not a shittier scenario with disc-locked-stupidity going on.) You can also do this a bit with sequels and expansion-packs but not nearly on the same level as DLCs. The entire system is terrible.

You guys act like you don't understand how business works.

I'm a consumer and can see that I'm getting a smaller package than before for the same (or even more expensive) price-point. That's the bottom line. When I raise this concern as a shopper, giving me a "business lecture" is a huge mistake for a seller.

[Glass Rebel]

The best way to demand it is by not buying anything from Capcom until they change their practices, vote with your wallet.

And guess what, I will do both as I always have. Until I can pay the exact amount that I think the game and the DLC is worth it I won't touch it and complain about it as I see fit. It's unfathomable why anybody wouldn't do the same. If you're comfortable with paying what they're demanding, feel free to do so.

You're not doing anyone any harm, but you are making yourself look ridiculous. I can demand a brand new Camaro for $2000 all I want, but the makers of the Camaro are just going to laugh at my silly ass, because that's not what they're going to sell it for. It's worth more than that.

I couldn't give less of a fuck whether anybody at Capcom laughs at me. I don't need their game, it's merely a luxury product, they need my money to stay afloat though. They can offer the game at any price they want and I can choose to buy it at any price I want and so do you. The moment you stop demanding more for your money you open yourself to being ripped off. This really isn't hard to understand.

Well, you're not going to change their practices, and ultimately you'll end up doing some harm in that the convenience of this "forward compatibility" will be gone next time, and replaced with the older model of massive patches, compatibility packs, etc. Basically it'll fracture the user base once the DLC is released, because people don't like it being "on the disc" (even though it ultimately doesn't change a thing).

Wrong, it's their job to deliver a functioning product. If I buy the game for whatever amount of money, I feel I should have all that content. If they're running into compatibility issues they probably shouldn't do it at all. And no, I don't give a damn how much money they're making and that they wouldn't be able to sell DLC. As long as I'm paying I want a certain standard and if they can't provide that I just won't buy it at that price.

[RDreamer]

Lol no it's not. I understand that games are made to make money, but if something is created solely to quickly make as much money as possible without any regard to quality or offering something substantial (even if DLC isn't implemented) then as a consumer I get to decide that it's not ok by not buying said shitty product.

Yeah, you're free to not buy the product. No one's saying you're not.... You guys aren't arguing about quality, though. You're arguing about timing.

Yes it does. Because aside from technical limitations, the only other viable reason is that said content just wasn't created at the time when it could be packaged in the game. Anything else is nickle-n-dime-ing the consumer. I don't care how massive or minimal the game's content is. If a part of it is being held back just to charge the consumer a second time, then it's a rip-off.

Anything else is nickel and diming the customer? If something is being held back just to charge the consumer, then it's a rip-off? You don't care about how massive or minimal the game's content is? Is this serious? Weren't you just talking before about quality? Now you're saying it doesn't matter. If something is separated in order to make money, then it's a rip-off? Well then, I hope you don't like music, because there's a helluva lot of bands that hold back songs in order to put on a single or something... They recorded those in the same sessions! Pretty much every business in existence separates products and/or content in order to make money...

And then developers would have to offer said content in a compelling package, like a full-blown sequel or a meaty expansion-pack as opposed to fragmenting the original game into flimsy DLC packets.

Isn't 12 characters for about $20 bucks exactly the definition of a meaty expansion pack when it comes to fighting games? Seems like you got your wish.

Which is really one of the bigger issues withe DLC. It's set up in a way where consumers have no transparency. Developers can just opt to delay and spread originally created or thought of content over a long period of time for more profit and just claim that it was a work in progress or really just made later. (And this assuming it's not a shittier scenario with disc-locked-stupidity going on.) You can also do this a bit with sequels and expansion-packs but not nearly on the same level as DLCs. The entire system is terrible.

Why is that terrible? I literally don't understand this. It doesn't matter when they created the content or thought of it. What should matter is whether the content you're being offered matches the quality you'd expect of what they're charging, not when it was made or whether some other content exists...

I'm a consumer and can see that I'm getting a smaller package than before for the same (or even more expensive) price-point. That's the bottom line. When I raise this concern as a shopper, giving me a "business lecture" is a huge mistake.

People are making threads and bitching about this stuff before the games are released. That is before they even know how much they're getting for their $60. No one's talking about the size of the package they're getting for their original money. They're just butthurt that there's extra content for extra money that exists. You're butthurt about this. You said yourself it doesn't matter how massive the game's content is! No matter what it's a rip-off apparently. You've just contradicted yourself.

[ZombiePlatypus]

Yeah, you're free to not buy the product. No one's saying you're not.... You guys aren't arguing about quality, though. You're arguing about timing. Anything else is nickel and diming the customer? If something is being held back just to charge the consumer, then it's a rip-off? You don't care about how massive or minimal the game's content is? Is this serious? Weren't you just talking before about quality? Now you're saying it doesn't matter. If something is separated in order to make money, then it's a rip-off? Well then, I hope you don't like music, because there's a helluva lot of bands that hold back songs in order to put on a single or something... They recorded those in the same sessions! Pretty much every business in existence separates products and/or content in order to make money... Isn't 12 characters for about $20 bucks exactly the definition of a meaty expansion pack when it comes to fighting games? Seems like you got your wish. Why is that terrible? I literally don't understand this. It doesn't matter when they created the content or thought of it. What should matter is whether the content you're being offered matches the quality you'd expect of what they're charging, not when it was made or whether some other content exists... People are making threads and bitching about this stuff before the games are released. That is before they even know how much they're getting for their $60. No one's talking about the size of the package they're getting for their original money. They're just butthurt that there's extra content for extra money that exists. You're butthurt about this. You said yourself it doesn't matter how massive the game's content is! No matter what it's a rip-off apparently. You've just contradicted yourself.

You can nit-pick, twist, and break this down as much as you like, but value changes according to the context of what's offered. When something is sold to me as a full game, and then a handful of characters are released for an extra charge that could blatantly have been included in the original package, it comes across as a rip-off. Even if the game felt "complete" at first when the quarantined material wasn't revealed yet.

There needs to be a damn good reason for this sectioned off content to be held-back and "we wanted to charge you a second time" is just not gonna cut it. No matter what rational you use.

[Ogrekiller]

You can nit-pick, twist, and break this down as much as you like, but value changes according to the context of what's offered. When something is sold to me as a full game, and then a handful of characters are released for an extra charge that could blatantly have been included in the original package, it comes across as a rip-off. Even if the game felt "complete" at first when the quarantined material wasn't revealed yet. There needs to be a damn good reason for this sectioned off content to be held-back and "we wanted to charge you a second time" is just not gonna cut it.

Very few companies have done dlc right. Many have gotten it wrong. So much so to the point that dlc is now toxic and near synonymous with ripoff to the average gamer. That is a big problem in itself.

[RDreamer]

You can nit-pick, twist, and break this down as much as you like, but value changes according to the context of what's offered. When something is sold to me as a full game, and then a handful of characters are released for an extra charge that could blatantly have been included in the original package, it comes across as a rip-off. Even if the game felt "complete" at first when the quarantined material wasn't revealed yet. There needs to be a damn good reason for this sectioned off content to be held-back and "we wanted to charge you a second time" is just not gonna cut it.

I'm not nit-picking, twisting, or breaking things down. You are. You're twisting the value proposition based on the timing of a separate value proposition. You're telling them that charging extra for something that costed them extra to make isn't a good enough reason, because... well, because you feel you want to get everything.

[Grymm]

I'm not nit-picking, twisting, or breaking things down. You are. You're twisting the value proposition based on the timing of a separate value proposition. You're telling them that charging extra for something that costed them extra to make isn't a good enough reason, because... well, because you feel you want to get everything.

There's nothing wrong with a company wanting to create extra content and charge for it as long as it wasn't purposely witheld for the explicit sake of doing so.

There's also nothing wrong with customers who feel that if they pay for a disc they should have access to everything that's on the disc they paid for.

The simple solution here is for devs not to put DLC on the disc.

[Glass Rebel]

I'm not nit-picking, twisting, or breaking things down. You are. You're twisting the value proposition based on the timing of a separate value proposition. You're telling them that charging extra for something that costed them extra to make isn't a good enough reason, because... well, because you feel you want to get everything.

And that's wrong why exactly? Every single Capcom executive and shareholder would strip us to our last dime given the chance. They're just not open about it because they're not (quite that) stupid.

[ZombiePlatypus]

I'm not nit-picking, twisting, or breaking things down. You are. You're twisting the value proposition based on the timing of a separate value proposition. You're telling them that charging extra for something that costed them extra to make isn't a good enough reason, because... well, because you feel you want to get everything.

I know people like to pretend that DLC is about off-setting costs of making more content (and in a perfect, ideal situation that might be the case) but the fact is the entire scheme at this point feels more like squeezing out as much cash as possible from the consumer for the same amount of content. Developers were able to sell un-fragmented, substantial games just fine before DLC kicked in.

If you really feel like creators/sellers should get to blindly decide how much of a said product or service warrants a second arbitrary charge, then go ahead and offer to pay twice for everything else that you buy.

Very few companies have done dlc right. Many have gotten it wrong. So much so to the point that dlc is now toxic and near synonymous with ripoff to the average gamer. That is a big problem in itself.

It could have been something decent, but the industry overall has proven that they can't handle this kind of set up without abusing it, so I'm pretty much done buying into it. My wallet is closed for these kinds of releases.

[RDreamer]

There's nothing wrong with a company wanting to create extra content and charge for it as long as it wasn't purposely witheld for the explicit sake of doing so.

There's nothing wrong with purposefully withholding content for the explicit purpose of charging for it. If the value proposition for the original product is good and the value proposition for the ensuing withheld content is good, then it should not matter one bit.

There's also nothing wrong with customers who feel that if they pay for a disc they should have access to everything that's on the disc they paid for.

There is something wrong with customers that feel they're entitled to things which they did not purchase, things that were not in the original value proposition.

The simple solution here is for devs not to put DLC on the disc.

Oh great, the simple solution is for devs to fuck over some customers for the sake of semantics. Look, I'd rather not wait for a long download. If they can put it on the disc and save me the time and themselves the bandwidth, then go for it. If they can eliminate compatibility patches and things like that for online DLC simply by doing the DLC earlier, why shouldn't they? Why does its location in all this matter one bit? This is seriously a semantics battle where the solution you want has more negatives, but you still want it...

And that's wrong why exactly? Every single Capcom executive and shareholder would strip us to our last dime given the chance. They're just not open about it because they're not (quite that) stupid.

So... they're not quite stupid enough to be open about apparently wanting to fuck you over, so you should be stupid enough to demand they get fucked over? Ok.

I know people like to pretend that DLC is about off-setting costs of making more content (and in a perfect, ideal situation that might be the case) but the fact is the entire scheme at this point feels more like squeezing out as much cash as possible from the consumer for the same amount of content. Developers were able to sell un-fragmented, substantial games just fine before DLC kicked in.

And personally I feel like I'm getting more extra content. I'm getting to play around in the worlds of games that I buy more than before. Some games I leave by the wayside after one play through. Actually a lot I do, but a few I'll pay extra because I want extra. Yeah developers were able to sell just games before DLC kicked in, but the whole reason DLC kicked in was because customers wanted more time with their worlds. They wanted more content, and were willing to pay a bit more for it.

If you really feel like creators/sellers should get to blindly decide how much of a said product or service warrants a second arbitrary charge, then go ahead and offer to pay twice for everything else that you buy.

No, I feel like I should make a value judgement based on quality and quantity of content versus cost, not quality and quantity of content versus cost and whether or not some SEPARATE value proposition exists. This is fucking silly dude and you know it. I should pay twice on everything that I buy because I believe in evaluating the worth of the actual product on its own terms?

[ZombiePlatypus]

Oh great, the simple solution is for devs to fuck over some customers for the sake of semantics. Look, I'd rather not wait for a long download. If they can put it on the disc and save me the time and themselves the bandwidth, then go for it. If they can eliminate compatibility patches and things like that for online DLC simply by doing the DLC earlier, why shouldn't they? Why does its location in all this matter one bit? This is seriously a semantics battle where the solution you want has more negatives, but you still want it...

And if the full game was available to purchase as one full game you wouldn't have to wait for any downloads! (Unless the whole game was sold via digital-distribution...)

[Grymm]

And if the full game was available to purchase as one full game you wouldn't have to wait for any downloads! (Unless the whole game was sold via digital-distribution...)

Boom, headshot.

[RDreamer]

And if the full game was available to purchase as one full game you wouldn't have to wait for any downloads! (Unless the whole game was sold via digital-distribution...)

I'd just get less content overall! Yay... oh wait...

[MightyKAC]

I'd just get less content overall! Yay... oh wait...

You say that as if it were a provable fact.

[Grymm]

I'd just get less content overall! Yay... oh wait...

You'd be getting what's on the disc, so the same amount of content.

But hey, continue to twist. Your bullshit is as see through as on disc DLC scamming.

[Ogrekiller]

I'd just get less content overall! Yay... oh wait...

Face it, when NAMCO of all people can advertise their games as not having on disc dlc and get cheered for it, then you know there is something horribly wrong with the whole concept in the first place.

Of course they have time locked, preorder first characters as well.

[RDreamer]

You say that as if it were a provable fact.

And you say things as though it's a provable fact they'd be able to give you all of that at the price of $60, despite the larger budget needed to do so.

You'd be getting what's on the disc, so the same amount of content. But hey, continue to twist. Your bullshit is as see through as on disc DLC scamming.

Ok, you guys are crazy and embarrassing.

[Grymm]

And you say things as though it's a provable fact they'd be able to give you all of that at the price of $60, despite the larger budget needed to do so.

They do give you all of it for $60. It's right on the disc.

[Glass Rebel]

So... they're not quite stupid enough to be open about apparently wanting to fuck you over, so you should be stupid enough to demand they get fucked over? Ok.

What? They're not stupid because admitting that to their customers would hurt their business. It's not stupid at all of me to demand more if I'm benefitting from that. Why would I ever lose a single thought about the wellbeing of a company that has done nothing for me?

[MightyKAC]

And you say things as though it's a provable fact they'd be able to give you all of that at the price of $60, despite the larger budget needed to do so. Ok, you guys are crazy and embarrassing.

You mean like how TTT2U is about to do in September?

[RDreamer]

They do give you all of it for $60. It's right on the disc.

Alright, then hack your game. Have fun getting banned on Live or whatever.

What? They're not stupid because admitting that to their customers would hurt their business. It's not stupid at all of me to demand more if I'm benefitting from that. Why would I ever lose a single thought about the wellbeing of a company that has done nothing for me?

So... You don't like gaming at all? Not even a bit? These companies have done nothing for you? What're you doing here?

[ZombiePlatypus]

I'd just get less content overall! Yay... oh wait...

If your idea of "more content" is stuff cut away from the original game and sold to you as a second purchase, then yes you were getting "less content" during the pre-DLC days. I'm not saying that no company out there has offered a fair DLC package, but the fact that it's rampant with extra characters, costumes, items, weapons, maps, etc. pretty much tells me that one game that would have been sold to me as one purchase, is now being sold in fragments as opposed to truly offering additional content.

[RDreamer]

If your idea of "more content" is stuff cut away from the original game and sold to you as a second purchase, then yes you were getting "less content" during the pre-DLC days. I'm not saying that no company out there has offered a fair DLC package, but the fact that it's rampant with extra characters, costumes, items, weapons, maps, etc. pretty much tells me that one game that would have been sold to me as one purchase, is now being sold in fragments as opposed to truly additional content.

Except that budgets of games have absolutely skyrocketed lately. They are giving you more bang for your buck, especially depending on what era you compare it to. I have a ton of Sega Genesis games and I can't really think of a single one that compares to what I get now. Not a single one. Your only proof is that all this stuff was "cut away" and "would have been sold to you as one purchase" is that they're done at the same time, which isn't proof at all. Sometimes double movies are filmed at the same time. Sometimes songs are taken off albums, even though they're recorded at the same time. That doesn't prove that they would have sold you all of that stuff for the same price.

[SousedLouse]

Ok first of all I thought we were finally done with the whole car analogy thing. And secondly if this generation of games has taught me anything it's that the worth of a game is both fluid and HIGHLY subjective. And if you're allowing the retailers or publishers to dictate what a game is worth to you then quite simply YOU ARE DOING IT WRONG.

The weird thing is, it's not like people refuse to pay anything less than the asking price. Whenever there's a thread on GAF about a sale on a game that's generally liked on Gaming side, the first few responses are usually some variation of "bought"; sometimes people spring for a game that they would have held off on otherwise because they think it's a good deal. On the flip side, when the same type of thread is made for a game that's widely panned, there's usually a long string of posts that go along the lines of "I wouldn't buy it for [enter unusually low price here]." I think that those are valid examples of people placing their own value on games, and instances such as those seem to spring up every week.

And yet, when you throw that defiant slant on it - like it's some sort of crusade - people just get all defensive. I dunno, maybe some posters just emphasize with the devs a bit more than you'd like - "they made it, they can charge whatever they want," and stuff like that. I consider the term "right" to be a legal or moral claim that I can make, and I don't feel that it's my right, as a consumer or otherwise, for other people to avoid making poor decisions outright. It's when companies go the extra mile in being dishonest or underhanded - recording personal information, creating false advertising within the product, general bait-and-switch tactics, or anything else that negatively affects me when I interact with them directly - that I feel that my rights as a consumer are being affected. I think that DLC in general is too benign to come down on it from either a legal or moral perspective, but individual cases such as Capcom's DLC practices are certainly fair games for such claims (and even in Capcom's case, the most egregious DLC that they've come up with have been one-shot decisions so far, so they really are individual cases).

That said, sometimes I wish DLC had never really caught on as an industry-wide practice. There's really nothing distinguishing it from expansion packs or sequels save for the ability to charge people for content piecemeal, and ultimately people decided that they didn't want that, so...yeah. I thought that at least the whole compatibility issue with expansions was a drawback compared to DLC, but as it turns out sometimes DLC doesn't even work properly at first. And then stuff that would've just been cut to make a leaner product gets wrapped up and set aside as DLC on top of that, and people find out, and they get mad and the devs get pissy and the whole thing turns into a clusterfuck. It's just not shaping up to me.

I'm so glad I resurrected this thread.

Couldn't agree more. It amazes me what little self restraint most gamers have these days. They're basically telling these publishers that this behavior is acceptable. We all deserve better than this shit.

Boom, headshot.

The crowing and implication of moral superiority that comes along with any thread that deals with commerce are also pretty annoying to me, but I'm slowly coming to accept that these are things that will never go away.

[Ogrekiller]

I wonder if at Capcom there are people that feel just as strongly against their own dlc practices as there are dlc proponents in this thread. I wonder how far up the corporate ladder they are, if they exist.

[ZombiePlatypus]

Except that budgets of games have absolutely skyrocketed lately. They are giving you more bang for your buck, especially depending on what era you compare it to. I have a ton of Sega Genesis games and I can't really think of a single one that compares to what I get now. Not a single one. Your only proof is that all this stuff was "cut away" and "would have been sold to you as one purchase" is that they're done at the same time, which isn't proof at all. Sometimes double movies are filmed at the same time. Sometimes songs are taken off albums, even though they're recorded at the same time. That doesn't prove that they would have sold you all of that stuff for the same price.

Look at the majority of crap clogging up DLC offers. It's shit like extra costumes, a few characters, weapons/items/equipment, or a couple of maps or scenarios. I highly doubt developing this content breaks the budget on these games. They're taking flimsy bits and pieces that I would enjoy in the original game and selling it at (I'm sure) inflated prices. It hits the absolute worst spot as a consumer, because, I miss this content and feel the game is incomplete without it, but paying for it feels like I'm being cheated.


Also, why on earth would you bring-up the music industry as justification when it's gone (and still going) through a massive struggle itself in terms of what they wanna charge versus what the consumer feels is a fair price to pay?

I wonder if at Capcom there are people that feel just as strongly against their own dlc practices as there are dlc proponents in this thread. I wonder how far up the corporate ladder they are, if they exist.

As long as enough fans keep rewarding the company by continuing to buy fragmented DLC-fests, anti-DLC stances inside the company are not gonna carry any weight. :/

[Glass Rebel]

So... You don't like gaming at all? Not even a bit? These companies have done nothing for you? What're you doing here?

No, I like gaming very much but I have never received anything for free from Capcom and I whether it's true or not, I get the impression that they don't care about me so I won't care about them.

On the other hand Valve has given me tons of TF2 and Left 4 Dead content for free and will continue to do so. CD Project has given me a substantial The Witcher expansion completely free of charge and they just did the same thing for The Witcher too. I've received bonus content without paying any additional dollars from Tripwire, Frictional Games, Team Meat, Crystal Dynamics... the list goes on. Why did they do that? Most likely because they think that they'll profit from me in the long run. That's completely fair, they're all companies after all. As far as I'm concerned though, they give me the feeling that they value me as a consumer.

I bought my fair share of Capcom games in Devil May Cry, Resident Evil, Sengoku Basara, Okami etc. but you're sadly, sadly mistaken if you think Capcom has released these games for me. They received my money, I received their game and that's it. No doubt I've enjoyed most of them but they don't get no extra benefits from me just by making a game I've purchased good. That's how it's supposed to be in the first place. Expecting so makes them more entitled than anybody in this thread will ever be.

[SousedLouse]

I wonder if at Capcom there are people that feel just as strongly against their own dlc practices as there are dlc proponents in this thread. I wonder how far up the corporate ladder they are, if they exist.

It probably doesn't go much farther than the developers. It's not like Capcom has a history of putting an extensive amount of unlockable stuff in all of their games; usually, that was a quirk of specific developers like Tokuro Fujiwara or Shinji Mikami, whereas most games just had stuff cut out. But the trend of saving that stuff for later, or for setting DLC aside as a separate dev project to be completed alongside the main game, has to be coming from the top down. And in cases such as that there's really not much that they can do. The best that devs have been able to do is fudge the costs of the preliminary work so that they can develop more stuff before the higher-ups caught wise. The last two (I think?) times they did this, we ended up with Lost Planet 1 and the clusterfuck that was Mega Man Legends 3, so it's kind of hit and miss, really.

[RDreamer]

Look at the majority of crap clogging up DLC offers. It's shit like extra costumes, a few characters, weapons/items/equipment, or a couple of maps or scenarios. I highly doubt developing this content breaks the budget on these games. They're taking flimsy bits and pieces that I would enjoy in the original game and selling it at (I'm sure) inflated prices. It hits the absolute worst spot as a consumer, because, I miss this content and feel the game is incomplete without it, but paying for it feels like I'm being cheated.

Obviously some of that is inflated, and I don't buy it. But in a roundabout way that does sometimes help the original game. If you know you can piecemeal some other things and get a good chunk of money from that, then you may not mind spending a bit more on the original game, to get it to a quality where more people can buy it (and in turn have access to the piecemealing). That stuff helps sometimes. I mean look at the free to play MMOs. The piddly stuff you don't really need sometimes finances the entire rest of the game. I'd be willing to bet that at least a few neat things were green lighted in a game because the entire project itself could make more overall.

Also, why on earth would you bring-up the music industry as justification when it's gone (and still going) through a massive struggle itself in terms of what they wanna charge versus what the consumer feels is a fair price to pay?

But that struggle is because of rampant piracy. If you take the timeline back a little no one batted an eyelash at singles. Singles and B-sides were a huge thing, and no one was angry about them because of the specific time they were recorded. And even now within the crowd of people that buy albums (a crowd I'm intimately familiar with) no one bats an eyelash at this, because it's silly. You buy what you think is fair at a fair price because you think that thing is priced fairly... you don't pout because some other thing (that's possibly also priced fairly) exists and demand it be added.

[ZombiePlatypus]

Obviously some of that is inflated, and I don't buy it. But in a roundabout way that does sometimes help the original game. If you know you can piecemeal some other things and get a good chunk of money from that, then you may not mind spending a bit more on the original game, to get it to a quality where more people can buy it (and in turn have access to the piecemealing). That stuff helps sometimes. I mean look at the free to play MMOs. The piddly stuff you don't really need sometimes finances the entire rest of the game. I'd be willing to bet that at least a few neat things were green lighted in a game because the entire project itself could make more overall.

See, if as a publisher/developer you need to depend on DLC to cover the cost of making one game, then there's a management/competency issue in the company. As a consumer, I just wanna buy the full game once and be done.

But that struggle is because of rampant piracy. If you take the timeline back a little no one batted an eyelash at singles. Singles and B-sides were a huge thing, and no one was angry about them because of the specific time they were recorded. And even now within the crowd of people that buy albums (a crowd I'm intimately familiar with) no one bats an eyelash at this, because it's silly. You buy what you think is fair at a fair price because you think that thing is priced fairly... you don't pout because some other thing (that's possibly also priced fairly) exists and demand it be added.

Which is what happens when sellers over-price their product. The writing is on the wall for game-companies. They're shoving legitimate-consumer punishing DRM and DLC when a pirated version is complete and without any of the DRM non-sense. You'd think they'd dial it back before more consumers are pushed into just downloading/cracking stuff.

[RDreamer]

See, if as a publisher/developer you need to depend on DLC to cover the cost of making one game, then there's a management/competency issue in the company. As a consumer, I just wanna buy the full game once and be done.

I'm not saying depend on DLC to cover the overall cost (though this can be the case). But there might be some specific things that may not have been green lighted within the game that were because there were alternate revenue streams. I'm saying the developer might come to the publisher and say "hey we have this idea, but we need more budget to do it," and the developer says "Hmm.. Okay, you can do it, but you're going to need to come up with more revenue to offset that cost." Or maybe they give more budget from the get go because they know of those more piecemeal DLCs, and they know that a higher quality product will lead to more people buying it, which will lead to more people that can potentially buy the extras.

Look, people bring up Valve. Valve can afford to do quite a lot with their games because they have a large alternate revenue stream with Steam. They can maybe sell their game for really cheap during a sale or something, because it gets people onto Steam as a service. The justification for this is that maybe while you're there you'll buy something else, too, or a bit down the road you'll buy something else, too. Well, a game can be the same way. You can put a bit more in the original game if you know that it may drive a percentage of those people to buy some of those piecemeal additions. It's the same theory behind free to play MMOs, except on a more micro scale. I don't see how this makes you incompetent. In fact this makes you a good business.

Which is what happens when sellers over-price their product.

That is absolutely a gross over-simplification of the problem...

[Glass Rebel]

RDreamer, are you ignoring my replies on purpose or did you just miss them?

[Grymm]

RDreamer, are you ignoring my replies on purpose or did you just miss them?

I think he wants to charge you $9.99 or 800 MS points to access his retort.

[ZombiePlatypus]

I'm not saying depend on DLC to cover the overall cost (though this can be the case). But there might be some specific things that may not have been green lighted within the game that were because there were alternate revenue streams. I'm saying the developer might come to the publisher and say "hey we have this idea, but we need more budget to do it," and the developer says "Hmm.. Okay, you can do it, but you're going to need to come up with more revenue to offset that cost." Or maybe they give more budget from the get go because they know of those more piecemeal DLCs, and they know that a higher quality product will lead to more people buying it, which will lead to more people that can potentially buy the extras. Look, people bring up Valve. Valve can afford to do quite a lot with their games because they have a large alternate revenue stream with Steam. They can maybe sell their game for really cheap during a sale or something, because it gets people onto Steam as a service. The justification for this is that maybe while you're there you'll buy something else, too, or a bit down the road you'll buy something else, too. Well, a game can be the same way. You can put a bit more in the original game if you know that it may drive a percentage of those people to buy some of those piecemeal additions. It's the same theory behind free to play MMOs, except on a more micro scale. I don't see how this makes you incompetent. In fact this makes you a good business.

I get that, but I'm just not convinced that this is how in most cases DLC is being utilized. Fact is, most the stuff offered as DLC feels just neat enough to suck that it's not in the original offer, yet not substantial enough to fork extra cash for. Before DLC came on the scene, we had Expansion Packs, and somehow they didn't really have this problem.

That is absolutely a gross over-simplification of the problem...

Why? I think it was a very natural response to labels charging upwards of $20 for a single, bare-bones release, standard edition CD. The ability was created at just the right time (I'd say at least partially encouraged by the shitty prices) and people ran with it forcing labels to adjust prices to reflect reality. I don't see why this can't happen in any digital field. All it takes is for one person to streamline the process.

[Ogrekiller]

I'm not saying depend on DLC to cover the overall cost (though this can be the case). But there might be some specific things that may not have been green lighted within the game that were because there were alternate revenue streams. I'm saying the developer might come to the publisher and say "hey we have this idea, but we need more budget to do it," and the developer says "Hmm.. Okay, you can do it, but you're going to need to come up with more revenue to offset that cost." Or maybe they give more budget from the get go because they know of those more piecemeal DLCs, and they know that a higher quality product will lead to more people buying it, which will lead to more people that can potentially buy the extras. Look, people bring up Valve. Valve can afford to do quite a lot with their games because they have a large alternate revenue stream with Steam. They can maybe sell their game for really cheap during a sale or something, because it gets people onto Steam as a service. The justification for this is that maybe while you're there you'll buy something else, too, or a bit down the road you'll buy something else, too. Well, a game can be the same way. You can put a bit more in the original game if you know that it may drive a percentage of those people to buy some of those piecemeal additions. It's the same theory behind free to play MMOs, except on a more micro scale. I don't see how this makes you incompetent. In fact this makes you a good business.

But why even use these methods? Is the resulting PR fiasco, consumer backlash, negative word of mouth and loss of brand name really that inconsequential?

If SFxT had an arcade edition with this console edition as base, and the 12 characters were later added in as "bonuses" to the console version and that was sold at $$60- $80 the outcry would be FAR less.

Hell, if the "special edition" of the game was $100 and had all 50 characters unlocked from the start people wouldn't be raising as much of an uproar.

Customer perception IS as important as any amount of profit to a company. If they release a good game, it can be a force multiplier, ensuring it sells far more than average. If they release a bad game, they can bank on it to ensure that the game sells well. If they release a good game that tanks, you built a fanbase that will buy games that feature the IP. But if you run out of it, you become... the most hated company in the industry I guess.

[RDreamer]

No, I like gaming very much but I have never received anything for free from Capcom and I whether it's true or not, I get the impression that they don't care about me so I won't care about them.

You haven't got anything for free, yes, but you have got games that you liked from them, which means something. It should mean enough to you that you don't want to actively rip them off. I mean I get that people want to demand more for their money. That's natural, but at the same time you shouldn't want to actively demand so much that it's not possible to do, or wouldn't make sense as a business model.

On the other hand Valve has given me tons of TF2 and Left 4 Dead content for free and will continue to do so. CD Project has given me a substantial The Witcher expansion completely free of charge and they just did the same thing for The Witcher too. I've received bonus content without paying any additional dollars from Tripwire, Frictional Games, Team Meat, Crystal Dynamics... the list goes on. Why did they do that? Most likely because they think that they'll profit from me in the long run. That's completely fair, they're all companies after all. As far as I'm concerned though, they give me the feeling that they value me as a consumer.

It is kind of funny that you recognize exactly why they do that, and yet you view them as benevolent. I mean I'm not going to lie, I like getting free stuff, too. But I know when a company gives me free stuff there's a motive behind it. That's what companies do. For Valve, as I said in my post above they have a lot of leeway with things because they have an alternate revenue stream. Selling their games cheaper on sales or offering things for free is like an advertisement for that alternate revenue stream. As for some of those other developers, yeah, it is great that they do that. And hopefully they can keep doing that, but usually it's the smaller businesses that can do that sort of thing, and have to do that sort of thing. They need word of mouth and good will with their smaller fan base, so that it builds up. When you're dealing with smaller metrics like that sometimes a tiny loss can get a much bigger gain down the road, because of that good will. When your product is a more mainstream thing that's consumed by so many people you can't really afford to do that sort of thing anymore, and it just doesn't make as much financial sense (unless you have that alternate revenue stream like Valve). The percentage of more casual fans that don't get into it compared to those that do with a more mainstream product is far different. They play their game and buy some DLC and really don't pay it much mind. If something was released for free to some of these more casual fans it's kind of a drop in the bucket. It's nice, and they'll appreciate it, but they're not going to be as rabid about it. That's because as a brand grows it becomes a bit less of an exclusive, prideful thing to know about.

I bought my fair share of Capcom games in Devil May Cry, Resident Evil, Sengoku Basara, Okami etc. but you're sadly, sadly mistaken if you think Capcom has released these games for me. They received my money, I received their game and that's it. No doubt I've enjoyed most of them but they don't get no extra benefits from me just by making a game I've purchased good. That's how it's supposed to be in the first place. Expecting so makes them more entitled than anybody in this thread will ever be.

I never said they should get extra benefits from you. I said you shouldn't demand to rip them off. You can't literally "never stop demanding more" as you put it, because that puts businesses out of business, and gets games to stop being made.

[Grymm]

You haven't got anything for free, yes, but you have got games that you liked from them, which means something. It should mean enough to you that you don't want to actively rip them off. I mean I get that people want to demand more for their money. That's natural, but at the same time you shouldn't want to actively demand so much that it's not possible to do, or wouldn't make sense as a business model.

Well clearly in Capcoms case adding extra characters to the games full release would be possible to do and make sense with their business model since they're right on the disc already as it is.

[RDreamer]

I get that, but I'm just not convinced that this is how in most cases DLC is being utilized. Fact is, most the stuff offered as DLC feels just neat enough to suck that it's not in the original offer, yet not substantial enough to fork extra cash for. Before DLC came on the scene, we had Expansion Packs, and somehow they didn't really have this problem.

Maybe not most cases. I'm talking about the smaller piecemeal stuff like shitty costumes and painted guns. The reasoning behind the other DLC is two fold. One it's to expand the content that people can purchase. I think there was at least a good amount of demand for this. And two, it keeps people holding onto their games longer, so that they don't sell it off too quickly.

Why? I think it was a very natural response to labels charging upwards of $20 for a single, bare-bones release, standard edition CD. The ability was created at just the right time (I'd say at least partially encouraged by the shitty prices) and people ran with it forcing labels to adjust prices to reflect reality. I don't see why this can't happen in any digital field. All it takes is for one person to streamline the process.

Even if the labels were charging $10 it would have happened anyway. I'm not denying that pricing wasn't a large contributor if not one of the biggest contributors, but it wasn't the only one.

But why even use these methods? Is the resulting PR fiasco, consumer backlash, negative word of mouth and loss of brand name really that inconsequential? If SFxT had an arcade edition with this console edition as base, and the 12 characters were later added in as "bonuses" to the console version and that was sold at $$60- $80 the outcry would be FAR less. Hell, if the "special edition" of the game was $100 and had all 50 characters unlocked from the start people wouldn't be raising as much of an uproar. Customer perception IS as important as any amount of profit to a company. If they release a good game, it can be a force multiplier, ensuring it sells far more than average. If they release a bad game, they can bank on it to ensure that the game sells well. If they release a good game that tanks, you built a fanbase that will buy games that feature the IP. But if you run out of it, you become... the most hated company in the industry I guess.

Why use these methods? Well, a lot of companies have used these methods and no one really bats an eye. The other thing is that the negative word of mouth and loss of brand name really isn't as big as it seems here on neogaf. It's certainly a relevant thing, but a lot of casual fans absolutely do not give a shit. They really really don't care.

I'm going to cry bullshit on a $100 special edition with 50 characters unlocked not causing an uproar around here, lol. I know it would at least have a very good sized thread going.

Customer perception is very important, and I'm not going to deny that some companies like Bioware did a piss poor job of their PR.

Well clearly in Capcoms case adding extra characters to the games full release would be possible to do and make sense with their business model since they're right on the disc already as it is.

Are you really this dumb? You're really saying "Clearly it makes sense in their business model, because I can circumvent things and use it without paying!" As I said, have fun getting banned from Live or whatever.



edit: Anyway, I'm out of here. I need to get to sleep. It's way too late to be arguing about this stuff...

[Grymm]

I don't blame you for needing some sleep. It must be hard work wracking your two brain cells to spin excuses for on disc DLC and still not being able to convince anyone of anything other than you being an idiot.

[Glass Rebel]

You haven't got anything for free, yes, but you have got games that you liked from them, which means something. It should mean enough to you that you don't want to actively rip them off. I mean I get that people want to demand more for their money. That's natural, but at the same time you shouldn't want to actively demand so much that it's not possible to do, or wouldn't make sense as a business model.

Yes, I liked their games and in turn I'm more inclined to buy other games they made. Honestly, that's as much as I'm willing to give them and it should be enough. How am I suggesting they should be ripped off? I'm not saying I should get their entire catalog for purchasing a single game. The bitter truth is that Capcom would love to sell Ryu x Jin for 100$ if they could get away with it. It's my responsibility as a consumer to show them that they can't or shouldn't get away with that and that I want more because Capcom is sure as hell trying to get every dime out of me. They don't have to appeal to me if they don't want my money, there are enough opportunities to spend it elsewhere.

It is kind of funny that you recognize exactly why they do that, and yet you view them as benevolent. I mean I'm not going to lie, I like getting free stuff, too. But I know when a company gives me free stuff there's a motive behind it. That's what companies do. For Valve, as I said in my post above they have a lot of leeway with things because they have an alternate revenue stream. Selling their games cheaper on sales or offering things for free is like an advertisement for that alternate revenue stream. As for some of those other developers, yeah, it is great that they do that. And hopefully they can keep doing that, but usually it's the smaller businesses that can do that sort of thing, and have to do that sort of thing. They need word of mouth and good will with their smaller fan base, so that it builds up. When you're dealing with smaller metrics like that sometimes a tiny loss can get a much bigger gain down the road, because of that good will. When your product is a more mainstream thing that's consumed by so many people you can't really afford to do that sort of thing anymore, and it just doesn't make as much financial sense (unless you have that alternate revenue stream like Valve). The percentage of more casual fans that don't get into it compared to those that do with a more mainstream product is far different. They play their game and buy some DLC and really don't pay it much mind. If something was released for free to some of these more casual fans it's kind of a drop in the bucket. It's nice, and they'll appreciate it, but they're not going to be as rabid about it. That's because as a brand grows it becomes a bit less of an exclusive, prideful thing to know about.

Of course I'm acknowledging it. Nothing a company does is ever just because they love me or something. The thing is, I'm directly benefitting from the stuff other companies do while Capcom has a history of doing stuff that's not in my interests. I'm fully aware of everything you say and while I'd hate to see them go out of business and lots of people to lose their job it's not my responsibility to keep them in business. I'm paying for their games and that's enough.

I never said they should get extra benefits from you. I said you shouldn't demand to rip them off. You can't literally "never stop demanding more" as you put it, because that puts businesses out of business, and gets games to stop being made.

If they can't stay in business because they can't meet market demands they probably need to be out of business. That's just harsh reality, even if I'd hate for that to happen.

Edit: And btw, I'd love to be able to rip off companies to to pay back some pubs and devs that have sold me steaming piles of garbage but sadly it's not possible to trick them into giving me more content or even a decent product.

[mclem]

Content segregated solely for the sake of a second, extra charge as opposed to space/technical limitations or the fact that it was created considerably after the game's release is not OK.

Here's the problem with this statement: If two (sufficiently small) completely distinct games were developed at the same time as one another, your statement explicitly states that they should only be sold on the same disc.

Indeed, if you wanted to go further, it also implies that the company's entire back catalogue (in so far as it would fit on the disc) should also be supplied.

That is clearly - I'd hope you'd agree! - an absurd request. But it's what your statement strictly implies.

No, not demanding it is ridiculous. It's the publishers job to make me want the game and not mine to defend their practices. If I pay for a game I sure as hell want as much content as possible. I'm not doing anybody any harm by demanding it, am I?

Point of order: If none of the DLC existed (and would ever exist) - the content accessible to you normally on the disc (38 characters, no DLC gems, no colour options...) was the only copy of the game that ever existed - would you want that game?

If you wouldn't want that game - why wouldn't you, because it sounds like a good value proposition compared to similar games currently on the market? If you *would* want it, why don't you want *exactly the same content* presented to you with a separate product offering more content?