[ZombiePlatypus]

again with the straw men in this thread who said shit about knowing moves? I was clearly talking about familiarity with what you normally get from a fighting game vs. when something is "ripped out" how are you gonna know what's withheld from you when you don't know what you were supposed to get in the first place?

This lack of transparency right here is enough reason to be wary of the whole DLC set-up. Game-companies can claim whatever they want. Given Capcom's track record and the fact that extra characters that you have to buy via DLC now were merely unlockable in the past by simply playing the game, I'm even less inclined to believe that Capcom (and most other DLC abusers) aren't trying to shaft me as a consumer.

[Orobi]

Old? New? Read it:

VG247: Street Fighter X Tekken producer “disappointed” over DLC characters being hacked Street Fighter X Tekken producer Tomoaki Ayano has said he is “pretty disappointed” some player have found a way to play the locked, downloadable content for the game before its released. Speaking with Gamespot, Ayano said while its disheartening, he is impressed with their hacking skills. “Personally, I was really surprised when I heard the news that the characters had been hacked, basically,” he said. “So I was pretty disappointed by that. I was really surprised at how skillful the hackers were, basically. “But I was really kind of disappointed that it created this kind of environment where a bunch of players were playing the characters but a bunch were unable to play with them.” The 12 downloadable characters will be released for free along with the Vita version, while console players will be charged $20/1,600 MSp to unlock the DLC. The set contains six extra characters each from Tekken and Street Fighter. Street Fighter x Tekken is out now on PS3 and Xbox 360, and hits PC in May. The Vita version is out this fall.

[ZombiePlatypus]

Old? New? Read it:

Haha wow. "I'm bummed-out people aren't letting me screw them over all while they smile and say 'thank you' in the process."

[Ogrekiller]

Haha wow. "I'm bummed-out people aren't letting me screw them over all while they smile and say 'thank you' in the process."

No sense in getting fired for blasting the higher ups. Probably wants to lay low to avoid the firing squad. Can't blame him for that one.

[Darknessbear]

Why isn't this thread closed already? Mindless banter from both sides, each refusing to acknowledge each others point of view.

Neogaf/internet.

Everyone posts thinking they are the correct ones and everyone else are just lines of code. So nobody ever backs down.

[abstract alien]

Aren't the character incomplete anyway in terms of balancing and whatnot?

[Glass Rebel]

I can sum up the debate in one word: Greed 1. The company wants to make as much money as possible from content 2. The customer wants all the content created for as little money as possible Both sides are evil. :P Finding the middle ground is tricky.

Neither side is evil but as a consumer I should get as much as possible for my money instead of being deceived by businesses. There is a reason why consumer protection laws exist.

[Darknessbear]

Neither side is evil but as a consumer I should get as much as possible for my money instead of being deceived by businesses. There is a reason why consumer protection laws exist.

Yea we really need protection, having 30+ characters on disc is disgusting. We should never have to stand for this.

I'd offer more sympathy if there were ~5 characters on disc for $60 and more costed extra.

[Glass Rebel]

Yea we really need protection, having 30+ characters on disc is disgusting. We should never have to stand for this. I'd offer more sympathy if there were ~5 characters on disc for $60 and more costed extra.

Don't worry, in the future you'll have enough opportunities to pay $80 or even more to get the whole package.

The 30+ fighters included in the base game was never the issue. Like at all.

[Darknessbear]

Don't worry, in the future you'll have enough opportunities to pay $80 or even more to get the whole package. The 30+ fighters included in the base game was never the issue. Like at all.

Ok. I thought value was the issue? What's the issue?

[Toski]

Neither side is evil but as a consumer I should get as much as possible for my money instead of being deceived by businesses. There is a reason why consumer protection laws exist.

Capcom didn't deceive anyone on character count. They advertised 38 characters from the start, not 50+ and then changed their mind. Guy/Cody is debatable, but Capcom never promised any more than 38 unless you bought the PS3 version.

People should be mad that they left pair play off the 360 more than the characters that are on the disc that they never advertised.

[Glass Rebel]

Ok. I thought value was the issue? What's the issue?

At least for me, it's this:

Let's say you buy the game at launch for $60. That was in March. Of course, if you did some research, you knew there would be DLC. Capcom released SSFIVAE after all. But that DLC had only 4 characters.

Now in April the Vita version is announced and boy do the 4 new characters look cool.. no wait, there's 12. For $20. 12 out of a total 50 (or 55 in the Sony versions). That is more than a 5th. When the DLC releases in autumn you're gonna be fucked online if you don't buy it because there's no other way for you to even know how to play against them without buying it.

Now in the light of this generation this wouldn't even be such a huge thing (for me personally it still is but that's another matter). Pubs are known to pull shit like this and most have grown accustomed to multiplayer content being locked behind paywalls. But saying that if people felt comfortable paying $60 for the base game shouldn't change their mind because of the DLC is absurd. Especially because Capcom could have told us all of this beforehand and everybody could have reevaluated their purchase.

Luckily, I can't even buy it yet because I'm a PC gamer but if I were in the same situation as console gamers who bought it at launch I'd be incredibly pissed.

Capcom didn't deceive anyone on character count. They advertised 38 characters from the start, not 50+ and then changed their mind. Guy/Cody is debatable, but Capcom never promised any more than 38 unless you bought the PS3 version. People should be mad that they left pair play off the 360 more than the characters that are on the disc that they never advertised.

They didn't (almost) lie to anyone what they would receive but they did hold the total character count under wraps on purpose.

The 360 issue is another matter altogether.

[abstract alien]

This lack of transparency right here is enough reason to be wary of the whole DLC set-up. Game-companies can claim whatever they want. Given Capcom's track record and the fact that extra characters that you have to buy via DLC now were merely unlockable in the past by simply playing the game, I'm even less inclined to believe that Capcom (and most other DLC abusers) aren't trying to shaft me as a consumer.

That's the thing though...what is the difference in a company offering planned(cut) DLC and a company holding back data for the sequel? The second one has been happening for YEARS on end and still does to this day, yet it's mostly a full cover charge instead of a discount price.

[Toodles]

When the DLC releases in autumn you're gonna be fucked online if you don't buy it because there's no other way for you to even know how to play against them without buying it.

I don't understand the above.

Or, perhaps I do understand it, and I'm left puzzled.

[Glass Rebel]

I don't understand the above. Or, perhaps I do understand it, and I'm left puzzled.

How would you fight against a character you don't even know how to play against?

Keep fighting them? I fight most of the people in fighters without ever actually playing with them at all.

And there's still people who like to practice by themselves before hopping online. There's no way to do that though without buying them.

This isn't about people having more content or a competitive edge because they pay more. While I'm okay with the former and not okay with the latter Capcom isn't the first to do this.

The issue at hand is that I want to know what kind of product I'm buying. That entails the online experience and Capcom should have told me as much as they can how that online experience is going to play out but they didn't. And people in here are saying they shouldn't.

[abstract alien]

How would you fight against a character you don't even know how to play against?

Keep fighting them? I fight most of the people in fighters without ever actually playing with them at all.

[Chev]

Old? New? Read it:

Speaking with Gamespot, Ayano said while its disheartening, he is impressed with their hacking skills.

This is kinda amusing because by all accounts the hack seems to be pretty trivial, there's nothing complex behind activating the extras. To be a bit more technical:

the 12 characters locked behind the pay wall on the discs are behind a very simple "hex wall". According to the hackers the characters were easily accessible using a very simple numerical hex switch which activates all 12 characters, enabling them to appear on the main roster. When the switch is flipped the other way (using '1' and '0' as the on and off switch respectively) the characters are locked. [...] As noted by the hackers, the wall itself was a very flimsy safeguard to protect the characters, meaning that it was either a last minute addition or Capcom just didn't care.

ie it's stuff people learned to do with action replays back in 16 bits days, there's litterally no protection or authentication at all.

[Toodles]

How would you fight against a character you don't even know how to play against? And there's still people who like to practice by themselves before hopping online. There's no way to do that though without buying them.

So wait... Oh I get it. Your problem has nothing whatsoever to do with SFxT then. Your problem is any fighting game which had additional fighters put out after release as paid content, right? I see now.

EDIT:

This isn't about people having more content or a competitive edge because they pay more. While I'm okay with the former and not okay with the latter Capcom isn't the first to do this. The issue at hand is that I want to know what kind of product I'm buying. That entails the online experience and Capcom should have told me as much as they can how that online experience is going to play out but they didn't. And people in here are saying they shouldn't.

Oh and you have a big problem with any single game developer/publisher who, before a game is released, doesn't specify what the game's future digital content will be.

Pretty extreme in my opinion, but more power to you!

[Chev]

Your problem is any fighting game which had additional fighters put out after release as paid content, right? I see now.

It's a pretty common stance for fighting games, it's not rare that DLC or exclusive characters are banned from tournaments because of the requirement to pay extra to be familiarized with them.

[Emily Chu]

Bullshit like this makes me feel better and somewhat relieved about selling all my gaming devices last month.

I'm out @ least for now

maybe next gen will be better, I doubt it though

[CadetMahoney]

It's a pretty common stance for fighting games, it's not rare that DLC or exclusive characters are banned from tournaments because of the requirement to pay extra to be familiarized with them.

going on a tangent, but some of the experienced players who take their game seriously often don't main DLC characters because theres no guarantee they'll be available at a session or event. Which is often the case at some of the non big money majors.

[Glass Rebel]

So wait... Oh I get it. Your problem has nothing whatsoever to do with SFxT then. Your problem is any fighting game which had additional fighters put out after release as paid content, right? I see now. Oh and you have a big problem with any single game developer/publisher who, before a game is released, doesn't specify what the game's future digital content will be. Pretty extreme in my opinion, but more power to you!

Nope. It's about transparency and information. What I think about additional characters in fighting games has no bearing in this argument at all.

By now everybody should know how this industry works and that companies might or might not add DLC, same goes especially for Capcom.

When I see a product I look at what it offers and do some research so I can evaluate whether or not I want to purchase it. Since I can't actually know about everything that the publisher or developer is planning, I'm taking a "risk" that somewhere down the road my game might receive additional content that puts your base game in a new context.

Mind you, that risk is either positive or negative. Let's assume I like the game. For a publisher there are several possibilites to provide DLC:

- They can develop it after they finished the base game. This is what Obsidian did with the Fallout DLCs.

or

- They can develop it during the development of the base game on a different budget (and maybe a different team) and release it either at launch or later but announce it beforehand. This is what Eidos Montreal actually did with DX:HR The Missing Link. They said amost a year before the launch that they would be creating DLC.

Provided the price is right and the content is good you won't hear me complain in any of these situations, I even welcome it. It's almost impossible to know though what any company did so I just have to go by what information I can find. Whether Capcom actually did those 12 characters on a different budget or they cut them "at the last moment"... I don't know. The fact that they hid it makes it a bit dubious but still, I can't possibly know and I am not saying they did. What I do know though is that "hackers" found the additional content on the disc, almost ready to be released. Are you gonna tell me that it'll take them half a year to get it ready? I doubt it.

Obviously not every single company can specify what they'll offer in the future. Plans change over the time and stuff might get cut, things added and so on. This on the other hand is (almost?) finished content and they didn't tell us even though they exactly knew what they were going to do with it. To put it simple:

Capcom has this information: "Street Fighter x Tekken costs $60 and there is additional content that costs $20"

We got the unbolded part, I want the bolded too and you make it sound like you don't want me to hear it. Does me having that information somehow hurt you? Why wouldn't you possibly want to get that information too?

If you don't have a problem with that, love the surprise or whatever, that's completely okay by me. I assume you're an adult and earn your own money so you can spend it in any way you want. I am not okay with it though. Personally I'd rather wait and buy the game at a reduced price and buy the DLC with the money I'm saving that way. You and Capcom are obviously against that.

[alstein]

This lack of transparency right here is enough reason to be wary of the whole DLC set-up. Game-companies can claim whatever they want. Given Capcom's track record and the fact that extra characters that you have to buy via DLC now were merely unlockable in the past by simply playing the game, I'm even less inclined to believe that Capcom (and most other DLC abusers) aren't trying to shaft me as a consumer.

My big issue over this whole DLC screw-up is the whole 6 months thing, which I think is what most folks are angriest about, not so much the DLC itself. (some are angry over the DLC, but if you released it six months later off-disk as a $20 expansion, they'd be happy about it)

The other issue is that Capcom has really been gouging on DLC compared to other companies in terms of price for effort. Arc's been bad also, but it's more forgivable since BB chars take more effort design and workwise then Capcom chars.


You don't leave something on-disc for a long period of time, that just rewards pirates.

The local tournies I went to that had SFxTK (I've taken a one month break from tournies due to some RL things, so this isn't recent). Casuals were played on the pirate version, the official version was only used for tourney play.

Ultimately, you vote with your wallet- and I haven't paid for any Capcom DLC in years, and I've sold back every single Capcom game I've ever bought fairly quick (overall cost to me is same as renting it) - and won't be buying anything of theirs in future.

I don't oppose the concept of DLC, I don't like on-disc DLC, but can tolerate it under limited circumstances. Capcom just takes it way too far, compared to most other companies in the FG market (Arc is almost as bad- but they get more of a pass from me due to size+BBCS2 patch being offered free) I had no problem with what KOF or SC5 did, and no -problem with what VF is going to do.


Competitive games like fighters- you can't really wait on the game if you want to play competitively, you have to buy first week or you fall too far behind.

[Gez]

You know what offends me the most? That this DLC won't cost $20 outside America. I bet it will be like $30-$35 here in Australia. Please don't tell me there are freight and shipping costs involved with 100KB unlock files.

[CadetMahoney]

You know what offends me the most? That this DLC won't cost $20 outside America. I bet it will be like $30-$35 here in Australia. Please don't me there are freight and shipping costs involved with 100KB unlock files.

pretty much.

[alstein]

I'll say this: if the competitive community really wanted to send a message about DLC- they could, but they're too split to do so.

Ban the DLC characterrs for being paid DLC. Do this, the competitive community won't buy the characters, and I suspect as the competitive community drives most DLC sales, companies will get the hint quick as they'll get disappointing sales.

[CPS2]

I'll say this: if the competitive community really wanted to send a message about DLC- they could, but they're too split to do so. Ban the DLC characterrs for being paid DLC. Do this, the competitive community won't buy the characters, and I suspect as the competitive community drives most DLC sales, companies will get the hint quick as they'll get disappointing sales.

I think you might be overestimating the size of the competitive community just a bit. They can always talk to their contacts at Capcom USA just like anyone else can, but its just white noise, people complain about *everything* including absence of dlc, and not being able to unlock characters. No matter what they do, there will always be people complaining, so all that really drives it imo is money.

It would be also be a bigger statement if the competitive community didn't play the game at all, rather than just ignoring the dlc. In their view though, gem selection is a bigger issue than gem dlc, which is a way bigger issue than character dlc. Maybe it bears repeating that people are generally happy with this amount of content and the price, they're unhappy about it being on the disk.

[alstein]

I think you might be overestimating the size of the competitive community just a bit. They can always talk to their contacts at Capcom USA just like anyone else can, but its just white noise, people complain about *everything* including absence of dlc, and not being able to unlock characters. No matter what they do, there will always be people complaining, so all that really drives it imo is money. It would be also be a bigger statement if the competitive community didn't play the game at all, rather than just ignoring the dlc. In their view though, gem selection is a bigger issue than gem dlc, which is a way bigger issue than character dlc. Maybe it bears repeating that people are generally happy with this amount of content and the price, they're unhappy about it being on the disk.

I do think the FGC buys DLC in higher amounts then the standard gamers, they are the most hardcore after all, and you need all the DLC for tournies/competitive setups.

A blanket ban would cause many folks to not buy the DLC they don't want but have to buy for system setup purposes.

This is why a blanket ban would hurt, and you're not going to get the Capcom fans to not play Capcom games.

[MrPliskin]

At least for me, it's this: Let's say you buy the game at launch for $60. That was in March. Of course, if you did some research, you knew there would be DLC. Capcom released SSFIVAE after all. But that DLC had only 4 characters. Now in April the Vita version is announced and boy do the 4 new characters look cool.. no wait, there's 12. For $20. 12 out of a total 50 (or 55 in the Sony versions). That is more than a 5th. When the DLC releases in autumn you're gonna be fucked online if you don't buy it because there's no other way for you to even know how to play against them without buying it. Now in the light of this generation this wouldn't even be such a huge thing (for me personally it still is but that's another matter). Pubs are known to pull shit like this and most have grown accustomed to multiplayer content being locked behind paywalls. But saying that if people felt comfortable paying $60 for the base game shouldn't change their mind because of the DLC is absurd. Especially because Capcom could have told us all of this beforehand and everybody could have reevaluated their purchase. Luckily, I can't even buy it yet because I'm a PC gamer but if I were in the same situation as console gamers who bought it at launch I'd be incredibly pissed. They didn't (almost) lie to anyone what they would receive but they did hold the total character count under wraps on purpose. The 360 issue is another matter altogether.

So it is a value issue. Got it. 38 characters is more than enough for a full game, and is what the game would have likely shipped with anyway, regardless of the possibility of DLC. The additional 12 characters were *only* created and funded because of the potentiality of DLC (going off the assumption that Capcom functions like every other major publisher in the industry, not some stupid conspiracy theory that everyone else here seems to think is more acceptable).

The fact that you think Capcom needs to tell you their DLC plans 6 months out BEFORE you buy the game is fucking absurd. Do you expect Sony to tell you there will be a console price drop 6 months in advance? Should MS say "XBL will be free starting in 4 months"? Or are you just absolutely oblivious to how these things work?

Also, fucking L. O. L. at not knowing how to play against them unless you buy them. WAT. You can spend all of 20 minutes on SRK, look up some punishers and strats, and apply them. If that is beyond your grasp, not buying the characters isn't your problem. Get better.

[alstein]

Also, fucking L. O. L. at not knowing how to play against them unless you buy them. WAT. You can spend all of 20 minutes on SRK, look up some punishers and strats, and apply them. If that is beyond your grasp, not buying the characters isn't your problem. Get better.

That statement shows complete ignorance of high-level play and what it takes.

[Omegasquash]

So wait...If I sell you a box, and then tell you that you can access only some of what's in the box, but you have to pay me to get to the rest of the box, even though by law you bought the box and own what's in it, then I'm supposed to be OK with it?

Legally I'm sure it's fine, but it's a dickish move. They're just squeezing more money out of you, so why the fuck should you play their game? You don't have to. No one is twisting your arm, and the only way that they'll keep going at it is if you keep buying. It's not a difficult decision, here.

[ultron87]

That statement shows complete ignorance of high-level play and what it takes.

If you're actually high level enough that you'll benefit more from playing every single character instead of just practicing your match up against them you've probably gotten enough money's worth out of the game that paying the 20 bucks won't be a particularly big deal.

The only real competitive balance issue with this would be if it turns out some of the DLC characters are generally superior to all the non-DLC character. If a bunch of the DLC character turn out to be top tier it'd be pretty disgusting.

[MrPliskin]

That statement shows complete ignorance of high-level play and what it takes.

Please. Learning a character isn't essential for high level play, defensively. Playing against them is far more important. Learning frame windows, punishers, and recognizing basic strategies are MORE than enough for what I responded to, which was ONLINE play. Online =/= High-level. It's not like he's looking for tournament caliber competition here. The two are worlds apart.

[alstein]

If you're actually high level enough that you'll benefit more from playing every single character instead of just practicing your match up against them you've probably gotten enough money's worth out of the game that paying the 20 bucks won't be a particularly big deal. The only real competitive balance issue with this would be if it turns out some of the DLC characters are generally superior to all the non-DLC character. If a bunch of the DLC character turn out to be top tier it'd be pretty disgusting.

Usually DLC chars tend to be high tier or better. Capcom tends to be the exception.

Even pot monsters tend to buy all the DLC, because many of them lend out their consoles for tournies, and you need all the DLC for that.

Also, you really don't know if a character will click for you until you buy them.


I do think the existence of DLC makes me more likely to give up on a game though, get rid of it before the DLC kicks in.

[kunonabi]

Aren't the character incomplete anyway in terms of balancing and whatnot?

That's purely speculation much like what people thought about Jill.

[Toodles]

[...] Capcom has this information: "Street Fighter x Tekken costs $60 and there is additional content that costs $20" We got the unbolded part, I want the bolded too and you make it sound like you don't want me to hear it. Does me having that information somehow hurt you? Why wouldn't you possibly want to get that information too? If you don't have a problem with that, love the surprise or whatever, that's completely okay by me. I assume you're an adult and earn your own money so you can spend it in any way you want. I am not okay with it though. Personally I'd rather wait and buy the game at a reduced price and buy the DLC with the money I'm saving that way. You and Capcom are obviously against that.

I'm baffled by your conclusion that I don't want you to have the information you're requesting. I'd be greatly interested in you explaining what it was I posted which gave you that impression.

I was mainly attempting to highlight that the two problems you have - I won't quote them again, but both problems are quoted in my post above - are a little absurd and/or would need to be applied across the industry as a whole for you to not come across as a little cherry-picky in your argument. Hopefully you *do* apply it across the industry as a whole (your long post indicates that you perhaps do). Again, more power to you. To that I'd have to say though: Your expectation (that dev/pubs release details wherever possible of their planned post-release content before the initial game comes out) is perhaps a little unrealistic, given how much weight - across all games - is given to that marketing staple: 'the big announcement'. How many times in a preview, when the company is asked "what are your plans for DLC?", does the guy say "I can't comment on that right now"? It happens a whole bunch. I don't personally consider keeping post-release content under wraps particularly shady, or dubious, or deserving of being read into too much outside of "oh, the marketing department are doing their tiresome marketing thing again."

That Capcom thought they could put the content on the disc and have it *stay* under wraps until marketing wanted to announce it.... to me that says far more about Capcom's lack of intelligence than it does anything about their lack of morals.

[RDreamer]

The only real competitive balance issue with this would be if it turns out some of the DLC characters are generally superior to all the non-DLC character. If a bunch of the DLC character turn out to be top tier it'd be pretty disgusting.

That would suck, but I get the feeling that's part of why these characters were built along side the others. I mean if you wanted all of your characters, original and future, to be balanced as good as they possibly can, then you make them all at the same time. It makes everything easier to tweak as you go. And people won't have to deal with colossal changes to characters they already know when the new ones come out.

[Glass Rebel]

So it is a value issue. Got it. 38 characters is more than enough for a full game, and is what the game would have likely shipped with anyway, regardless of the possibility of DLC. The additional 12 characters were *only* created and funded because of the potentiality of DLC (going off the assumption that Capcom functions like every other major publisher in the industry, not some stupid conspiracy theory that everyone else here seems to think is more acceptable). The fact that you think Capcom needs to tell you their DLC plans 6 months out BEFORE you buy the game is fucking absurd. Do you expect Sony to tell you there will be a console price drop 6 months in advance? Should MS say "XBL will be free starting in 4 months"? Or are you just absolutely oblivious to how these things work?

Good job on reading every word but failing to string them together.

They don't need to tell us but it shouldn't be outrageous to expect them to. I mean, if it's so good of a value, why shouldn't I know now that I might end up paying $80 even though they need now? "That's how these things work!" is not an excuse and I think I'm better off not supporting such business practices and companies that employ them.

I also never said anything whether 38 characters is enough for a full game or not but I guess that escaped your mind like the rest of my post.

Won't even bother to reply to that last paragraph and its kindergarten rhetoric.

I'm baffled by your conclusion that I don't want you to have the information you're requesting. I'd be greatly interested in you explaining what it was I posted which gave you that impression. I was mainly attempting to highlight that the two problems you have - I won't quote them again, but both problems are quoted in my post above - are a little absurd and/or would need to be applied across the industry as a whole for you to not come across as a little cherry-picky in your argument. Hopefully you *do* apply it across the industry as a whole (your long post indicates that you perhaps do). Again, more power to you. To that I'd have to say though: Your expectation (that dev/pubs release details wherever possible of their planned post-release content before the initial game comes out) is perhaps a little unrealistic, given how much weight - across all games - is given to that marketing staple: 'the big announcement'. How many times in a preview, when the company is asked "what are your plans for DLC?", does the guy say "I can't comment on that right now"? It happens a whole bunch. I don't personally consider keeping post-release content under wraps particularly shady, or dubious, or deserving of being read into too much outside of "oh, the marketing department are doing their tiresome marketing thing again." That Capcom thought they could put the content on the disc and have it *stay* under wraps until marketing wanted to announce it.... to me that says far more about Capcom's lack of intelligence than it does anything about their lack of morals.

I'm sorry if I came to that apparently wrong conclusion but that's what I've been arguing from the very beginning.

As I said, I'm completely aware of these things and there's shadier stuff going around. You think it's absurd because publishers have done this since the beginning of the generation but it shouldn't be. It's not my job to worry about a company's marketing, it's theirs to give me as good as a game and service as they can. I feel they don't so I won't give them my money and if anybody thinks I'm overreacting or doing myself a disservice that's really their problem.

I'm repeating myself here but yes, there is always a certain risk involved. If I was always 100% sceptical I'd never buy anything that's why I want as much information as possible about the game I'm buying and that involves future expenses, whether optional or not. I try to apply this principle to everything I buy. My money and time are precious and I can't justify dropping ~$80 on a single game. The last 3 big, "expensive" games I got at launch were Portal 2, Skyrim and Batman: Arkham City.

- Skyrim was a gift. Personally, I'd have waited for the GOTY version like I do with every Bethesda game. Not because I don't like their games, I just want to play everything without having to go back at a later date.
- Arkham City I got for 12€ from a GAFer who sold his graphics card code. I initially planned to get it way later when I heard about GFWL the DLC.
- Portal 2 I bought because from my experience with Valve I know that I will never have to pay to get all the substantial content. Even then I got it in a two-pack with a friend.

You might disagree with this but I've been doing this for years and it always worked out for me. We don't know what is happening behind the curtain, how the devs or marketing are involved etc. and every time someone releases DLC that feels "cut" (I don't have a clear opinion about this question in the case of SFxT btw. It just seems suspicious.) PR will obviously say it's not. So when something like this happens I feel it's important to jump at the matter and tell the publisher that it's not okay.

[Toodles]

Glass Rebel -

Would you agree that perhaps you're a little in the minority on that stuff then? I mean, everyone likes to save money obviously. But plenty of gamers also *love* that intangible quality of getting the game early in its lifecycle, when the game is being discussed across forums and podcasts and friends, when an online aspect is at its most active and discovery-based, when the juices of plain old hype are coursing through the fingers. I'd be surprised if total transparency of a game release -- information such as "over the next three months we'll be releasing two additional pieces of £12 content" or whatever -- would have an impact on the majority of people's decisions to purchase day-1. Speaking generally across the medium.

I'm not knocking your own way of doing things, but I'm trying to parse where the *overall* anger and sense of scandal in this thread is coming from. And I'm not sure your own requirements from dev/pubs are at the heart of all this thread's noisy outrage. My assumption is that most gamers a) assume post-release content will happen at some point down the line, and b) will day-1 a game if they're sufficiently interested in it, regardless of whether a post-release content schedule is offered. I assume a fair amount of the people crying foul in this thread fall into a) or b) or both.

I also just flat out disagree with your opinion that, with regards to some purchase-only fighting game expansion-pack with additional characters , "there's no other way for you to even know how to play against [the additional characters] without buying it". But that's kinda neither here nor there. :P

[Jake Tower]

That statement shows complete ignorance of high-level play and what it takes.

+1

[RDreamer]

They don't need to tell us but it shouldn't be outrageous to expect them to. I mean, if it's so good of a value, why shouldn't I know now that I might end up paying $80 even though they need now? "That's how these things work!" is not an excuse and I think I'm better off not supporting such business practices and companies that employ them.

Considering that's not just how things work in the game world, that's how things work in almost every business that exists, it is kind of outrageous to throw a fit about it now. Now, I'd rather they tell me up front about anything that they know up front, but demanding that for everything is pretty unrealistic. The reason these things are held onto for the "big reveal" is because they work. They garner more sales and more money. Games are budgeted with these sorts of things in mind. You're effectively telling them they cannot and should not market their game in the most effective way possible.

I'm repeating myself here but yes, there is always a certain risk involved. If I was always 100% sceptical I'd never buy anything that's why I want as much information as possible about the game I'm buying and that involves future expenses, whether optional or not. I try to apply this principle to everything I buy. My money and time are precious and I can't justify dropping ~$80 on a single game. The last 3 big, "expensive" games I got at launch were Portal 2, Skyrim and Batman: Arkham City.

You weren't asked to drop $80 on a single game. You were asked to drop $60 on a single game, and down the line you were going to be asked to drop $20. These are two separate propositions, and I'm not sure why the 2nd one affects the first so much. Unless of course you just think you'll love this game so damned much that you think you'll have to buy everything they release afterwards. In such a case that really doesn't sound like you're a discerning individual when it comes to money... A discerning individual would wait until release and see exactly what they get for their $60 and then make that decision. Then when the next proposition comes up they'd re-evaluate yet again whether they want to plunge on that, too.

But, you've put up examples on how you actually are a discerning individual. So how do we rectify these two things? Well, the only way for these two things to make sense is if you still, somehow, hold the misplaced view that you have to have everything that's released for a game in order for it to be full. That somehow you're getting ripped off, because some other content exists. That somehow you are owed everything they make at that same time.

And, really, I think that's what this whole thing comes down to. As gamers you're used to getting everything that exists of an ip right off the bat, and you're used to getting it at a set price. Usually games never go above that one price. Gaming was a small niche, so when you bought a game there were rarely other avenues toward revenue. It was just that one game at that one price and that's it. And when you got your game you got the feeling that you had just bought this whole, entire idea. The whole world was yours.

But the industry is growing and finding its part in the world. As with other businesses this opens other possible revenue streams. They created different value propositions and products to reach different segments of the market. And I think that feeling that you've just bought the whole world is gone. You haven't bought all of the IP. And that scares people in a way. But it's just becoming like other businesses. If you walk into a Mac store and buy a Macbook, unless you pay the most money, you're walking out with "less" than everything a Apple can offer you on a Macbook. If you walk into a car dealership to buy a brand new car, unless you pay top dollar you're not going to get every single feature that car could have. If you go into a store to buy a movie sometimes you won't get every feature possible unless you buy the deluxe 2 or 3 disc version. If you go into a music store you might not get every track on an album unless you spring for the deluxe version. Sometimes those extra tracks aren't even available right away. They're held back for singles and re-releases, too!

These are realities that you just have to accept. You have to separate these things out. You're not going to get "everything" anymore. And that's fine, as long as what you are getting for your money is worth what you're paying. It's fine as long as what you are getting is acceptable to the gaming population at large. In this case you just have to know that you aren't getting the entire SFxT experience for all time. What you are getting is 38 characters and whatever modes they advertised and all that. You have to decide whether that's worth it on its own or not, because you're just not owed "everything" at $60. If you're a discerning customer whose money means a lot to you, well then you should probably wait and possibly buy used. I'm not sure why you weren't buying used to begin with, since there really isn't usually a single monetary advantage to ever buying new.

[Toodles]

Since used games (and, by extension, the practice of trading games in) was mentioned there, and since we're in a thread where a lot of voices are showing distaste towards the practice of DLC -

It might be worth just highlighting that DLC (if that's what you choose to call it) isn't *just* about additional revenue streams. One of the specific reasons that post-release content is so popular nowadays is how effective (in a profitable sense) that type of revenue stream is. It's not secret nor surprise that dev/pubs loathe the practice of buying/selling used-games. When a game has DLC further down the line, not only can that be a motivator for someone to hold onto a disc (which is one less copy for someone else to buy used) but also, once digital content *is* purchased for the game, there's an increased reluctance to sell the disc, since you just invested money in content which can't also be traded in -- by trading it in, you effectively neuter the digital purchase you made. And, obviously, DLC is appealing simply because of the digital nature of it. It's money which, assuming it's not also delivered through a GOTY disc, will always see cash flow towards the company.

Point being, it's a little overzealous to view DLC stuff as purely opportunistic money-grabbing. It *is* relevant to the disc too. And the prevalence of it *is* linked to the used-game side of the industry. Deriding DLC content on one hand, then saying "fuck you Gamecorp, I'll just buy used" might be fine and dandy, but at least see the bigger, past-present-future picture when you're doing it.

[Arsenic]

I think we all should fight this because this can soon be the standard business model in next-gen games. Both sides make great points, but in the end if we don't make a stand as consumers/gamers, then we'd be screwed in the future.

[ZombiePlatypus]

That's the thing though...what is the difference in a company offering planned(cut) DLC and a company holding back data for the sequel? The second one has been happening for YEARS on end and still does to this day, yet it's mostly a full cover charge instead of a discount price.

When a company holds stuff back for a sequel (which I'm sure happens all the time), they kinda have to build upon said held-back material and release it as a full-fledged game, because the backlash for paying full price for typical DLC-amount of content would be pretty big. On the other hand, when they release said material as DLC, they can just sell it on its own to the consumer, without expanding upon it, at an overpriced price-point. A lot of people don't seem to complain because even though the price is most probably gouged up, it still feels "cheap" when compared to the price of a stand-alone game. (And that's not taking into account the fact that you already paid the full asking price when purchasing the game said DLC belongs to.)

[RDreamer]

Since used games (and, by extension, the practice of trading games in) was mentioned there, and since we're in a thread where a lot of voices are showing distaste towards the practice of DLC - It might be worth just highlighting that DLC (if that's what you choose to call it) isn't *just* about additional revenue streams. One of the specific reasons that post-release content is so popular nowadays is how effective (in a profitable sense) that type of revenue stream is. It's not secret nor surprise that dev/pubs loathe the practice of buying/selling used-games. When a game has DLC further down the line, not only can that be a motivator for someone to hold onto a disc (which is one less copy for someone else to buy used) but also, once digital content *is* purchased for the game, there's an increased reluctance to sell the disc, since you just invested money in content which can't also be traded in -- by trading it in, you effectively neuter the digital purchase you made. And, obviously, DLC is appealing simply because of the digital nature of it. It's money which, assuming it's not also delivered through a GOTY disc, will always see cash flow towards the company. Point being, it's a little overzealous to view DLC stuff as purely opportunistic money-grabbing. It *is* relevant to the disc too. And the prevalence of it *is* linked to the used-game side of the industry. Deriding DLC content on one hand, then saying "fuck you Gamecorp, I'll just buy used" might be fine and dandy, but at least see the bigger, past-present-future picture when you're doing it.

This is absolutely right. DLC is a multiple pronged benefit that keeps people reluctant to sell their games and if someone does happen to buy used they could still potentially give money to the company. If you're buying used to begin with, then you're part of the reason they're doing this sort of thing. If you're buying used so that you can get all DLC, well then you're also perpetuating the cycle.

I think we all should fight this because this can soon be the standard business model in next-gen games. Both sides make great points, but in the end if we don't make a stand as consumers/gamers, then we'd be screwed in the future.

Please explain why exactly we'd be screwed in the future? I think your ire is misplaced. What you absolutely do need to fight is when a company tries to sell you a lesser product than what is expected for your money. This should not change simply with the addition of DLC to the world. Your question to purchase or not should be "is the content I'm getting for this amount of money worth it in quality, quantity, or both?" If you continue to ask that question, then there is no "screwed," now or in the future. This slope is no slipperier than it has been before. They've always had the ability to sell you a piece of shit game with little content. What's stopped them before? Because people won't buy a piece of shit with little content game. If you suddenly think people will buy a piece of shit game with little content because they can pay for DLC later, then I just don't know what to say to you.

[LakeEarth]

Old? New? Read it: “Personally, I was really surprised when I heard the news that the characters had been hacked, basically,” he said. “So I was pretty disappointed by that. I was really surprised at how skillful the hackers were, basically.

They hacked it almost day 1. How much 'skill' was needed?

[alstein]

They hacked it almost day 1. How much 'skill' was needed?

I think it just involved altering one .ini file.

[RoninChaos]

Part of me wonders if this kind of shit is happening because game prices are dropping so fast. I'm sure in 3 weeks SFxTekken will be 40 bucks, and soem people will jump at that price. Then some will pay another 20 for DLC. Boom, Capcom got their 60 dollars, even if they were going for 80.

I'm wondering if on disc DLC will become the norm because of these shifting prices. People will jump on a 20 dollar game, and a lot will jump on DLC. It's a win win for a lot of these publishers that have their games end up in the bargain bin.

[Toodles]

I'm more than fine towards making a stand on consumer issues, but I'm not down for getting up in arms over developer and publisher stuff which seems.. I dunno, reasonable, I guess.

I don't think it's at all realistic to expect post-release content to go away. I just don't.

If we're to accept that post-release content is now just a Thing, and it's something dev/pubs intend to do from the beginning of the project, we then ask ourselves how do we feel if that extra content is developed during the main dev cycle. Personally, I can't convince myself that this practice is *inherently* unethical / dubious / greedy (on the contrary, I can see quite a few sensible reasons for it). Nor do I see how it *inherently* negatively impacts on me as a consumer. "But," I suspect some of you think, "couldn't 20% more dev-power have been focused on the main game if DLC wasn't being parallel-developed?" Not necessarily, since if only a main game is being worked on, that increases the likelihood of developer downtime, where they're waiting for the next bit of specialist work to come back to them.

I'm using *inherently* a bit up there because the possibility naturally exists that this practice could be used unscrupulously. But the practice itself isn't (I don't think) inherently bullshit-evil. And a lot of this thread boils down to people assuming a marked degree of bullshit-evil.

***

If it's possible that planned, budgetted, business strategy-led post-release content can, legitimately, be developed alongside the day-1 disc's content... IF you think that's sort of okay, as long as there's no bullshit-evil... then, with a well-scheduled and/or lucky development cycle, it's possible that the extra content will be finished before or at around the same time as the disc-release itself.

Should that happen, and the intention for that post-release content is - and was always going to be - that it be sold weeks/months further down the game's life-cycle, should that happen and the complete post-release content is included on the disc itself (for a multitude of reasonable reasons), in those circumstances could you possibly find it in the deepest core of your soul to agree with Capcom that "On disc DLC no different than download".

Because if you can, then all the outrage in this thread stems, I'm beginning to think, from the assumption, nay the outright belief that bullshit-evil was afoot.

In which case, are you more attacking the practice itself, or are you attacking the image of Capcom which you (perhaps fairly) have of them. There's an important distinction there. Particularly for how we, as consumers, will be considered when we make our stands on what is and what is not acceptable business practice in the future.

EDIT: Just to add a concluding point which I forgot -- I'm saying that there is actually some benefit to planned extra content being stored right there on the disc itself. If it already exists in a largely complete form. And if it's going to be released months down the line regardless of whether it's on the disc or whether it's in a shoebox on top of a coat-cupboard in Gamecorp's canteen. If they've got it, and their profit-and-loss forecast determines that I was never going to get access to it until day-60... fuck it, do me a favour and store the data on the disc. I might buy it, I might not. I certainly don't begrudge them avoiding the extra costs involved in arranging to distribute an 800MB DLC-pack. I'm cool with a convenient Earth for all.

[Glass Rebel]

Glass Rebel - Would you agree that perhaps you're a little in the minority on that stuff then? I mean, everyone likes to save money obviously. But plenty of gamers also *love* that intangible quality of getting the game early in its lifecycle, when the game is being discussed across forums and podcasts and friends, when an online aspect is at its most active and discovery-based, when the juices of plain old hype are coursing through the fingers. I'd be surprised if total transparency of a game release -- information such as "over the next three months we'll be releasing two additional pieces of £12 content" or whatever -- would have an impact on the majority of people's decisions to purchase day 1.

Seeing as these games are pretty front loaded you're most likely right. Let's assume you are. It's really everybody's own business to decide what can sway their decision to buy a game or not but that information definitely has an impact on mine and quite a few others. If it doesn't matter to most people they wouldn't mind having that information and Capcom shouldn't care either, right? But Capcom apparently cares because of marketing reasons and assuming it's legal they're in their right to do so. At the same time I'm allowed to say that I think it's being dishonest.

I don't think I said I don't buy games "day one" if I can't get them for cheap, have I? I'd love to get every game when it releases but I just neither have the money nor the time for that.

I'm not knocking your own way of doing things, but I'm trying to parse where the *overall* anger and sense of scandal in this thread is coming from. And I'm not sure your own requirements from dev/pubs are at the heart of all this thread's noisy outrage. My assumption is that most gamers a) assume post-release content will happen at some point down the line, and b) will day-1 a game if they're sufficiently interested in it, regardless of whether a post-release content schedule is offered. I assume a fair amount of the people crying foul in this thread fall into a) or b) or both.

I did state in my initial post that you quoted that this was my issue, yes. I don't think I'm the only one though and I also think there are various other views on the "angry side" in this thread, not just one.

I also just flat out disagree with your opinion that, with regards to some purchase-only fighting game expansion-pack with additional characters , "there's no other way for you to even know how to play against [the additional characters] without buying it". But that's kinda neither here nor there. :P

And you're entitled to your opinion. I feel that FAQs and guides aren't enough to be prepared against a new character the first few times you encounter them, leading to a possibly frustrating experience. Which was what I initially meant to suggest, sorry for not being clear.

Considering that's not just how things work in the game world, that's how things work in almost every business that exists, it is kind of outrageous to throw a fit about it now. Now, I'd rather they tell me up front about anything that they know up front, but demanding that for everything is pretty unrealistic. The reason these things are held onto for the "big reveal" is because they work. They garner more sales and more money. Games are budgeted with these sorts of things in mind. You're effectively telling them they cannot and should not market their game in the most effective way possible.

I'm going against what I said earlier but you took the time to write such a long a post so...

No, I am not saying they can't. I don't know whether they can or can't since I don't know if there exist any laws. I am saying that marketing their game in a way that has a negative effect on me is something I don't condone and therefore I won't buy their game. Foreign concept, I know.

You weren't asked to drop $80 on a single game. You were asked to drop $60 on a single game, and down the line you were going to be asked to drop $20. These are two separate propositions, and I'm not sure why the 2nd one affects the first so much. Unless of course you just think you'll love this game so damned much that you think you'll have to buy everything they release afterwards. In such a case that really doesn't sound like you're a discerning individual when it comes to money... A discerning individual would wait until release and see exactly what they get for their $60 and then make that decision. Then when the next proposition comes up they'd re-evaluate yet again whether they want to plunge on that, too.

Look, I can see that it's not an issue to you but it is very much an issue to me. To me there is a difference between "38 characters. Period." and "38 characters + the possibility of buying 12 additional characters". In the first case I just have to think about whether these 38 characters are worth my $60 or should I wait for a pricedrop, that's all. In the second case it's the same at first and then months later I have to ask myself whether I want to purchase 12 additional characters for $20. This is completely right provided I learned of the DLC after I purchased the game. This is that "risk" I was talking about.

Now, let's assume Capcom tells me one week before the release of the game, that the $60 dollar game I was about to buy will get $20 DLC in 6 months. For me this is a big deal because this changes how much I want to potentially invest to get the most out of the game. Should I pay $60 now and $20 later? Should I just pay $60 now and never buy the DLC at all? Should I wait for the game to go down $50 so I can get the total package later for $70? If you don't share this view I really don't know what to tell you.

I can only go by the information publishers provide but I had no way to get acces to the information that $20 DLC was coming in autumn for a long time even though Capcom themselves had already planned it.

But, you've put up examples on how you actually are a discerning individual. So how do we rectify these two things? Well, the only way for these two things to make sense is if you still, somehow, hold the misplaced view that you have to have everything that's released for a game in order for it to be full. That somehow you're getting ripped off, because some other content exists. That somehow you are owed everything they make at that same time.

When you buy DLC do you happen to think "Oh no, there's too much game!"? No, you don't. I look at all of the content that's available and evaluate the product. It doesn't even have to be everything, I don't give a shit about skins for example. Going by the information at hand, past-experience and gut-feeling I then decide how I want so spend my money on it and I don't think it's anybody's business how I do it.

I also never said the bolded thing. I don't believe any company owes anybody anything but the product that they're promising you when you buy it. I'd like to have that content, no doubt, and if Valve and CD Project can do it I think I can hold them to the same standard and tell them that I'd rather have it for free. If they don't want to comply, big deal, I'll just wait until they sell it for a price I feel comfortable at or don't buy it at all.

If you walk into a Mac store and buy a Macbook, unless you pay the most money, you're walking out with "less" than everything a Apple can offer you on a Macbook. If you walk into a car dealership to buy a brand new car, unless you pay top dollar you're not going to get every single feature that car could have. If you go into a store to buy a movie sometimes you won't get every feature possible unless you buy the deluxe 2 or 3 disc version. If you go into a music store you might not get every track on an album unless you spring for the deluxe version. Sometimes those extra tracks aren't even available right away. They're held back for singles and re-releases, too!

The comparison to the situation at hand fails if you consider one simple thing: If I buy a Macbook, I can look it up what the features of the other Macbooks are and decide what model I want. Or whether I want to buy a Macbooc at all. Same goes for cars, movies and music. I don't think there ever was a case where someone placed a lock into a car and told you after you bought it that there are some inaccessible features in that very car that you have to pay for.

These are realities that you just have to accept. You have to separate these things out. You're not going to get "everything" anymore. And that's fine, as long as what you are getting for your money is worth what you're paying. It's fine as long as what you are getting is acceptable to the gaming population at large. In this case you just have to know that you aren't getting the entire SFxT experience for all time. What you are getting is 38 characters and whatever modes they advertised and all that. You have to decide whether that's worth it on its own or not, because you're just not owed "everything" at $60. If you're a discerning customer whose money means a lot to you, well then you should probably wait and possibly buy used. I'm not sure why you weren't buying used to begin with, since there really isn't usually a single monetary advantage to ever buying new.

I never buy used because there is no used market on PC. The publisher is profiting off every single purchase I make and for that simple reason I believe I should get as much as possible. If I think they're giving me enough for the money they're asking I'll buy it, if not, I simply don't. You make it sound like I have some kind of OCD and hate DLC to the core while I have bought lots of DLC and still have "incomplete" games and don't complain about it at all.