Support NeoGAF

[TheHater]

He says that DLC isn't necessary and doesn't need to be there while gamers complain that they want a reason to keep the game and not sell it off after they are done with it.

"Make the greatest game the world has ever known and maybe I won't resell your game!" Everything gets old after a while. Doesn't matter if it's the greatest highest rated game ever made, a movie or a book. Eventually we all exhaust all it has to offer, get bored and move on. DLC is necessary as a quick and "cheap" way to keep fans interested in the same game longer, curb resale and bridge the gap to the sequel.

If it's content that's already made and just being held until a later date, it's specifically because of this. Many arcade fighting games would hold characters and unlock them one at a time over the course of a few months. This was done to keep players coming back and keep the game from getting old. That was the arcade's form of DLC and it worked.

The best part, it's completely optional. To this day the only DLC I have ever purchased is Red Dead Redemption Zombie thing, the Mass Effect series DLC, Peggle Nights for $2 and I bought the GTAIV DLC in disc form on sale and I have played A LOT of games this generation.

I don't really care for DLC personally, it's the same to me as micro transactions, but I understand why they exist. Nobody is screwing me over. You don't like the practice, don't buy it, I don't. Simple as that.

What about DLC that is already on the disk? You don't think you are getting screwed over by that? What about the DLC characters in Capcom games that is on the disk, but you have to pay extra to unlock them. Is that not screwing the consumers over?

What about announcing DLC months before a game is release and those DLC are available the day of release? Or in Capcom case, several DLC available before the game is even release.

What about the DLC for the "true" ending of Asura's Wrath?

That problem with these type of practices is that the average consumer doesn't know any better. They don't read this forum or other game websites. They boot the game up and they are notify that new DLC content is available.

 

[TheHater]

If the game's budget calls for that extra content to be made and set aside to be purchased as an extra later or it would have never existed in the first place, nobody is getting screwed over.

Tell that to people paying for college textbooks.

I guess the next time you go to the movies, they should charge you extra to watch the ending and/or the begin of the movie. After all, it's a business.

 

[David H Wong]

I guess the next time you go to the movies, they should charge you extra to watch the ending and/or the begin of the movie. After all, it's a business.

Correct, it is. Word of mouth will convince people to not go see that movie, and the market will correct the behavior.

Unless, of course, the customers are okay with it. And with DLC, they clearly are. The system works fine. The fact that you are personally outraged by it means nothing.

 

[Dark Octave]

What about DLC that is already on the disk? You don't think you are getting screwed over by that? What about the DLC characters in Capcom games that is on the disk, but you have to pay extra to unlock them. Is that not screwing the consumers over?

What about announcing DLC months before a game is release and those DLC are available the day of release? Or in Capcom case, several DLC available before the game is even release.

What about the DLC for the "true" ending of Asura's Wrath?

That problem with these type of practices is that the average consumer doesn't know any better. They don't read this forum or other game websites. They boot the game up and they are notify that new DLC content is available.

Like I said in the above post and I think it was mentioned by Capcom (I could be wrong on this) but if a budget was set aside to include those twelve characters in Street Fighter X Tekken to be sold at a later date or they wouldn't have been created at all, I'd rather have the option to have them rather than not. The game already has over 50 characters out of the box. Trust me, nobody is getting ripped off.

Asura's Wrath DLC is shameful and I agree with you 100% on that. That was something that was vital to the story of the core game and they used it as an extra when it wasn't.

 

[Yagharek]

Chris Remo's twitter summarizes the issue in a single sentence.



https://twitter.com/chrisremo/status/307712747758571520

Brilliant posts by Remo. Reminds me why I no longer have any interest in the AAA end of the industry. It can crash and burn for all I care. It's a fundamentally broken business with toxic, condescending and spiteful sermons issued from high priests like the self appointed cliff.

No thanks.

 

[TheHater]

Correct, it is. Word of mouth will convince people to not go see that movie, and the market will correct the behavior.

Unless, of course, the customers are okay with it. And with DLC, they clearly are. The system works fine. The fact that you are personally outraged by it means nothing.

I think the majority of people that buy those types of DLC are unaware that it is already on the disk.

 

[JackDT]

Correct, it is. Word of mouth will convince people to not go see that movie, and the market will correct the behavior.

That 'word of mouth' - that market correction? That IS the bitching on the internet that CliffyB is so mad about.

 

[Dirtbag]

100% agree with him.

I've seen very little value in most DLC and as such have rarely dipped.
I usually migrate to 1 or 2 games a year at best. Those two games I usually get all my mappacks.
I will never buy a weapon skin, but could care less that they exist.

I also buy standard editions, the unlimited editions have got to be the biggest sucker deal out there.

 

[TheHater]

Like I said in the above post and I think it was mentioned by Capcom (I could be wrong on this) but if a budget was set aside to include those twelve characters in Street Fighter X Tekken to be sold at a later date or they wouldn't have been created at all, I'd rather have the option to have them rather than not. The game already has over 50 characters out of the box. Trust me, nobody is getting ripped off.

Asura's Wrath DLC is shameful and I agree with you 100% on that. That was something that was vital to the story of the core game and they used it as an extra when it wasn't.

lets put it this way. You bought a new Car for $60,000 and it comes with lot of cool features such as heated seats, navigation system, etc that you have to pay extra to get activated. While the heated seats and navigation system is not necessary for the car to get from point A to point B, it already in your car. Should you pay extra for those features to be activated? Those features was already in the car you just purchase.

That is the best analogy I can think of lol

 

[sonicmj1]

lets put it this way. You bought a new Car for $60,000 and it comes with lot of cool features such as heated seats, navigation system, etc that you have to pay extra to get activated. While the heated seats and navigation system is not necessary for the car to get from point A to point B, it already in your car. Should you pay extra for those features to be activated? Those features was already in the car you just purchase.

That is the best analogy I can think of lol

That already happens. Not for cars (that'd be expensive and inefficient), but it happens in computer hardware. Companies will have multiple SKUs of a processor, for instance, and to maintain economies of scale, the low-end chips will be made the same way as the high end chips. Then they'll disable cores so they can justify pricing both chips differently.

If the car company promised me heated seats at the price I paid, and I didn't get them paying that price, I'd be pissed. If not, why should I be upset?

I don't think weapon skins in Gears of War 3 are any different. Unless you bought the game expecting a leopard-print Lancer in multiplayer, you're not being shortchanged anything. Why does it matter if that leopard-print pattern exists on a server or on your disk?

 

[Kill Your Masters]

That already happens. Not for cars (that'd be expensive and inefficient), but it happens in computer hardware. Companies will have multiple SKUs of a processor, for instance, and to maintain economies of scale, the low-end chips will be made the same way as the high end chips. Then they'll disable cores so they can justify pricing both chips differently.

If the car company promised me heated seats at the price I paid, and I didn't get them paying that price, I'd be pissed. If not, why should I be upset?

I don't think weapon skins in Gears of War 3 are any different. Unless you bought the game expecting a leopard-print Lancer in multiplayer, you're not being shortchanged anything. Why does it matter if that leopard-print pattern exists on a server or on your disk?

Of course it doesn't matter if it's some minor thing as some skins. But what about features that make your playing expirience a grind? Just look at Real Racing 3 for phones/tablets and how it handles microtransactions. Disgusting.

I can see some publishers making their games a grindfest on purpose to drive the microtransactions business up.

 

[sonicmj1]

Of course it doesn't matter if it's some minor thing as some skins. But what about features that make your playing expirience a grind? Just look at Real Racing 3 for phones/tablets and how it handles microtransactions. Disgusting.

Real Racing 3 is absolutely gross. But I have no idea whether or not Cliffy would defend it, and it's completely unrelated to the idea of on-disc DLC, which apparently deeply bothers some people.

You might believe it, but trust me when I say that if you own a game disc and there is content on that disc that is "locked out" (especially if you paid full price for that disc), as each second passes you are unquestionably being screwed over. Either you're not getting the content you should have gotten for free or, if you've made the mistake of paying for it and encouraging the continuation of such practices, have paid extra for something that shouldn't have cost you so much as a dime the moment you purchased the game from the store.

There's no real difference between DLC on a disc and DLC on a server, except that the stuff on a disc means that people don't have to keep downloading stupid patches in order to play online.

 

[Chubzdoomer]

There's no real difference between DLC on a disc and DLC on a server

If it's on a disc, then obviously it's content they'd finished creating before the game was published and that they've purposely kept from you to earn as much money as possible. It's one thing to upload DLC to a server after the game is released, but to have it on the disc you paid $60 for and lock it away until you've fed them more money for the key? That, to me, is despicable and you'd be hard pressed to convince me otherwise. I'll never be okay with developers cutting out pieces of a game and tucking them away on the disc under the guise of "DLC."

 

[Ramocalypse]

The thing that gets me about the whole "people vote with their money for these types of micro-transactions" argument is that

A. When presented with an easy way out (aka pay to win micro-transactions) the vast majority of people are lazy and dont want to have to work at something, and since the price is so low they simply pay for the "cheat code".

B. When that takes place, wether they realize it or not they are removing some of the satisfaction of achievement or tension in the game, and i'd be willing to bet that the next time that series come back around, they are going to look at it less favorably because of how "easy" or "boring" it was due to the lack of excitement from challenge or tension.

Im guessing that if this trend continues, down the road the EA is going to suffer as a whole, both from a quality standpoint and a financial standpoint.

In summation: Most people are lazy and dont know what is good for them (of course im referencing the general public not people that are actually passionate about gaming)

 

[1-D_FTW]

Chris Remo's twitter summarizes the issue in a single sentence.



https://twitter.com/chrisremo/status/307712747758571520

Dylan Jobe says Cliffy B has balls for setting the record straight!

Yo, that, bitch! I'm sorry, Cliffy B, be right. Cause I been thinking about this. And any business model that can allow some five year old kid to rack up a 1700 dollar bill in 5 minutes is a business model with balls. You got balls, boys. Big balls. And your balls are gonna crush whatever life is left in the industry if you begin designing gameplay around forced micro-transactions.

 

[Risette]

That already happens. Not for cars (that'd be expensive and inefficient), but it happens in computer hardware. Companies will have multiple SKUs of a processor, for instance, and to maintain economies of scale, the low-end chips will be made the same way as the high end chips. Then they'll disable cores so they can justify pricing both chips differently.

Not quite. The lower-end chips are also the ones that didn't make the cut in terms of quality but are still functional to the lower-end spec if they disable cores or underclock the processor. They don't disable them for shits and giggles -- it's a way of dealing with yields.

 

[Clear]

Remo is a pretty awesome dude.

His "rebuttal" is insultingly simple-minded and cheap though.

The process and requirements of writing and publishing a book haven't changed in hundreds of years. The basic tools are pen, paper, and talent - when all's said and done that's all you need.

That simplicity is absolutely at odds with the awful complexity and cost of creating commercial video-games; the requirements for which have spiralled astronomically over the last 30 years.

Show me a $60 AAA title that was put together by a single creator! Back in the 8-bit era (when I and people like me knocked stuff up in our bedrooms) it was possible, but nowadays? There's the occasional guru coder like Eskil Steenburg or Notch, but even those guys aren't selling full-price titles competing with the industrial-scale behemoths of CoD or Madden...

It's simply not a comparable undertaking logistically and economically, and that commercial reality is WHY we have phenomena like micro-transactions in the first-place.

 

[Alcotholic]

Yes, its a business and I'm sure the F2P model works well for people who dont follow the industry well (or at all), but its pushing the industry in a direction thats a detriment to itself.
We can say vote with your wallets and refuse to support corrupt business choices, but it really comes down to the people who dont follow the industry at all. All they will need to hear is that DeadSpace 4 will come out next year and its free!
Despite that, I'm interested in seeing how this will all end up as I'm sure the industry can't last too much longer. There isn't much we can do in terms of stopping F2P, Constant online single player, micro transactions, etcetera.
Also, I agree with Chris Remo on this topic.

 

[SirMossyBloke]

Well, guess I was right back on page 2.

 

[Nokterian]

I guess he is talking about GAF again?

 

[2San]

Tell that to people paying for college textbooks.

Yep college books have online passes too. Fuck you Pearson!

 

[1-D_FTW]

I guess he is talking about GAF again?

Figured he was feeling his Wheaties when he came into this thread and was purposely looking to get banned. When the mods decided to weigh his goodwill and pretended to ignore this thread, he instead got his knickers in a twist when he crap logic got shot to shreds.

EDIT: Oh, and Cliff, if you're reading this dumbass, it's us fucktards who paid for your Aventator. That's what you smart idiots fail to realize. Gamers are the market. And calling us assholes because we change our buying habits to more worthy choices doesn't fix your problem. We'll simply be served by the new gatekeepers. Just like Epic replaced fallen Titons of yesterday. Companies who have to have 500 man teams in the most expensive cities in the country don't deserve sympathy. They're poorly run and deserve to go bankrupt.

 

[Clear]

EDIT: Oh, and Cliff, if you're reading this dumbass, it's us fucktards who paid for your Aventator.

Very mature. And no, you didn't pay for it - his employer's did.

If you have contributed in any way to his wealth, it was purely out of your own self-interest.

There is no coercion involved here at any level.

 

[tirant]

What about DLC that is already on the disk? You don't think you are getting screwed over by that? What about the DLC characters in Capcom games that is on the disk, but you have to pay extra to unlock them. Is that not screwing the consumers over?

No, because when we buy the game, we already know what we are paying for. We haven't payed for that locked content, even if it's included in the disk.

It's cheap, true, but I don't feel like being screwed.

 

[Psi]

I guess he is talking about GAF again?

You're not ignoring the hell out of it, Cliff. You're acting insecure and immature and trying to reinforce your ego on twitter.

 

[inky]

I guess he is talking about GAF again?

http://www.abload.de/img/cliffybsmubh.png[img]
[/QUOTE]

So basically haters gonna hate.

You sure showed us, man.

 

[Manus]

His girlfriend is not even hot. Even after all the caked up makeup.

 

[Rimfya]

On disc DLC made me trade in Gears 3, along with 1 and 2 ... and I never trade in games.

I voted with my money.

 

[Chubzdoomer]

You're not ignoring the hell out of it, Cliff. You're acting insecure and immature and trying to reinforce your ego on twitter.

I was thinking the same thing. Funny that he's "ignoring" the trolls, yet acknowledging them on Twitter. The only thing that came to mind as I read his "tweets" was, "Gotten to."

 

[Truelize]

No, because when we buy the game, we already know what we are paying for. We haven't payed for that locked content, even if it's included in the disk.

It's cheap, true, but I don't feel like being screwed.

I agree. If there is content on the disc that I have not been charged for then I have zero claim to ownership. None.
Getting upset for the delivery method is a waste of time.


People act like they bought a game and when they played it for the first time the game downloaded a patch that locked them out of some of the content.
That didnt happen.

 

[Voice of Reason]

You're not ignoring the hell out of it, Cliff. You're acting insecure and immature and trying to reinforce your ego on twitter.

And Twitter because he's got his followers there to reassure him just in case his ego does get a little bruised.

 

[Kade]

His girlfriend is not even hot. Even after all the caked up makeup.

And your girlfriend's Gamerscore is?

 

[Truelize]

And Twitter because he's got his followers there to reassure him just in case his ego does get a little bruised.

Actually his twitter followers would likely include a lot of people that share his point of view and would agree with his statements. About how much he actually cares about all the hate and anger that people spew out in response to his opinions.

Who is playing who here? Haha

I mean people have gone so far as to comment that his girlfriend isn't attractive? That's the extent of logical thought that this topic has inspired?

 

[ghst]

you're looking pretty butch hiding in your little alamo, cliff.

 

[Eusis]

LOL. I agree with him 100%. People here hate EA it's just scary.

Then you read about the micro transactions for Real Racing 3 and oh right, that's why we hate them and the freemium model.

Of course it's always case by case, for BOTH actually: DS3 seemed to just throw in some "Pay to buff up" crap that isn't necessary at all, and the very examples Cliffy B listed (cosmetic microtransactions) are tolerable because while they may be offputting they don't actually screw up the game's design for those of us who'd rather not pay into it, even the weapons for TF2 are more paying for rebalancing when the standard gear works great.

But you have something like Real Racing that looks to squeeze money out wherever it can, deliberately holding you up... fuck that, if that's where gaming can go then this is a business that deserves to die. Hopefully that's just the outlier stuff, but I don't want my entertainment to constantly get cockblocked unless I throw in money over and over.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Remos tweet sums up how I feel about it really. It's not a secret that a lot of us dislike the way much of the industry does things these days and why should we? It's not our shitty business model. Do what you want with it but don't be surprised when people don't like the results.

Having said that some of you have a disturbing amount of hate for Cliff. He's always seemed like a decent enough guy to me.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

I guess he is talking about GAF again?

but seriously, way to "debate" cliffy. Seems like butthurt to me.

*shrugs*

 

[Chubzdoomer]

I agree. If there is content on the disc that I have not been charged for then I have zero claim to ownership. None.
Getting upset for the delivery method is a waste of time.

People act like they bought a game and when they played it for the first time the game downloaded a patch that locked them out of some of the content.
That didnt happen.

But if the content is there on the disc, why not include it as part of the product rather than locking it away and asking for more money if the person wants to have it? Unless, of course, the company is looking for any possible way that they can squeeze every nickel and dime out of their customers.

We already pay $60 for many brand new games -- not a low price by any means -- then they have the audacity to cut out pieces of the game that are already on the disc and sell them to us for extra? The fact that so many of you think that it's okay simply because it "prevents incompatibility issues" and "saves hard drive space" boggles my mind. Do those two "positives" really override the fact that they're taking away content that is on the product you've already paid for and are charging you extra for it? This wasn't done before, as in every previous console generation, so why is it a "necessary evil" (Cliffy B.) now? How can you sit there and say that you're okay with this or that you've no claim to ownership to such content? You're more or less admitting that you're OK with paying more for less. Such mentalities are what got us to where we are today -- so many people eat it right up and DLC has become so profitable, it's becoming abused more and more as time goes on. Just look at what's happened to Capcom! Remember the days when you paid full price for a fighting game and got it all -- every fighter, every outfit, every stage? I do, and I miss those days.

 

[Y2Kev]

twitter is where cowards run to profess their divine musings to their court of sycophants.

.

 

[Hellcrow]

Ah twitter, broadcasting immature thoughts, 140 characters at a time.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Mid-life crisis much?

 

[DaBuddaDa]

Cliffy has been acting quite brash and narcissistic since leaving Epic. I hope he cools it off because he's better than he's been acting. His appearances on TV/online shows have been really strange too. I hope he's doing OK.

Mid-life crisis much?

Basically this.

 

[Eusis]

Remos tweet sums up how I feel about it really. It's not a secret that a lot of us dislike the way much of the industry does things these days and why should we? It's not our shitty business model. Do what you want with it but don't be surprised when people don't like the results.

Having said that some of you have a disturbing amount of hate for Cliff. He's always seemed like a decent enough guy to me.

If the topic were slower and with less personal attack-type posts I'd have a far lower opinion if he still acted like this. As is, well, I think it's petty to keep bringing up "forum trolls" but it's more he should probably just shut up and pretend these don't exist unless he has something more meaningful to say.

And I think if you looked at any industry closely you WILL see those "it's a business" flags show up, to use Remos's own example on books I'm sure if many of us were much older and avid readers we would have felt this hit hard, nevermind when you read about how Frank Herbert and J. K. Rowling had to shop around a lot before they could finally get their books published, which sounds insane given the impact of Dune and Harry Potter. Both points admittedly are probably strong cases for digital distribution, though books have a "you don't need other electronic equipment" angle that only theaters and live musical performances can come close to for other media, and I don't want to see that lost.

 

[1-D_FTW]

Very mature. And no, you didn't pay for it - his employer's did.

If you have contributed in any way to his wealth, it was purely out of your own self-interest.

There is no coercion involved here at any level.

Why am I not surprised it blew over your head. Yes, it is the gamers who paid for that car (which is god awful by the way. I had to google to even know what it was. There are so many amazing cars to get for the money, that's simply a car to buy to impress other bigwigs. Because only people who know the sticker price are impressed by it). Without the gamers this industry hates so much, they wouldn't have been able to build companies worth millions of dollars. Complaining about the people who support them are like athletes or movie stars who bitch about their fans. You don't like them people, why don't you go play in the park for free? Or do community theater. Only in this case, it's even worse. Because instead of getting their own house in order, they just constantly place blame on the community. One excuse after another. The market allowed them to get rich once upon a time and by damn, it's supposed to stay that way. How dare gamers change. How dare their expectations shift. The entitlement the industry has is worse than any athlete or movie star.

 

[lmpaler]

Very mature. And no, you didn't pay for it - his employer's did.

If you have contributed in any way to his wealth, it was purely out of your own self-interest.

There is no coercion involved here at any level.

Who do you think allows his employers to pay him? The gamers who buy the products, us. When you break it down in the very end, we are the one who control this market. If we do not like a business practice of a developer of publisher, we stiff them with our wallets and then they are fucked.

Point 1

Cliff is right in the sense that if we do not like the microtransactions then we shouldn't buy them. I agree with that statement 100%, but to compare Valve to EA and wonder why Valve gets a free pass and EA doesn't is because he is trying to start shit, he is naive, or he is just a fucking idiot, or his ass is burnt because Garry wouldn't hire him. Valve does get shit when they do things we do not like (see L4D2 Outrage or CS:GO as examples), but in the end what they are doing with micro sales we are okay with because it doesn't affect the actual GAME itself. Wearing a silly hat doesn't make you better at the game or give you an advantage. Weapons you get for pre-ordering a game are not any better or worse than the stock weapons and you can play the game without ever buying a single hat or pre-order weapon and be just as good or worse as the next guy, depending on your SKILL. EA gets shit because they have a track record for being assholes to the fanbase that supports them, and the fact that they are greedy beyond measure. People didn't just hate EA overnight, this has been building for years and it only keeps getting worse. That is EA's fault and not ours. A simple google search will give you plenty of reasons over the years as to why people hate EA, and then you look at the track record of Valve, how they support their fanbase and acknowledge them and respect them and how they run their business and that is why the fans love them.

They don't get a "free" pass because they are smart about their business practices. Another example of this is CDR. They respect their fans and contnue to do so even in an age where games are pirated beyond belief, CDR still releases DLC free, games are DRM free on GOG.com(they own that btw) and stating that they feel that DRM treats gamers like criminals is another reason why people love them.

Now if Valve or CDPR were to all of a sudden do day one DLC for charge or any other of the practices EA uses, it would backfire and they would be hated, CDPR may even go under being that they are a smaller company, who knows.

 

[Truelize]

But if the content is there on the disc, why not include it as part of the product rather than locking it away and asking for more money if the person wants to have it? Unless, of course, the company is looking for any possible way that they can squeeze every nickel and dime out of their customers.

We already pay $60 for many brand new games -- not a low price by any means -- then they have the audacity to cut out pieces of the game that are already on the disc and sell them to us for extra? The fact that so many of you think that it's okay simply because it "prevents incompatibility issues" and "saves hard drive space" boggles my mind. Do those two "positives" really override the fact that they're taking away content that is on the product you've already paid for and are charging you extra for it? This wasn't done before, as in every previous console generation, so why is it a "necessary evil" (Cliffy B.) now? How can you sit there and say that you're okay with this or that you've no claim to ownership to such content? You're more or less admitting that you're OK with paying more for less. Such mentalities are what got us to where we are today -- so many people eat it right up and DLC has become so profitable, it's becoming abused more and more as time goes on. Just look at what's happened to Capcom! Remember the days when you paid full price for a fighting game and got it all -- every fighter, every outfit, every stage? I do.

You have zero ground to stand on unless you have some actual proof that the content was originally intended to be included as part of the final product.
Why not include it? Because that was not their plan.
I would think that it's likely that the content was on the disc to speed up the process when customers decided they wanted to access it. I'm saying its possible.....
Faster to download a quick key that unlocks that content than downloading all the content itself.

I remember buying a capcom fighting game that contained a bunch of fighters and each had two different outfits.
And when they had decided to create some more fighters and some additional outfits I bought an entire new cartridge for what was basically the exact same game except they put an exciting adjective in the title.
And then a little while later they would add another couple of characters and a couple of more outfits for the existing characters and put another exciting adjective in the title and I went and bought that cartridge as well.

I think DLC is a much better deal than what I was sold back in those days.


And your more for less logic is ridiculous. If it was never on the menu and I was never told I was getting it with my purchase than I got exactly what I paid for and my full expectations were met.
That business agreement was fulfilled 100%.

 

[WrenchNinja]

As mentioned, Javik of Mass Effect 3 was cut content to be sold later. The leaked demo files proved as much when the entire plot of the game hinged on him.

 

[Truelize]

The entitlement the industry has is worse than any athlete or movie star.

Really? You are in a thread ranting about this topic and you accuse others of having issues with entitlement?

Hahahahahaha


You mock his car.
You have better taste.
And state that the only reason he bought that was to impress other millionaires?
Wow.

Never considered that having a car that is uncommon is enjoyable all by itself?

 

[Andrew.]

TOO BAD MOTHERFUCKER!

This was one of the best moments on this forum for me, ever. Watching all of this unfold.

 

[Chubzdoomer]

You have zero ground to stand on unless you have some actual proof that the content was originally intended to be included as part of the final product.
Why not include it? Because that was not their plan.

It wasn't their "plan" to include it, but they decided to burn it on the discs anyways and sell it to you at a later date? That doesn't exactly make it any more tolerable or even ethical.

I remember buying a capcom fighting game that contained a bunch of fighters and each had two different outfits.
And when they had decided to create some more fighters and some additional outfits I bought an entire new cartridge for what was basically the exact same game except they put an exciting adjective in the title.

But when you paid for those cartridges, you owned everything that was included -- no extra charges required. There were no more fees to pay if you wanted to have X character or X costume. Today, these extras are on the disc -- you must keep this in mind, it's the equivalent of them having been on the cartridge -- yet they're completely locked away until you pay up and have them unlocked.

Even today we have scenarios in which new fighting games emerge with brand new characters and stages. Remember Street Fighter IV and Super Street Fighter IV? How about Marvel vs. Capcom 3 and Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3? That practice exists even today and is an entirely separate issue from the one I'm upset with: content that is on the disc that you've paid for, but locked away to squeeze as much extra money out of you as possible.