Support NeoGAF

[lobdale]

It's not about what other companies do, it's not about what's fair, it's not about what you are "entitled" to or how it's always been. It's about "this is what it costs" and "is it worth that to you." I don't really see what the problem is, except people are mad for being charged for something that they don't think they should have to pay for.

I think the great misunderstanding here is that by "not being outraged" at this, we are "defending" Capcom. You guys need to look beyond your system wars and just get over it! Does it suck that extra game controllers cost a ton of money and you need them to play with more players? Well sure, I bet they cost way less to make than they do to buy. It's how it is though. Recognizing the reality of the situation is neither defending nor attacking it, it is merely recognizing the reality of the situation.

"Oh, it is like this," the reasonable person says.

 

[Kintaro]

I'm pretty sure every game says you only own a limited software license unless they stopped putting that piece of paper in the game boxes too.

You are incorrect sir/madam. 90 day limited warranty? Yes. Repairs after warranty? Yep. Limitations of said warranty? Yep. ESRB rating info? Yep. License/EULA. NOPE!

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I am not sure where you see this. Just looked at the manuals of two of my nearby games.

Looking at a Wii game I have lying around I see "IMPORTANT LEGAL INFORMATION" and the only thing it talks about is not copying/archiving/making a backup of YOUR software (note how it says it is YOURS).

In a PS3 game's manual near the back I see "USE OF UNAUTHORIZED PRODUCT" which says the same things the Wii one did but also adds in "unauthorized broadcast" (lol I guess every stream is breaking that one, oh well).

I have a feeling these vary by game in terminology but they seem to be consistent in that they primarily being a warning against copying of any sort.

Unlocking things on the disc is not replicating that disc or its contents in any way.

EDIT:

You can unlock them all you want, but if that requires you to hack or mod your system you will be banned from going online per your console's ToS.

 

[Yagharek]

Unsurprising and unacceptable.

But I just ignore it. Either I buy the game used, at bomba prices or not at all. If they won't sell me the full content on the disc at "$60" which is more like $100 here, then I won't pay anywhere near full price.

 

[SRTtoZ]

And where does it say that the 12 additional characters are included in the $60? Because I can find plenty of places where it DOESN'T say that.

I think they SHOULD charge for them, but for god sakes take them off the disc if people are finding ways to access them. Its the SMART thing to do...

 

[Hayeya]

Who cares if it's on the disc or waiting to be sent from Capcom's servers? The stuff is intended to be DLC no matter where it is.

If you want it, buy it. If not, don't buy it.

Yeah it's true,,,,, but my problem with this is that THE DLC IS ON THE DISC, I just refuse to buy a code that unlocks something that is on disc that i already bought, i dont know it just feels a robbery for me,, i did it with MVC3 and didnt buy Jill and Shuma and did it with MK (costumes) and i'll do it in all these type of games and i hope that more gamers do it in order to stop this crap,,
Companies in future are going to make us buy the Ending, The alternate ending, The opening FMV, The final Boss, half the characters, the side quests,,,,

 

[MightyKAC]

Why not just ask if people would prefer their on-disc characters locked or unlocked?

Because Capcom doesn't want to charge you the 85 to 90 dollars that it wants to charge you for the game and all of its characters because the outrage from that would be more than it wants to handle. They would rather charge you this same amount over a period of time without you knowing that the extra content was already created and on its way to market later on.

Keep in mind that they didn't WANT us to know about this due to the reactions that you're seeing in this thread.

 

[TDLink]

You can unlock them all you want, but if that requires you to hack or mod your system you will be banned from going online per your console's ToS.

I have no intentions of hacking my PS3 (mostly because I have no idea where to even begin on that). Despite my bitching I will regrettably purchase (At least) Dudley as I love that character. I just think the situation sucks. The console ToS is completely separate from buying the game though. If people want to sacrifice their online play in order to unlock all of their characters I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

 

[Resilient]

This thread is crazy. When you buy this game you're buying a license to play SFxT, without any DLC. The extra content which is locked is not part of that license. It just happens to be there. In order to access it legally, you need to pay a further fee for the license of that software. If you access it without paying, you access it illegally and against the ToS. You don't own it just because you bought the disc and it's on there...

People saying otherwise are crazy. And people suggesting that this practice is OK are crazier. While we should be voting without our wallets, nobody will because they want to play the games. So this cycle will never end. Sad but true.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I have no intentions of hacking my PS3 (mostly because I have no idea where to even begin on that). Despite my bitching I will regrettably purchase (At least) Dudley as I love that character. I just think the situation sucks. The console ToS is completely separate from buying the game though. If people want to sacrifice their online play in order to unlock all of their characters I see no reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do that.

in what way are they not allowed to do that?

 

[Foffy]

I don't really see what the problem is, except people are mad for being charged for something that they don't think they should have to pay for.

People are mad at the lies Capcom has made about the characters. Capcom claimed these characters were planned for the portable version, had no comment on a console version, and even went so far to claim Blanka wasn't finished. These are all blown apart knowing not only do these characters exist, they are finished, and they're on the disc.

I think people are mad at the fact Capcom's essentially releasing an incomplete game at launch, based on all of the content on the disc.

 

[TDLink]

in what way are they not allowed to do that?

No way, they completely are. That is what I am saying. There shouldn't be anything wrong with that is, I suppose, the better way of phrasing it.

 

[SRTtoZ]

To be fair, its not DLC since you're not downloading it...

Its just "content".

 

[SmokeMaxX]

You know what is interesting? There is nowhere in this instruction book that tells me that I only own the license to SF X T. My friend bought the game for me, I have checked everywhere and its nowhere. So, Capcom didn't sell us just a license to what it allows me to access. They sold us the game and everything on this disc.

Yet, they are withholding what is included on this disc. Should I not be pissed? I signed no agreement that I can only play what they allow me to access.

Funny how it also doesn't say on your case/manual that you're purchasing 50 characters but it DOES mention that you're purchasing 38 characters. Quite a conundrum isn't it?

Why not just ask if people would prefer their on-disc characters locked or unlocked?

The point of this whole debacle is that the DLC already appears relatively finished on the disc, yet it's going to be kept out of reach for an arbitrary period of time or, worse, as a way to inflate the price of an otherwise completed game beyond $60. People feel ripped off by "Disc-Locked Content." It has nothing to do with the possibility that the characters wouldn't exist if it weren't for DLC plans, though that's certainly something they should keep in mind. If resources were devoted to creating these characters during development, and the fruit of that labor is locked away but wholly present on the disc, it's understandable for people to get upset. Otherwise, there's no reason why the game couldn't have been released sooner. This goes the same for all of the alternate costumes. I'm not going to antagonize those who feel slighted by what can essentially be argued as something quite similar to DRM on preexisting content. If this were genuine post-release DLC--if these characters only existed in rough form with an eta for completion shortly before the Vita version were released--I doubt anyone would be nearly as upset.

What are you talking about? Who cares if they're locked or unlocked? People keep avoiding the question without answering it. The facts of the matter are this:

1) Capcom wants money
2) Capcom made characters to make said money
3) Capcom put the characters on the disc

Some people would try to argue that Capcom only "locked" content that was already going to be on the disc, but that's just stupid. If I could make a game that people would buy with 38 characters, why the hell would I put 50 characters on it? You can bet your ass off people were lining up to buy the game when it was just 38 characters.

Now people have a problem with point 3. Why? They could either put it ON the disc or NOT. Those are your choices. Which would you rather have? Honestly?

 

[TDLink]

This thread is crazy. When you buy this game you're buying a license to play SFxT, without any DLC. The extra content which is locked is not part of that license. It just happens to be there. In order to access it legally, you need to pay a further fee for the license of that software. If you access it without paying, you access it illegally and against the ToS. You don't own it just because you bought the disc and it's on there...

I'll admit I could be completely wrong but as far as I know (or at least thought) there is no ToS that is signed or accepted by walking into a store and purchasing a game, including this one. Just on the last page there was another member who confirmed there is no such legal text in the game manual either.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

No way, they completely are. That is what I am saying. There shouldn't be anything wrong with that is, I suppose, the better way of phrasing it.

They are. Hell, I used a game genie to unlock shitty playable versions of M. Bison and Vega in Street Fighter 2 for SNES. I just didn't think I was entitled to the characters because they were already on the cart, or because they were already playable in arcades so Capcom had the code they just held it back. That's my only problem, when people throw around stuff like "anti-consumer" and "unethical" which are so outlandish. There are examples of companies being unethical and anti-consumer (Gamestop stealing the OnLive coupons out of new copies of Deus Ex, for example). This, to me, isn't one of them. Capcom isn't being deceptive in the slightest. You are getting everything you pay for. If you feel that the game is incomplete, don't buy it, but it's no different than not buying a game because it's too short or because the graphics are ugly.

I'll admit I could be completely wrong but as far as I know (or at least thought) there is no ToS that is signed or accepted by walking into a store and purchasing a game, including this one. Just on the last page there was another member who confirmed there is no such legal text in the game manual either.

Just grabbed my copy of Modern Warfare 3 since it was sitting here on the table and it does have the EULA/license agreement on the last page of the manual. Not sure how it's handled with other games.

 

[usea]

Skull Girls is going to have tons of dlc characters too. I assume they will be downloaded in the original files, since players without them will need the data locally to play against players who do. Basically the same issue.

I don't have a problem with developers doing dlc in general (as a consumer issue) but I do have an issue when it negatively impacts the game. DLC characters in a fighting game kind of sucks, as does anything you don't get right out of the gate. But that's just my opinion.

 

[dr3upmushroom]

I really find a hard time caring about this if the game has a ton of content as is. If one of the DLC characters perfectly fits your play style or something than that sucks, but the game comes with a ton of characters, and it's not like you're somehow not getting $60 of enjoyment out of the game because you're missing a few.

People need to stop arguing over the semantics of this and just ask themselves whether a game is worth the asking price for them or not.

This whole thing is just like the cash discount thing at stores: stores and gas stations often give a cash discount. When this practice began banks did a ton of lobbying to ensure that it would be called a "cash discount" instead of a "credit charge" since losses affect most people more than gains. In other words if the average person tries to pay for something with a credit card, if they are told there is a cash discount they are more likely to still use the credit card, justifying by something along the lines of "It's inconvenient to carry cash, I don't need the discount."

However if the same choice is framed as "If you use this charge there will be an additional fee" most people will prefer to use cash, since losses affect us more.

Basically you can choose to see the whole DLC situation as "Something is being taken away from me" or "I'm being given something additional to buy." The former is going to make you less happy with Capcom (or whichever publisher) but they describe the exact same situation.

Everyone will be a lot happier if we stop debating the morality of the practice at large and just ask for each individual game "Does this have enough content to justify the asking price?"

 

[Cartman86]

We'll never really know the value of this stuff. They had to pay people to make this content. If they are spending the same now that they would have in the past to include these characters then yeah it's a rip off. All we have is there word on this though. Whether it was finished before or after the game was done is irrelevant. It could be a cash grab and we'll never know unless someone releases the finances. Never gonna happen though.

 

[vg260]

I for one, am simply outraged they they planned and possibly completed this DLC prior to the street date. I prefer to be ignorant of how games are made, how companies budget this stuff, blah, blah blah. I still believe Santa magically delivers my presents Christmas morning and not that the gifts have been hidden in parents' closets for weeks. Not knowing somehow makes me feel better. In my head I like to pretend that they don't have the foresight as a business to think ahead and use development resources wisely, because it somehow makes me feel less scammed. A company should not even begin thinking about DLC until at least 12 weeks and 3 days, 4 hours and 2 minutes after the game ships. Not a byte before, or I will be appalled and disgusted. At that point I expect them to stop sitting around doing nothing, and get started on making DLC.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

I think they SHOULD charge for them, but for god sakes take them off the disc if people are finding ways to access them. Its the SMART thing to do...

Well that's an interesting opinion. Quite a few other people here would much rather have the DLC on the disc and I agree with that.

To be fair, its not DLC since you're not downloading it...

Its just "content".

You can't access it without either doing something against the developer's intentions or downloading something. Essentially DLC.

If you download a demo of a game that's a time-restricted full version of the game, do you have the right to reset your clock (using magic or whatever) so that you can constantly play the game without paying? Does that make a difference if you make it $1 to download the demo? $60?

People who say that Capcom is scum for doing this and THEN hacks/mods/does wizardry to get the content that was originally designed to be sold is worse than scum. Fucking hypocrites. Don't want it? Don't buy it. It's that simple. But instead. Don't want it? Steal it and then bitch at Capcom.

 

[TDLink]

They are. Hell, I used a game genie to unlock shitty playable versions of M. Bison and Vega in Street Fighter 2 for SNES. I just didn't think I was entitled to the characters because they were already on the cart, or because they were already playable in arcades so Capcom had the code they just held it back. That's my only problem, when people throw around stuff like "anti-consumer" and "unethical" which are so outlandish. There are examples of companies being unethical and anti-consumer (Gamestop stealing the OnLive coupons out of new copies of Deus Ex, for example). This, to me, isn't one of them. Capcom isn't being deceptive in the slightest. You are getting everything you pay for. If you feel that the game is incomplete, don't buy it, but it's no different than not buying a game because it's too short or because the graphics are ugly.

Ok, this is pretty much a different discussion than the main one going on right now though. I agree people who don't want to buy it because of this have the option of voting with their wallet. The main debate occurring here though was about ownership of physical media and what exactly that entails.

Just grabbed my copy of Modern Warfare 3 since it was sitting here on the table and it does have the EULA/license agreement on the last page of the manual. Not sure how it's handled with other games.

Ok, that is interesting. For the record the two games I looked at where no such statement was included were Sonic Colours and God of War III. Either way though, someone else did say SFxT also does not include this statement.

Skull Girls is going to have tons of dlc characters too. I assume they will be downloaded in the original files, since players without them will need the data locally to play against players who do. Basically the same issue.

I don't have a problem with developers doing dlc in general (as a consumer issue) but I do have an issue when it negatively impacts the game. DLC characters in a fighting game kind of sucks, as does anything you don't get right out of the gate. But that's just my opinion.

The difference with Skullgirls is that team is actually still working on characters post-release. When they become available there will likely be a patch where everyone gets the characters and then the people who pay actually unlock them for use. You are right, that is pretty much the same situation we are in now. However, the main difference is that when people buy Skullgirls they are paying for that original package, any post-release patch's content is not included in that initial purchase unless the developer desires it to be that way.

 

[Kintaro]

Funny how it also doesn't say on your case/manual that you're purchasing 50 characters but it DOES mention that you're purchasing 38 characters. Quite a conundrum isn't it?

43 characters. PS3 version. =P But hey, we found more we actually own! That said, I would be interested to see how a class action suit would hold up. Meh.

For the record, DLC should be OFF the disc. Every. Single. Time. This shit is bad publicity and sooner or later, customers WILL reach a breaking point.

PC version of this game will be hilarious. It'll be pirated to hell since Capcom is probably on some shit list. All DLC on the disc will be ripped for players (legit and non-legit ones) use and then there is nothing Capcom can do to stop them.

 

[usea]

We'll never really know the value of this stuff. They had to pay people to make this content. If they are spending the same now that they would have in the past to include these characters then yeah it's a rip off. All we have is there word on this though. Whether it was finished before or after the game was done is irrelevant. It could be a cash grab and we'll never know unless someone releases the finances. Never gonna happen though.

Whether or not something is a rip off has nothing to do with the cost to produce vs purchase. They could have literally found the game under a magic rock, for free, and sold copies for $60 and it wouldn't be a rip off for most people.

 

[branny]

It's not about what other companies do, it's not about what's fair, it's not about what you are "entitled" to or how it's always been. It's about "this is what it costs" and "is it worth that to you." I don't really see what the problem is, except people are mad for being charged for something that they don't think they should have to pay for.

Exactly. This is a totally subjective matter on both sides: whether or not Capcom feels their game is complete enough to market as a final product and whether or not people feel that product is worth the money being asked. It's why neither side of this stupid DLC debate ever makes any progress when snags like these pop up. Everyone's threshold is different, simple as that. There is no reason for people to mindlessly take sides or even devolve into attacking one another.

I'm happy Capcom is finally making fighting games again and that the scene in general has been revitalized, possibly even paving the way for other companies to be more fearless with their releases. If that involves some inconvenience or bullshit, so be it. It's better than nothing. Defeatist attitude, I know, but I'd much rather deal with this than not get anything.

 

[Card Boy]

I can't believe what im reading, accessing hidden content on a disc you paid for is now considered stealing. No wonder this generation is fucked.

 

[vg260]

For the record, DLC should be OFF the disc. Every. Single. Time. This shit is bad publicity and sooner or later, customers WILL reach a breaking point.

Nope. It's only an issue for people who are too dense to understand that the location is irrelevant if it has to be payed for in either case...which is a lot of people. So maybe you're right.

 

[Little Green Yoda]

1) This question has been asked several times but nobody has answered it: "Would you still be mad if the content WASN'T on the disc?" I'm sure it's VERY difficult to drag the 12 characters out of the "characters" folder and make sure they're not on the disc. If it's going to be DLC ANYWAY (and these guys were already made, so they WERE going to be DLC), then I'd rather have it ON DISC than have to download 700 MB just because of some crybabies.

This reads like "I'm okay with being sodomized as long as lube is used because really, would YOU like to be sodomized without lube?" Delivery of content isn't the point; only reason people get caught up about it is because it hints at the very real possibility that these companies are nickel-and-diming us. And it sucks because as others have said, the ignorant masses will buy it and the reason why Capcom doesn't want people to know they are buying unlock codes is because those people might wisen up and stop falling for this kind of thing.

4) Why should you be entitled to everything on the disc? You're entitled to whatever you purchase. Never did Capcom say "spend $60 and you get 50 characters!" That's the stupidest argument ever. Also, I didn't hear you cats complain when we didn't get Mew in Pokemon Red/Blue. You know what I'm talking about. That dude was on the cartridge.

It helps that Nintendo/Game Freak doesn't charge for their digital unlocks.

 

[TDLink]

I for one, am simply outraged they they planned and possibly completed this DLC prior to the street date. I prefer to be ignorant of how games are made, how companies budget this stuff, blah, blah blah. I still believe Santa magically delivers my presents Christmas morning and not that the gifts have been hidden in parents' closets for weeks. Not knowing somehow makes me feel better. In my head I like to pretend that they don't have the foresight as a business to think ahead and use development resources wisely, because it somehow makes me feel less scammed. A company should not even begin thinking about DLC until at least 12 weeks and 3 days, 4 hours and 2 minutes after the game ships. Not a byte before, or I will be appalled and disgusted. At that point I expect them to stop sitting around doing nothing, and get started on making DLC.

Developers should always plan ahead for DLC. Including something after release that wasn't planned for is almost impossible with the way the industry works. It isn't a matter (to me anyways) of when a company starts executing that plan but rather if they have content finished and put it on the disc then by purchasing that disc it is no longer really DLC. If these 12 characters were done but not already on the disc then I would have no problem justifying them as separate add-ons for the product i already purchased. You might say that is semantics but for me there is a clear difference.

 

[Valnen]

I can't believe what im reading, accessing hidden content on a disc you paid for is now considered stealing. No wonder this generation is fucked.

You are not entitled to everything you want, just what you bought a license for. Capcom says what you have a license for, not the disc.

 

[DeVeAn]

$59.99 for a fighting game seems insane to me. Maybe for others as well thats why DLC on disc makes people upset. To each their own I guess.

 

[PastorOfMuppets]

I'm surprised that so many people here are defending this practice. Is it really that entitled of me to expect to - god forbid, own a game that I buy? How far do we let companies take this?

So far this generation, I've been told:

- I can't resell the games I buy because the game companies don't receive their fair share of the resale product.
- In some cases, I can't even give away the games I buy because some of the content is locked to my account (Mass Effect 2)
- I can't play games whenever I want because some companies - Ubisoft, have incredibly shitty DRM that require constant server maintenance. Should those servers go down, I can't play.
- Not explicitly stated but there's probably a strong chance that everyone who bought XBLA, PSN and Virtual Console games this generation will be locked out in the next one just based on how different the hardware is expected to be - and the fact that companies now expect you to buy games multiple times and people are willing to do it.

If this is where gaming is headed, then I imagine the ultimate end point is that we'll see games sold to us in the same way premium cable is currently sold to us. That is, pay a monthly fee and then getting access to a bundle of games from the Activision Call of Duty Collection or the EA Sports Channel. And that would be a shame because much of my child hood was spent playing hand me down video games and buying used copies at flea markets.

 

[lobdale]

Delivery of content isn't the point; only reason people get caught up about it is because it hints at the very real possibility that these companies are nickel-and-diming us. And it sucks because as others have said, the ignorant masses will buy it and the reason why Capcom doesn't want people to know they are buying unlock codes is because those people might wisen up and stop falling for this kind of thing.

Trust me, if/when I buy the extra characters, it will have nothing to do with my being ignorant, and everything to do with me deciding whether the cost of the extra characters is worth the amount of enjoyment I think I'll get from them.

The ignorant ones are apparently the ones incapable of making cost/worth judgments on a personal level.

 

[TDLink]

You are not entitled to everything you want, just what you bought a license for. Capcom says what you have a license for, not the disc.

I guess it is a good thing then that Capcom doesn't say we have a license for this game in the game's own instruction manual. Not sure why people keep bringing this up.

 

[usea]

The difference with Skullgirls is that team is actually still working on characters post-release. When they become available there will likely be a patch where everyone gets the characters and then the people who pay actually unlock them for use. You are right, that is pretty much the same situation we are in now. However, the main difference is that when people buy Skullgirls they are paying for that original package, any post-release patch's content is not included in that initial purchase unless the developer desires it to be that way.

Whether or not the characters are done before release or after is irrelevant (almost assuredly, some SG characters sold as DLC are already finished). It's no difference to any rational person.

 

[Kintaro]

Nope. It's only an issue for people who are too dense to understand that the location is irrelevant if it has to be payed for in either case...which is a lot of people. So maybe you're right.

lol

Shit, gamers pay to play on the internet, enter passes to play said game online, while paying for shit for their game. Gamers are more dense than black holes. I'm actually counting on it. =)

$59.99 for a fighting game seems insane to me. Maybe for others as well thats why DLC on disc makes people upset. To each their own I guess.

It will be in sales for $29.99-39.99 soon after launch.

 

[lobdale]

And that would be a shame because much of my child hood was spent playing hand me down video games and buying used copies at flea markets.

"And that would be a shame, because things are not how I think they should be based on my own personal biases and memories about how things worked 20 years ago."

 

[hamchan]

It definitely lowers the perceived value of the game to me. I like thinking I'm paying $60 for a full game, not 3/4s of a game which the on the disc DLC makes me think I'm getting. I'm sure many other people think the same as me. Many it's the super optimists who think they're buying a full game then paying for bonus stuff with DLC.

 

[Foffy]

Developers should always plan ahead for DLC. Including something after release that wasn't planned for is almost impossible with the way the industry works. It isn't a matter (to me anyways) of when a company starts executing that plan but rather if they have content finished and put it on the disc then by purchasing that disc it is no longer really DLC. If these 12 characters were done but not already on the disc then I would have no problem justifying them as separate add-ons for the product i already purchased. You might say that is semantics but for me there is a clear difference.

Add salt to the wound that you've had Capcom PR claim that the characters weren't finished and they weren't sure if the Vita roster was coming to consoles. Would it have been much too much to say "we have ____ planned to be released in the coming months" and not all of the fibbing and cryptic nature? Why lie about Mega Man and Pac-Man being in the 360 version? Why lie about Blanka being finished?

People are probably mad because not only do these characters exist, they planned from the beginning to bring them to consoles, and have had them finished when the game went gold.

 

[TDLink]

Whether or not the characters are done before release or after is irrelevant (almost assuredly, some SG characters sold as DLC are already finished). It's no difference to any rational person.

I actually do agree the characters' completion progress when the game drops is irrelevant, I just felt like adding it as a note since I am fairly certain at least some of them won't be done in time for that while all of them here are.

Regardless though, you're right, it doesn't matter. What matters is if they are included in the initial purchase and locked away or not. That does matter, at least to me.

 

[SRTtoZ]

Developers should always plan ahead for DLC. Including something after release that wasn't planned for is almost impossible with the way the industry works. It isn't a matter (to me anyways) of when a company starts executing that plan but rather if they have content finished and put it on the disc then by purchasing that disc it is no longer really DLC. If these 12 characters were done but not already on the disc then I would have no problem justifying them as separate add-ons for the product i already purchased. You might say that is semantics but for me there is a clear difference.

You're half right but people need to stop acting like Capcom is all innocent and whatnot. They are a business, they are greedy, thats how it works. I will buy the characters if I want them, I dont give a shit, I enjoy the game BUT we need to look and understand that some of these companies use DLC as an excuse to make a quick buck when they have been working on this so called "DLC" since early in the dev period. I have no problem with DLC when its made with extra resources to give us more content, but when its created to be in the game and then used as DLC to make extra money, thats my problem.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

You're half right but people need to stop acting like Capcom is all innocent and whatnot. They are a business, they are greedy, thats how it works. I will buy the characters if I want them, I dont give a shit, I enjoy the game BUT we need to look and understand that some of these companies use DLC as an excuse to make a quick buck when they have been working on this so called "DLC" since early in the dev period. I have no problem with DLC when its made with extra resources to give us more content, but when its created to be in the game and then used as DLC to make extra money, thats my problem.

How can you let something like this bother you when you will never know if it's the case?

 

[PARANO1A]

I will wait for the cheaper version in six months with more content. If everyone did this then we'd have the content for free on day one. At least Capcom are predictable.

I actually typed on the disc day one but realised they are. SMH.

 

[SRTtoZ]

How can you let something like this bother you when you will never know if it's the case?

I dont let it bother me and but its still something to think about.

 

[Ninja Scooter]

I dont let it bother me and but its still something to think about.

Yeah but I mean, how will you ever know what the developers intentions were with DLC? It's just a matter of how good a company is at lying to you?

 

[Papercuts]

Yeah it's true,,,,, but my problem with this is that THE DLC IS ON THE DISC, I just refuse to buy a code that unlocks something that is on disc that i already bought, i dont know it just feels a robbery for me,, i did it with MVC3 and didnt buy Jill and Shuma and did it with MK (costumes) and i'll do it in all these type of games and i hope that more gamers do it in order to stop this crap,,
Companies in future are going to make us buy the Ending, The alternate ending, The opening FMV, The final Boss, half the characters, the side quests,,,,

Well, eventually trivial things such as the final boss won't be part of the budget, so they need to recoup costs somehow.

 

[SRTtoZ]

You pretty much know Capcoms mindset when you buy Ultimate MvC3 and find out that Jill/Shuma still cost 5 bucks.

 

[Hero_of_the_Day]

Nope. It's only an issue for people who are too dense to understand that the location is irrelevant if it has to be payed for in either case...which is a lot of people. So maybe you're right.

It's about perception. Right or wrong. It's not hard to see why some people can be put off by holding 100% of the content in their hands, but only being able to use 80% of it. They now feel like they have paid for an incomplete package, which is why this leaking out isn't good for Capcom (though, I'm sure in the end it will have very little effect on them). Good luck convincing people that how they feel is wrong, though. I'm sure calling them dense for disagreeing with your view of the situation is a step in the right direction.

 

[vg260]

You're half right but people need to stop acting like Capcom is all innocent and whatnot. They are a business, they are greedy, thats how it works. I will buy the characters if I want them, I dont give a shit, I enjoy the game BUT we need to look and understand that some of these companies use DLC as an excuse to make a quick buck when they have been working on this so called "DLC" since early in the dev period. I have no problem with DLC when its made with extra resources to give us more content, but when its created to be in the game and then used as DLC to make extra money, thats my problem.

If you were a company why the heck would you NOT work on them early in the dev period? Companies have financial people to keep very close track of money spent on this, and character count directly affects that, because it take times and money to make characters. You can bet the character count would be less if they didn't expect extra revenue from some of these planned to be DLC. It's terribly unlikely and dumb for a business to make everything and then decide what to cut out to sell. That would be a horribly mis-managed project.

It's about perception. Right or wrong. It's not hard to see why some people can be put off by holding 100% of the content in their hands, but only being able to use 80% of it. They now feel like they have paid for an incomplete package, which is why this leaking out isn't good for Capcom (though, I'm sure in the end it will have very little effect on them). Good luck convincing people that how they feel is wrong, though. I'm sure calling them dense for disagreeing with your view of the situation is a step in the right direction.

I totally agree some people can be put off by that or feel that way, but if they stopped ranting about it as a scam and actually took a few seconds to think about how things work, we'd just be discussing the value of the base product and add-ons. We wouldn't be banging our heads frustratingly trying to explain the fact that they simply can't have it all to people to stubborn to understand that.

 

[PastorOfMuppets]

"And that would be a shame, because things are not how I think they should be based on my own personal biases and memories about how things worked 20 years ago."

20 years? How about 6? I used to be able to walk into stores and buy used copies of PS2 and Xbox games - not that I owned either of those consoles but the fact that I could do it made the actual consoles a lot more attractive to buy.

It's kind of ironic how as I grow older and have more disposable income to spend on games, the gaming industry is intent on giving me less and less of a reason to buy their product.