Support NeoGAF

[staticneuron]

because the first quote you linked is literally insane and anti-consumer.

Gosh. Really? Can you pick out which bits are insane and anti-consumer, because it sounds to my untrained ears like a simple statement of the fundamentals of business.

(Of course, it could be argued that *business* is inherently anti-consumer...)

This. It really should be up to the Pubs to release this however they want. Seemingly nowadays people are throwing around the term "anti-consumer" as if it makes any sense. Business have always tried to find away to maximize profits. Always. If your idea of a company being "anti-consumer" is their attempts to maximize profits by changing their business model then you either don't understand how these companies think or you haven't graduated high school yet.

These companies are free to do whatever they want with their products as long as they do not lie to use about what they are selling.

After that it is up to the consumer to look at what they are offering.... deciding that they are crazy and CHOOSING to AVOID purchasing their product.

From this upset, it seems that the following are generally true:

- People are not okay with day 1 DLC to access the extra content.
- People are not okay with 'DLC' files left on the disc.
- People are okay with optional 'special edition' versions of discs, with extra content.
- People are okay with paying for DLC so long as it downloads all files, and is released later.
- People are okay with 'IAP' paying to unlock coins and items in iOS games, which is included with every copy of the game.
- People are okay with trial versions of games locking out gameplay after time, or requiring a paid unlock.

These are all pretty much the same thing. Paying extra for content that was budgeted and developed as part of the product cycle.

It seems so as well.

Ok? Not by a longshot. Let me put it via quote (by the way the following post deserves its own thread):

Actually it is the same issue because it ties into the business model and what people feel they own.

Step by step now

1) we don't own that actual disc we bought

Actually we do own the discs. We simply do not own the content on the disc.

2) we don't really own the console we bought

We do own the console, we technically don't own the proprietary OS.

3) we shouldn't rent or trade in or buy used those games we don't really own

Psshhh, I rent games all the time. Gamefly is my friend. I don't see anyone trying to stop me.

4) on top of xbox live you pay for an online pass, either by getting said game new or paying $10 because they can shut those online servers down at anytime

What on earth does paying MS have to do with paying a third party for use of their servers? This is a prime example of entitlement.

5) you don't get to play everything on that disc you bought

That is not always true but even if it was that is the publishers choice. Don't like it? Avoid the companies that do it.

6) anything else they forgot to limit or take away from us they can just by inserting words in the EULA agreement

Actually these things have been around for a very long time. Games have been licensed software for decades but people are only starting to notice now because of the internet and the big three trying to fight for control over IP.

7) If you bring up or try to question any of this you are a whiny entitled prick

Not at all. But just like any debate or discussion, cover all the points and correctly address complaints, especially when talking about paying for MS services and debating why a third party is charging access to their servers or talking about ownership of a physical item versus the intangible material ON the physical item.

 

[SMT]

Listen, I own the disc, and whatever content is on there belongs to me. If you want to pull a fast one, you're going to get trouble.

 

[staticneuron]

Listen, I own the disc, and whatever content is on there belongs to me. If you want to pull a fast one, you're going to get trouble.

Possession is 9/10ths of the law. You can do alot of things with a purchased disc but there are limits to what you can do with the IP on said disc. You paid for the license to use the game. I doubt you would be pleased at the price these companies are willing to sell their IP's for.

 

[alstein]

Possession is 9/10ths of the law. You can do alot of things with a purchased disc but there are limits to what you can do with the IP on said disc. You paid for the license to use the game. I doubt you would be pleased at the price these companies are willing to sell their IP's for.

The companies won't come after you outside of a banned console (and that's only because XBL hates modded consoles, not that they care about Capcom). If the companies did come after someone, they could lose plenty if the courts ruled against them, and this one would be hard for them to win.

 

[QisTopTier]

Listen, I own the disc, and whatever content is on there belongs to me. If you want to pull a fast one, you're going to get trouble.

I didn't know you "owned" the street fighter franchise and tekken franchise

 

[abstract alien]

This really is a topic that needs a moderated thread. While some of you are legitimately discussing the topic with real facts and cases, most of this thread is full of personal opinions and morality issues. Shit that doesn't matter in the slightest to the topic at hand.

 

[arab]

i can't wait to buy a banana and not be able to peel it until i pay an extra fiver

 

[CamHostage]

Not really the same thing. What I think is the point here, is that people don't mind having a «crippled» version of a game/software (be it ios, shareware, demo, whatever) because they know it's how it works.

It's different to buy a full game, knowing that later some DLC will be available to enhance the experience with the game, only to find out that material is ready to go in the disk they bought. I feel I've been cheated.

But... you know how it works? When you bought the game, it said "X number of characters" on the back of the box, and that's what you paid for. You also maybe assumed they'd release extra characters (or would release Super/Ultra versions; either way, you knew you'd have to pay more if you wanted more) since that's how game releases work these days. But because hackers have discovered extra material on the disc not advertised and not accessible without a hinky hackjob into the product and the hardware that runs it (and also a bannable offense on the online service you use to play it on,) you have been retroactively ripped off?

You can feel cheated, that's fine, the whole system sucks, Occupy Capcom and all that. But do you really think you were cheated.

I'm not sure how this point keeps getting lost because I've made it several times but if Capcom had done that, and by that I mean tell people prior to launching the game what they would and would not be getting in this package, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

This entire debate erupted because Capcom attempted to hide their time exclusive DLC on the discs without telling customers it was there.

No, people still rage every time they pay ten bucks and get 100k unlocks in return.

The core argument doesn't seem to have much to do with Capcom "lying", as I'm not sure what them telling that it's on the disc would have changed. Hackers would have still hacked it (there's no honor to holding back from cracking the content just because it's not a secret,) and none of the arguments over product vs content ownership would have been mitigated. And didn't Capcom say ahead of time that it was doing SFvT as a DLC-based game rather than a double-dip Super/Ultra release? So we all knew we'd be buying these characters one day. The only thing they didn't disclose was how they would be giving that content to users. Announcing it ahead of time would have only made hackers act faster and maybe increase the spread of the "My Disc, My Content" argument, I see very little upside for the company. What do you think it would have changed?

 

[Ploid 3.0]

But... you know how it works? When you bought the game, it said "X number of characters" on the back of the box, and that's what you paid for. You also maybe assumed they'd release extra characters (or would release Super/Ultra versions; either way, you knew you'd have to pay more if you wanted more) since that's how game releases work these days. But because hackers have discovered extra material on the disc not advertised and not accessible without a hinky hackjob into the product and the hardware that runs it (and also a bannable offense on the online service you use to play it on,) you have been retroactively ripped off?

You can feel cheated, that's fine, the whole system sucks, Occupy Capcom and all that. But do you really think you were cheated.



No, people still rage every time they pay ten bucks and get 100k unlocks in return.

The core argument doesn't seem to have much to do with Capcom "lying", as I'm not sure what them telling that it's on the disc would have changed. Hackers would have still hacked it (there's no honor to holding back from cracking the content just because it's not a secret,) and none of the arguments over product vs content ownership would have been mitigated. And didn't Capcom say ahead of time that it was doing SFvT as a DLC-based game rather than a double-dip Super/Ultra release? So we all knew we'd be buying these characters one day. The only thing they didn't disclose was how they would be giving that content to users. Announcing it ahead of time would have only made hackers act faster and maybe increase the spread of the "My Disc, My Content" argument, I see very little upside for the company. What do you think it would have changed?

Not every piece of game content is listed on the back of games. Especially easter eggs, or hidden/rare content.

OT: I found a cool game that I thought could keep me busy until Diablo 3 comes out. I nearly got it but a friend let me know that I'd only be able to change hardware parts 3 different times and after that I'd have to rebuy it... Anno 2070, this gen is awesome.

Games I skipped this month:

*SFxT
*Mass Effect 3
*Anno 2070

Wonder how this list will fill up in the future.

 

[CLEEK]

Listen, I own the disc, and whatever content is on there belongs to me.

Yeah. I've just downloaded SQL Server 2012 for free. Get this! The chumps at Microsoft expect me to pay thousands for a god damn unlock key. Screw them. The files are sat on my network now, so belong to me.

Requiring licence / unlock keys to get additional feature has long been part of software retail. Sure, you own the bit of plastic that has the code on. You're free to put it in your console, use it as a drinks coaster, do whatever you want to it. But the code contained on the disc? You're free to hack it to unlock extra content, but there is no question to that being copyright infringement. No different from me using an existing product key to install SQL 2012 without updating my licence agreement with MS.

 

[CamHostage]

Not every piece of game content is listed on the back of games. Especially easter eggs, or hidden/rare content.

But how you are given that content is up to the software producers. If they wish to make it accessible through gameplay, so be it (which is funny that people don't ever seem to complain about that, often those extra materials are listed as features yet only a percentage of people ever get them, so in those terms people are getting LESS than they've paid for unless they 100% the game; Dracula X Chronicles advertises Symphony of The Night as if it's a simple menu choice when you start up the game, but not only do you have to play DracX to get SotN, the unlock mechanism is arcane and easy to miss.) If they decide to charge for it as pay-unlocked content, that is the matter being discussed.

 

[Ponn]

We simply do not own the content on the disc.

Yea I do. I'm holding Mass Effect 3 in my hands right now, still have the receipt.

We do own the console, we technically don't own the proprietary OS.

Wonder to what extent the console makers and their lawyers would agree with you on that.

Psshhh, I rent games all the time. Gamefly is my friend. I don't see anyone trying to stop me.

Selective memory much from past used/buy new threads here? Developers and publishers consistently lump rentals in with used sales.

What on earth does paying MS have to do with paying a third party for use of their servers? This is a prime example of entitlement.

I will admit its been a while since I played on xbox live but the last time I did I remembered it being P2P. Using SUPPOSEDLY my own console and bandwidth in part to fuel online play. Are they keeping records of that money spent for actual server costs and are these numbers made public? And even if you do double pay they still shut the online portion down. You damn entitled pricks wanting to be able to play your MMA game more then 2 years later, WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE HUH?! Ask Fifa players if they feel entitled to being hacked.

That is not always true but even if it was that is the publishers choice. Don't like it? Avoid the companies that do it.

you really showed me there.

Actually these things have been around for a very long time. Games have been licensed software for decades but people are only starting to notice now because of the internet and the big three trying to fight for control over IP.

You mean they haven't had a real reason till recently to abuse the wording and control the way you game and use your games.

Not at all. But just like any debate or discussion, cover all the points and correctly address complaints, especially when talking about paying for MS services and debating why a third party is charging access to their servers or talking about ownership of a physical item versus the intangible material ON the physical item.

Or just post like i'm right and your wrong.

 

[CLEEK]

Wonder to what extent the console makers and their lawyers would agree with you on that.

The legal precedent is very clear on this. The OS is entirely the property of the manufacturer. You have a licence to use it in the context of single use on the purchased console. You can't install it on other devices, or resell it. Like buying a PC from DELL, it will have an OEM licence for Windows with similar restrictions.

In addition to this, within a console (or any other similar device) there will be physical components that are entirely the property of the manufacturer. Within a console, the BIOS (or equivalent) will be owned by Sony/MS/Nintendo.

The BIOS is what stops you buying the other components and making your own console. This is why when you download emulators, they don't come with the BIOS file - you have to source this yourself (illegally, usually, unless you own the actual hardware).

The only legal way to circumvent the BIOS is to reverse engineer it, using a strict, legally accepted methodology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design

You mean they haven't had a real reason till recently to abuse the wording and control the way you game and use your games.

Not that they haven't had a reason until recently. More that they haven't had the means to enforce it.

-------------------

There are two separate parts the the controversy around on-disc DLC.

The ownership part - that the contents of the disc are yours as you bought the disc - doesn't have a shred of legal backing. Capcom et al are perfectly able to do what they are doing, and unlocking the contents by any other means than purchasing it is copyright infringement.

The consumer part - that you are being short changed by being sold content that should be included in the original purchase - is not a legal issue and a matter of opinion. It is hard to argue that on-disc DLC is fair to the consumer, so consumer outrage over it is to be expected.

 

[staticneuron]

The companies won't come after you outside of a banned console (and that's only because XBL hates modded consoles, not that they care about Capcom). If the companies did come after someone, they could lose plenty if the courts ruled against them, and this one would be hard for them to win.

Banning from the service is a mild reaction to what they consider a mild offense. If you were to seriously threaten the income and control of the IP, you better believe they will come at you swinging. They are forced to, when it comes to IP protection.

Yea I do. I'm holding Mass Effect 3 in my hands right now, still have the receipt.

Congrats, read the fine print. Most games have it on writing that the game is licensed software and normally have addresses to the terms on the outside of case.

Without going into much of the murky grey area, simply alot is allowed or simply ignored. Take for instance backing up the game for personal safekeeping is fine (they would have a tough battle to fight if they tried to say you couldn't) BUT the receipt and the disc does not give you carte blanche rights to the IP. Try making massive copies of the game and selling it. Or take the code of the game and repost it on the net in its entirety. You will find yourself on the wrong end of the law in that case and no amount of obstinate claims to the contrary will save you if you are taken to the courts for those actions (as an example of course).

Wonder to what extent the console makers and their lawyers would agree with you on that.

In terms of what? They will fight tooth and nail to establish that you only have a license to the OS.

Selective memory much from past used/buy new threads here? Developers and publishers consistently lump rentals in with used sales.

OK, please provide links, because I honestly don't remember any publisher equating rentals to used games.

I will admit its been a while since I played on xbox live but the last time I did I remembered it being P2P. Using SUPPOSEDLY my own console and bandwidth in part to fuel online play. Are they keeping records of that money spent for actual server costs and are these numbers made public? And even if you do double pay they still shut the online portion down. You damn entitled pricks wanting to be able to play your MMA game more then 2 years later, WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE HUH?! Ask Fifa players if they feel entitled to being hacked.

If it was P2P how would they shut it down? Why would they shut it down?

IIRC some games are P2P but most Ubisoft and EA games you are dealing with their third party servers and the services they are trying to push on you.

you really showed me there.

Shouldn't have to. It is common sense.

You mean they haven't had a real reason till recently to abuse the wording and control the way you game and use your games.

Companies have always retained their rights for their products, and just because a wave of entitlement or the new murkey area of DLC's come into play here, doesn't change the fact that they are free to sell their product how they see fit and no amount of whining will magically make you right.

Or just post like i'm right and your wrong.

Wouldn't put it past you.

The legal precedent is very clear on this. The OS is entirely the property of the manufacturer. You have a licence to use it in the context of single use on the purchased console. You can't install it on other devices, or resell it. Like buying a PC from DELL, it will have an OEM licence for Windows with similar restrictions.

In addition to this, within a console (or any other similar device) there will be physical components that are entirely the property of the manufacturer. Within a console, the BIOS (or equivalent) will be owned by Sony/MS/Nintendo.

The BIOS is what stops you buying the other components and making your own console. This is why when you download emulators, they don't come with the BIOS file - you have to source this yourself (illegally, usually, unless you own the actual hardware).

The only legal way to circumvent the BIOS is to reverse engineer it, using a strict, legally accepted methodology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design



Not that they haven't had a reason until recently. More that they haven't had the means to enforce it.

-------------------

There are two separate parts the the controversy around on-disc DLC.

The ownership part - that the contents of the disc are yours as you bought the disc - doesn't have a shred of legal backing. Capcom et al are perfectly able to do what they are doing, and unlocking the contents by any other means than purchasing it is copyright infringement.

The consumer part - that you are being short changed by being sold content that should be included in the original purchase - is not a legal issue and a matter of opinion. It is hard to argue that on-disc DLC is fair to the consumer, so consumer outrage over it is to be expected.

Eloquently put. In situation like this personally never buy the initial versions of capcom games because I know they will ad in more later as apart of a package.

 

[abstract alien]

The legal precedent is very clear on this. The OS is entirely the property of the manufacturer. You have a licence to use it in the context of single use on the purchased console. You can't install it on other devices, or resell it. Like buying a PC from DELL, it will have an OEM licence for Windows with similar restrictions.

In addition to this, within a console (or any other similar device) there will be physical components that are entirely the property of the manufacturer. Within a console, the BIOS (or equivalent) will be owned by Sony/MS/Nintendo.

The BIOS is what stops you buying the other components and making your own console. This is why when you download emulators, they don't come with the BIOS file - you have to source this yourself (illegally, usually, unless you own the actual hardware).

The only legal way to circumvent the BIOS is to reverse engineer it, using a strict, legally accepted methodology:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design



Not that they haven't had a reason until recently. More that they haven't had the means to enforce it.

-------------------

There are two separate parts the the controversy around on-disc DLC.

The ownership part - that the contents of the disc are yours as you bought the disc - doesn't have a shred of legal backing. Capcom et al are perfectly able to do what they are doing, and unlocking the contents by any other means than purchasing it is copyright infringement.

The consumer part - that you are being short changed by being sold content that should be included in the original purchase - is not a legal issue and a matter of opinion. It is hard to argue that on-disc DLC is fair to the consumer, so consumer outrage over it is to be expected.

I love this post. Unbiased, factual, and informative towards future issues that can(and probably will) arise.

 

[jorma]

Listen, I own the disc, and whatever content is on there belongs to me. If you want to pull a fast one, you're going to get trouble.

As do i. And i will continue to do so until a Swedish court decides it's perfectly alright to impose new conditions on me after the sale.

 

[Snapshot King]

Like if two other Silent Hill games were "unlocked" as DLC, but physically on disc ?

Are you just using that as an example or are you saying SH1 and SH4 are on the Collection disc?

 

[Mandoric]

If it was P2P how would they shut it down? Why would they shut it down?

IIRC some games are P2P but most Ubisoft and EA games you are dealing with their third party servers and the services they are trying to push on you.

That doesn't stop the games from being P2P. In EA's case, the "shut down" content is P2P or even local, the "servers" handle peer hookups or just phone-home DRM for the content.
Compare Bittorrent - P2P, but requires a central tracker.

 

[Chev]

If it was P2P how would they shut it down? Why would they shut it down?

Usually for "P2P" games actual matches are P2P but the matchmaking isn't, it's using some centralized register of players that are currently online. This is true of any game that allows you to find opponents on the internet without directly typing their ip address. So cutting you off from multiplayer is as simple as cutting you off from the register, even though it doesn't have a hand in actual gameplay, and the day they take down the register (which they have no reason to maintain forever) you won't be able to play online.

 

[KiNeSiS]

This has been a complete debacle.
Capcom have Ono & company onto the next game so fast that instead of a constant stream of support for a product, We get pre-made dlc?
Why have companies not learned from Rockstar years ago on how to properly do dlc expansions?

I envy the discipline of those who fought the urge to purchase, I myself couldn't resist....
Sadly, I am ensnared so much that I will wait like a bitch & pay just to play as my SSFIV main Cody.

FUCK CAPCOM!!!!

We have a love hate relationship....

 

[shouamabane]

Wow, what a botched game release. I hope Capcom can right the ship on this.

 

[SolarPowered]

This has been a complete debacle.
Capcom have Ono & company onto the next game so fast that instead of a constant stream of support for a product, We get pre-made dlc?
Why have companies not learned from Rockstar years ago on how to properly do dlc expansions?

I envy the discipline of those who fought the urge to purchase, I myself couldn't resist....
Sadly, I am ensnared so much that I will wait like a bitch & pay just to play as my SSFIV main Cody.

FUCK CAPCOM!!!!

We have a love hate relationship....

Yeah, this part in particular stands out to me the most. They are pumping games out at a ridiculous pace. They should focus on refining what they got before they saturate the market plain and simple. I'm starting to feel like DSIV will be a reality and their rush is starting to freak me out. There are going to be too many great fighting games this year. They need to streamline their release schedules immediately. Two crossovers and a main Street Fighter game is enough for this generation. They should just move whatever remaining stuff they planned onto the next gen consoles in order to give us a break.

 

[KenOD]

I hope they have learned their lesson. Next time just release a completely separate title three months later down the road with all the characters for people to buy in full. Not DLC, just a full new disc. Everyone wins then!

Except in every case everyone loses because no one is ever happy with any of these games, no matter how they do new characters. Not even Mega Man trying for those falling glowing orbs.

 

[mclem]

The methods I mentioned to prevent what's currently happening are completely transparent to the user, noninvasive and aren't some kind of arcane programming knowledge but well-understood basics for any company that wants to deal in secure data transactions. There's no huge hurdle here, they just decided they wanted to both restrict user access and not bother actually implementing a restriction.

"If you don't lock your door, someone burgling you isn't breaking the law"

 

[Chev]

"If you don't lock your door, someone burgling you isn't breaking the law"

Except this one is selling someone a whole house but telling him once he moves in that he'll have to pay extra to be able to use all the rooms. There was no burglary or theft involved, the stuff was shipped to the user.

Once again, all the manipulations needed to unlock the characters are local, none of capcom's own online infrastructure or payment system was altered, to the point where they apparently can't tell if people are running unlocked versions unless screenshots are made, which effectively means once they officially start selling them there will simply be no way to tell a hacker from a legitimate buyer. If it were an online transaction for anything but the still hazy domain of DLC the people who implemented it would already be fired.

 

[staticneuron]

Except this one is selling someone a whole house but telling him once he moves in that he'll have to pay extra to be able to use all the rooms. There was no burglary or theft involved, the stuff was shipped to the user.

Once again, all the manipulations needed to unlock the characters are local, none of capcom's own online infrastructure or payment system was altered, to the point where they apparently can't tell if people are running unlocked versions unless screenshots are made, which effectively means once they officially start selling them there will simply be no way to tell a hacker from a legitimate buyer. If it were an online transaction for anything but the still hazy domain of DLC the people who implemented it would already be fired.

Then this is more like you owning a house and the electronics in it, yet having to pay someone else (electricity) to use them.

I guess capcom tried to save people from connection issues with this additional content. I hope they will learn their lesson from this one. All companies need to stop shipping DLC on disc and stop releasing Day one DLC. That will stop most of the complaints I would imagine.

 

[SUPARSTARX]

What about software comparisons? You guys keep comparing this with a house, but the fact is software has different rules and methods of distribution and sales. Yeah we paid for the physical disc and whatever else is available to play for $60. We don't even own $60 worth of Street Fighter IP through this.

what is the true culprit here for you guys? the content was thing to be sold for anyway and it doesn't matter in the end if you had to download 108kb our 300mb worth of data. Or does it?

 

[Saint Gregory]

No, people still rage every time they pay ten bucks and get 100k unlocks in return.

The core argument doesn't seem to have much to do with Capcom "lying", as I'm not sure what them telling that it's on the disc would have changed. Hackers would have still hacked it (there's no honor to holding back from cracking the content just because it's not a secret,) and none of the arguments over product vs content ownership would have been mitigated. And didn't Capcom say ahead of time that it was doing SFvT as a DLC-based game rather than a double-dip Super/Ultra release? So we all knew we'd be buying these characters one day. The only thing they didn't disclose was how they would be giving that content to users. Announcing it ahead of time would have only made hackers act faster and maybe increase the spread of the "My Disc, My Content" argument, I see very little upside for the company. What do you think it would have changed?

Putting timed exclusive locked content on the disc day one was an awful decision any way that you look at it. It simply shouldn't have happened.

If they wanted these 12 characters to be on disc locked DLC then they should have made them available for purchase to everyone on release day. I can't speak for anyone else but if these characters were announced and sold off the disc on release day I certainly wouldn't be an advocate for those who are using them now.

Edit: I was pretty foolish to assume this controversy was simply message board material. The Amazon reviews for the game are getting overrun with complaints about the DLC. I really wonder what the outcome of this is going to be, will Capcom learn from this and stop giving the appearance that they're carving out parts of their games to sell for more money later or will they simply do a better job of hiding their "DLC" in the future?

 

[staticneuron]

Putting timed exclusive locked content on the disc day one was an awful decision any way that you look at it. It simply shouldn't have happened.

If they wanted these 12 characters to be on disc locked DLC then they should have made them available for purchase to everyone on release day. I can't speak for anyone else but if these characters were announced and sold off the disc on release day I certainly wouldn't be an advocate for those who are using them now.

Edit: I was pretty foolish to assume this controversy was simply message board material. The Amazon reviews for the game are getting overrun with complaints about the DLC. I really wonder what the outcome of this is going to be, will Capcom learn from this and stop giving the appearance that they're carving out parts of their games to sell for more money later or will they simply do a better job of hiding their "DLC" in the future?

I am really wondering "why" they are waiting to release the DLC. Is it balance? It makes no sense because everyone who knows Capcom should be smart enough to NOT buy their first iteration of a fighting game because they are always going to add characters. This as seriously been their MO for 20 years now.

 

[Alx]

I am really wondering "why" they are waiting to release the DLC.

Probably to keep the game fresh for a long time. That way the users will get the feeling that there is always something new to come, and won't sell their copy of the game (publishers don't like second-hand market).
Besides, it is probably easier to sell content bit by bit over a long time, rather than offer everything at once. It hides the total cost of the whole package.