Support NeoGAF

[mclem]

Not going to say there aren't games that don't deserve better sales, but thats also not an excuse to head into sleazy territory.

"Sleazy territory" is an unhelpfully emotive term. State it in a more dispassionate form, and you might possibly start to see why companies don't really regard it as something particularly underhand.

They kind of go together with my response. I'm not saying make every game $80. I'm saying look at your budget and the game you are making and utilize that sliding scale more. I keep hearing games with some of the bigger budgets are RPG's and i really wouldn't say those games are lighting up the casual sales charts to begin with. Those are games that if the game deserves it and you are allocating a large budget then by all means charge $80 for it. That's what I paid for Final Fantasy 3 when it came out for SNES.

I don't think *enough* people would willingly pay more for the quality. They might possibly be coaxed into paying more for the *name*, but that's not the same thing, is it?

You could perhaps sell Mass Effect 3 for $80 and people might go for it over a $60 Kingdoms of Amalur, but would people Kingdoms of Amalur sell well enough for $80 over a $60 Mass Effect 3?

Ultimately, you've got to be aware when budgeting and pricing a title that you're not developing it within a vacuum; there's other games out there, and if you're going to be on the shelf with a $60 popular title, you're going to need one hell of a convincing selling point to make someone fork out $80 for yours. Meanwhile the $60 popular title is going to be just fine because it's, well, popular already.

If you sell the game for $80, you're not going to get the same number of sales you do at $60, and *that* needs to be factored into the budget too. I suspect $60 is possibly the natural 'sweet spot' for titles because it's a helpful benchmark of 'acceptable cost' that you can plan your budget relative to.

 

[mikeGFG]

so instead of this




people are mainly agreeing with this



and seemingly doesn't seem to be on the same page when people talk about entitlement.

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

Capcpomc has budgeted out what is essentially an $80+ dollar game. And Capcpcmm knows that a fighting game with an eighty five dollar sku on it dont fly. Im sure there would be some profitability on an eighty dollar fighting game, because gamers will buy some seriously dumb shit (if this were a Cracked article, there would be fucking pages of pre-order bonuses, cloth maps, five-inch art books, sam fisher statues and night vision goggles inserted right here).

But what konami is trying to do is sell to anyone who thinks that $60 is a good value for a new fighting game (lol) and maximize profit on the foreveralone market thats willing to shell out eighty bux, with the same product. But thats not even the crazy part. the crazy part is that months-and-months-away premium content is functioning, on the disc, and fully playable with a few simple modifications--all because the future PSVITA release desperately needs the added value to justify its existence in a post-iphone market.

So instead of DLC and trying to stave off the countless iterations of games, Pubs will go back to only fronting a complete package and whatever is extra is either cast aside or put into another complete package for full price.

Now you get both. enjoy.

 

[mclem]

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...)

 

[QisTopTier]

Please stop using this analogy.

I have Windows 7 Ultimate and guess what, Microsoft didn't sell me Windows 7 for $99 and then months later went "Oh, hey Greg we just released Windows 7 Ultimate! For just $200 more than you paid for plain old Windows 7!!!"

No, they laid out several price tiered packages, made sure that I was educated on the difference in what I would get from those packages and then gave me the option to update from the disc they sold me if I decided to get a lesser version and then upgrade later.

If Capcom and other gaming companies did that instead of this sneaky bullshit then less people would be complaining.

Except for its not a full huge ass price increase like that, so it's similar enough. Just cause it comes at a later time as a add on. Doesn't make it some horrible thing. That makes the game a rip off.

When you buy a game think of it like buying cd keys for pc stuff. Pc games have done if since forever, whats the big deal now?

 

[Incendiary]

I'm entirely confused here.

Content is on the disc, but is locked. Hackers unlock locked content and use it and are getting banned for it? I don't understand how people are upset that the hackers could face banning, because honestly I don't see a difference in this and hacking a Dark Souls character to be ultimate just so you can beat people in PVP. You could argue that the content is there, I.E. anybody can make a lvl 100 character through hard work, why can't I just hack it and make it easy?

There are some excuses like "I bought the disc, so all the content on it is rightfully mine" etc. etc. However, when people initially bought the disc, they didn't know the DLC stuff was already on it. It was discovered and then after they had to hack to use it. They're doing something illegal. Capcom may be doing something amoral or something you disagree with, but it's not illegal.

I don't think the hackers have a ground to stand on here, regardless of Capcom's ridiculous DLC practices.

 

[mclem]

There are some excuses like "I bought the disc, so all the content on it is rightfully mine" etc. etc. However, when people initially bought the disc, they didn't know the DLC stuff was already on it. It was discovered and then after they had to hack to use it. They're doing something illegal. Capcom may be doing something amoral or something you disagree with, but it's not illegal.

I'm slightly sceptical about whether the hacker's actions are actually illegal - particularly whether they're illegal *in all jurisdictions*. I do believe they *ought* to be, but I'm not sure our laws are adequate for that purpose. It is a breach of the DMCA, so there's that.

 

[Saint Gregory]

Except for its not a full huge ass price increase like that, so it's similar enough. Just cause it comes at a later time as a add on. Doesn't make it some horrible thing. That makes the game a rip off.

When you buy a game think of it like buying cd keys for pc stuff. Pc games have done if since forever, whats the big deal now?

No, they're not the same and I stated exactly why they're not the same. MS gave me the option to either get the base package or get the ultimate package. They didn't sell me the base package to attempt to weasel more money from me later nor did they lie to me about the existence of the ultimate package. There's a reason why people are so more pissed about this than the usual DLC crap.

I'm entirely confused here.

Content is on the disc, but is locked. Hackers unlock locked content and use it and are getting banned for it? I don't understand how people are upset that the hackers could face banning, because honestly I don't see a difference in this and hacking a Dark Souls character to be ultimate just so you can beat people in PVP. You could argue that the content is there, I.E. anybody can make a lvl 100 character through hard work, why can't I just hack it and make it easy?

There are some excuses like "I bought the disc, so all the content on it is rightfully mine" etc. etc. However, when people initially bought the disc, they didn't know the DLC stuff was already on it. It was discovered and then after they had to hack to use it. They're doing something illegal. Capcom may be doing something amoral or something you disagree with, but it's not illegal.

I don't think the hackers have a ground to stand on here, regardless of Capcom's ridiculous DLC practices.

Why are these people hackers? What did they hack exactly? They're accessing exactly what Capcom intended them to access, only six months early and for free instead of paying them again for it.

 

[Epcott]

Was not DLC locked in the disk of MvC3 as well? Or am I getting my fighters mixed up?

IMO it's like buying a house, only there's an extra hallway behind a locked door that I can't get access to it. The previous buyer says I have to pay him %10-15 more than what I paid for the house, in order to access that hallway... in a house I already own.

It sounds like a ludicrous sales practice, and I hope this persuades Capcom from including locked DLC on their disks, if anything is to be learned from this (doubtful).

 

[Ogrekiller]

Remember when Microsoft was going to restrict the basic version of Windows 7 to running three simultaneous applications at once?

This is the equivalent, only Capcom actually went through with it.

 

[NullPointer]

I'm slightly sceptical about whether the hacker's actions are actually illegal - particularly whether they're illegal *in all jurisdictions*. I do believe they *ought* to be, but I'm not sure our laws are adequate for that purpose. It is a breach of the DMCA, so there's that.

I'd hope not.

And comparing this to hacking an uber character for PvP is pretty funny. I don't see that as illegal either - just something that's against the terms and conditions of playing PvP on an online service and thus subject to banning.

Somebody who owns the disk owns the contents of that disk for personal use as far as I'm concerned.

 

[abstract alien]

I'm not condoning it by any means, but it seems like capcom is being singled out. I know this thread is centered around something capcom did, but holding back content and repackaging/selling it at a later date has been a hallmark of the industry, and most of the time it's done at full price. Again, not siding with them, but why are we bashing capcom when in all honesty I feel like this is a deal in comparison to some of the stuff we've seen? I mean, $20 for a good amount of fighters is a nice content/dollar ratio to me. Things have been left on disks, held out, etc for years, so are we just mad at capcom even though the game is of a high quality...or are we mad at the industry in general?

I feel like if this is directed at capcom, we need to set out bearing arms at some other companies with what they have done.

 

[QisTopTier]

No, they're not the same and I stated exactly why they're not the same. MS gave me the option to either get the base package or get the ultimate package. They didn't sell me the base package to attempt to weasel more money from me later nor did they lie to me about the existence of the ultimate package. There's a reason why people are so more pissed about this than the usual DLC crap.



Why are these people hackers? What did they hack exactly? They're accessing exactly what Capcom intended them to access, only six months early and for free instead of paying them again for it.

Capcom didn't lie about it, they said vita gets it first then consoles get it and you have the option to not get the 12 new characters. It's close enough.

But it's okay I guess to support pirating cause that's basically what this is.

 

[Ponn]

I don't think *enough* people would willingly pay more for the quality. They might possibly be coaxed into paying more for the *name*, but that's not the same thing, is it?

You could perhaps sell Mass Effect 3 for $80 and people might go for it over a $60 Kingdoms of Amalur, but would people Kingdoms of Amalur sell well enough for $80 over a $60 Mass Effect 3?

Thats why I said developers and publishers need to evaluate their games more and be HONEST with the value of the content. For instance, I don't think Amalur would sell at $80 either but it doesn't have anything to do with popularity and more with quality. I won't deny there are some sequels that do repeat sales wise making them safe bets but re-using assets have to bring the budgets down on them. I mean I don't see Ubisoft throwing a fit when there new assassins creed games consistently drop almost 50% within a month. And keep in mind I wasn't meaning selling alot of games at $80. I was talking about going the other way as well to get budgets in check. By not selling games at their appropriate price points you get consumers into habits of waiting for quick price drops on not only that game but all games. I paid $30 for Assassins Brotherhood and Revelations in a month of release. Capcom is also guilty of creating bad habits for their own games by reinforcing people to wait for the inevitable "Super" discs.

 

[mclem]

Why are these people hackers? What did they hack exactly? They're accessing exactly what Capcom intended them to access, only six months early and for free instead of paying them again for it.

Isn't that then infringing on Capcom's right to delay release and charge them for the product? After all, it's a product Capcom owns the rights to.

I'm pretty sure there's a case on the "Derivative Works" argument.

 

[NullPointer]

But it's okay I guess to support pirating cause that's basically what this is.

They hacked something they own.

Or is modding now considered piracy?

 

[QisTopTier]

They hacked something they own.

Or is modding now considered piracy?

Jtag is okay? News to me. Modding a call of duty game to go through walls is okay as well right?

 

[NullPointer]

Jtag is okay? News to me.

I'm not up on all the lingo. You mean homebrew?

Do what you want with your xbox. Its your property. But if you want to go online with it I hope MS bans every modded box it detects from xbox live.

 

[QisTopTier]

I'm not up on all the lingo. You mean homebrew?

Do what you want with your xbox. Its your property. But if you want to go online with it I hope MS bans every modded box it detects from xbox live.

This situation wouldn't qualify as homebrew. That's exactly what's happening, and people are complaining it isn't fair cause the content is on the disc.

Read the thread more closely it's silly as fuck.

 

[abstract alien]

They hacked something they own.

Or is modding now considered piracy?

They don't own it lawfully though, right? Just asking, because I'm not sure at times. Feelings seem to muddle in legalities, which never allows for fun fact finding.

 

[QisTopTier]

They don't own it lawfully though, right? Just asking, because I'm not sure at times. Feelings seem to muddle in legalities, which never allows for fun fact finding.

They own it about as much as you own your psn or xbox live account. When you buy data like that, you are paying for the rights to access the data you are able to access. Nothing more nothing less. Some companies let you fiddle with the data most don't and get pissed off if you do. MMO's for example.

 

[DR2K]

You know if this content really did cost extra money(it couldn't have if it had a similar budget to SFIV and MVC3) why are they giving Vita owners the content for free at the Vita MSRP of $40?

 

[QisTopTier]

You know if this content really did cost extra money(it couldn't have if it had a similar budget to SFIV and MVC3) why are they giving Vita owners the content for free at the Vita MSRP of $40?

Because sony money hatted them a fuck ton of money for that system. Fuck for all we know sony could of payed for the 12 characters to be made. Maybe they wouldnt of even been made if there wasn't going to be a vita version. But vita version has been in the works for a while now.

 

[mclem]

Thats why I said developers and publishers need to evaluate their games more and be HONEST with the value of the content. For instance, I don't think Amalur would sell at $80 either but it doesn't have anything to do with popularity and more with quality. I won't deny there are some sequels that do repeat sales wise making them safe bets but re-using assets have to bring the budgets down on them. I mean I don't see Ubisoft throwing a fit when there new assassins creed games consistently drop almost 50% within a month. And keep in mind I wasn't meaning selling alot of games at $80. I was talking about going the other way as well to get budgets in check. By not selling games at their appropriate price points you get consumers into habits of waiting for quick price drops on not only that game but all games. I paid $30 for Assassins Brotherhood and Revelations in a month of release. Capcom is also guilty of creating bad habits for their own games by reinforcing people to wait for the inevitable "Super" discs.

Unfortunately, I think their problem is that they *are* being honest about the value of the content (where value is defined as a function of the amount of time that goes into developing the content), but the problem is that the *purchasers* are instead buying based on their perception of value - and they value things as much lower than the cost of the work that goes into them.

That's a catch-22. Reduce budgets to a place where it's in line with people's perception of its worth, and you reduce the quality, which will in turn reduce people's perception of worth, and so on and so forth. Nintendo hit a sweet spot where people valued content significantly *higher* than the dev costs (there's hardly any data on the NSMBWii DVD, but holy hell did people value it!), and reaped significant rewards - but lots of folks around here derided them for their cheap outlook.

I do not believe high-budget games are economically viable any more unless they can be a guaranteed success. I think it's perfectly possible to sell games for cheaper - but, crucially, gamers need to accept the sacrifices that'll come with that. The only way the industry can achieve this goal is if *we* become more accepting of quality that isn't AAA(A).

 

[DR2K]

Because sony money hatted them a fuck ton of money for that system. Fuck for all we know sony could of payed for the 12 characters to be made.

So they'd sabatoge the PS3 version at the expense of the Vita?

 

[AutumnAve]

And people using this as a defense ASSUME this as well. No evidence that those characters would never exist just like Javik from ME3. In fact early designs and planning on both cases point the other way. Hell Cody and Guy were in that Poison reveal trailer way back at SDCC.

The mental gymnastics people play to justify their favorite companies is getting ridiculous. Look, you want to buy the DLC, go ahead but the defenses used for this are weak thats why this argument is ongoing and never ending. And people are going to continue to bitch and call companies out on this as consumers fighting for what rights we have left. I mean FFS at this point

1) we don't own that actual disc we bought
2) we don't really own the console we bought
3) we shouldn't rent or trade in or buy used those games we don't really own
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
5) you don't get to play everything on that disc you bought
6) anything else they forgot to limit or take away from us they can just by inserting words in the EULA agreement
7) If you bring up or try to question any of this you are a whiny entitled prick

Look at the EA online pass shutting down servers thread. Here is a hint GAME COMPANIES ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS. They don't require your defense, they are not your buddies, they are not going to come to the hospital when you are sick and they are not going to reward you for your patronage and fighting for them. Their "community managers" are not there out of the kindness of their hearts and by the grace of the company. Ono does not have a twitter account out of pure love for you and the fans. They may have some fun doing it but IT IS THEIR JOB!

They want your money, they are a business, and they want your money. End of story, no bromance or hidden agenda. PR people are there saying whatever they need to say to diffuse a situation. This is the biggest problem with gaming communities so close to gaming companies and I think it the only industry out there capable of it, maybe to an extent the music industry. They use it to gauge what the hell they can get away with and this generation they have found they can pretty much get away with most anything. I'm honest to goodness terrified of what next gen is going to end up being.

And this doucebag has the audacity to call the gamers who unlocked these on-disc characters "ballsy" Look at your damn selves Capcom.

Couldn't agree more, well put.

 

[QisTopTier]

So they'd sabatoge the PS3 version at the expense of the Vita?

Seems that way. Oddly enough, I'm guessing if they could of had the vita version done in time we would have them all, or more characters would be ps3 exclusive for a set time. The fact it says megaman and pacman are exclusive on the box of the game for ps3 but still data on the 360 version shows something got thrown in the wrench somewhere along the lines.

 

[abstract alien]

They own it about as much as you own your psn or xbox live account. When you buy data like that, you are paying for the rights to access the data you are able to access. Nothing more nothing less. Some companies let you fiddle with the data most don't and get pissed off if you do. MMO's for example.

Then how are people actually arguing if they own it or not? When you by the game, you are basically agreeing to the terms, correct? Whatever you believe morally or think you are entitled goes out the window when you buy it. I'm assuming it's the same for a used copy, right?

 

[QisTopTier]

Then how are people actually arguing if they own it or not? When you by the game, you are basically agreeing to the terms, correct? Whatever you believe morally or think you are entitled goes out the window when you buy it. I'm assuming it's the same for a used copy, right?

Buying a used copy is basically buying that guys license to use the product off him. So yeah same for used copies. It's why just making a shit ton of copies of the game and giving them out is illegal. It's not your product to do with what you please.

 

[mclem]

Then how are people actually arguing if they own it or not? When you by the game, you are basically agreeing to the terms, correct? Whatever you believe morally or think you are entitled goes out the window when you buy it. I'm assuming it's the same for a used copy, right?

That's probably how it all *should* be, but it's not enshrined in particularly solid laws.

Edit: That said: If the game *with* the DLC counts as a "derivative work", then the DLC could be regarded as buying a license to *make* that "derivative work", which I *think* is reasonably solid legally. But IANAL.

The right to make a derivative work is a copyright holder's *exclusive right*, and therefore one that cannot be breached without explicit permission being given.

 

[Gsak]

I had the same anti-DLC viewpoint a few years ago, but the longer I spend in the games industry, the more I understand why things are.

Then by all means, please explain more.

 

[NullPointer]

It's why just making a shit ton of copies of the game and giving them out is illegal. It's not your product to do with what you please.

Its not your product to distribute as you please.

 

[mclem]

Its not your product to distribute as you please.

A quick clarification: http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/scope.html seems to be a reasonable page discussing the exclusive rights the copyright owner has (i.e. the things you can't breach if you own a copy).

I think the derivative works section is crucial.

Crucially, as I understand it, software licenses cannot *add* to these lists, only remove things from them (i.e. they can only permit more usage, not less).
It's possible that signed EULAs may be a different matter, because possibly at that point you've entered into a contract? This is where I fall down on the legal mumbojumbo!

 

[Mandoric]

They own it about as much as you own your psn or xbox live account. When you buy data like that, you are paying for the rights to access the data you are able to access. Nothing more nothing less. Some companies let you fiddle with the data most don't and get pissed off if you do. MMO's for example.

There's a difference between "pissed off" and "having a serious legal case". This is 2012's gamesharking Mew rather than waiting for the Pokemon movie to come out and buying a ticket. Can you seriously argue that pretty much everyone ages 20 to 30 is a criminal, and that Nintendo of all companies left the payout they could've gotten from Galoob, Datel, and Mad Catz on the table?

 

[Ploid 3.0]

Capcom didn't lie about it, they said vita gets it first then consoles get it and you have the option to not get the 12 new characters. It's close enough.

But it's okay I guess to support pirating cause that's basically what this is.

Didn't they also say that the characters weren't finished?

 

[Saint Gregory]

That's probably how it all *should* be, but it's not enshrined in particularly solid laws.

Edit: That said: If the game *with* the DLC counts as a "derivative work", then the DLC could be regarded as buying a license to *make* that "derivative work", which I *think* is reasonably solid legally. But IANAL.

The right to make a derivative work is a copyright holder's *exclusive right*, and therefore one that cannot be breached without explicit permission being given.

I'm not sure that I understand how you're applying this concept. Capcom's work is protected and well as derivatives of that work but where did they explicitly state that they were only selling one part of their work on SFxT and not the rest when people purchased their game?

Just because they're selling an unlock code six months from now doesn't establish that. Other publishers have been selling unlock codes for content that can be unlocked through gameplay all generation so IMO all these "hackers" did was stymie Capcom's attempt to block content from them that they already paid for.

Didn't they also say that the characters weren't finished?

Yes they did but I gave up arguing with the wilfully ignorant.

 

[QisTopTier]

Didn't they also say that the characters weren't finished?

They did, I'm sorta inclined to believe that. Seeing a few infinities in the game and how high jacks damage is overall compared to even hugo and how low the rest of the dlc characters damage is compared to the current cast.

There's a difference between "pissed off" and "having a serious legal case". This is 2012's gamesharking Mew rather than waiting for the Pokemon movie to come out and buying a ticket. Can you seriously argue that pretty much everyone ages 20 to 30 is a criminal, and that Nintendo of all companies left the payout they could've gotten from Galoob, Datel, and Mad Catz on the table?

You think sony and the other companies liked people using 3rd party things to run pirated games or shit that was region locked? There have been plenty of cases where they tried to do shit about it. But for the most part they just tried to change around stuff on a hardware/ios level. Let's not forget about the whole bleem bullshit. This all goes in the same pool of things in the end.

 

[toddhunter]

Then by all means, please explain more.

Old model (What a lot of gamers are suggesting is a better approach):

* Gamers want games.
* Developers make games
* Developer releases game, game doesn't sell as good as it needs to
* Developer goes out of business
* Gamers no longer have games.

Note that under this model when you do get games, you can bet they will be heavily weighted to the big selling genres without niche or risky games because of the huge costs.

How Capcom are looking at it (which some gamers clearly disagree with):

* Gamers want games.
* Developers make games.
* The business model of developer makes game, release game, gamers may or may not buy the game is no longer viable due to the risks.
* Developers try alternate models to stay in business like making extra content to sell as DLC later on to provide continued income to help with things like cash flow
* Developers stay in business, make more diverse games like fighters.
* Gamers whine and complain
* Gamers get games.

I'm fine with how Capcom are going about it. I'm sure they will adjust things as they get feedback from fans and see how their revenue streams adjust. At the end of the day they made a great game in SfxT which is what it ultimately is all about.

 

[RedNumberFive]

Capcom has said a lot of things this gen, and I've found that most of it is not true.

 

[mclem]

I'm not sure that I understand how you're applying this concept. Capcom's work is protected and well as derivatives of that work but where did they explicitly state that they were only selling one part of their work on SFxT and not the rest when people purchased their game?

Because the rest *wasn't there*, I would imagine. The data being present on the disk behind a paywall isn't *quite* the same thing as it being part of the game. That's an important distinction... and one that I suspect hasn't actually been tested in law.

I think it's an important question as to whether a paywall needs to actually *exist* in the form of substantive protection or whether it can just be a notional thing, too.

 

[Mandoric]

I'm not sure that I understand how you're applying this concept. Capcom's work is protected and well as derivatives of that work but where did they explicitly state that they were only selling one part of their work on SFxT and not the rest when people purchased their game?

Just because they're selling an unlock code six months from now doesn't establish that. Other publishers have been selling unlock codes for content that can be unlocked through gameplay all generation so IMO all these "hackers" did was stymie Capcom's attempt to block content from them that they already payed for.

Hey, that's another good one. If whoever owns the Beatles catalog officially releases Revolution 9 played backwards, or announces plans to do so, does fiddling with your record player's motor impinge on their rights?

You think sony and the other companies liked people using 3rd party things to run pirated games or shit that was region locked? There have been plenty of cases where they tried to do shit about it. But for the most part they just tried to change around stuff on a hardware/ios level. Let's not forget about the whole bleem bullshit. This all goes in the same pool of things in the end.

No, it goes in two very different pools. One of them is companies trying to make it very hard to use their products in unintended ways--this can be anticonsumer, but they've got every right to have their own design goals.
The other is companies taking away products the consumer's paid for, and potentially pursuing civil or criminal claims, when the product's used in unintended ways.

 

[Ogrekiller]

If Capcom gets away with this we're really going to see the ridge racer vita equivalent of street fighter next gen.

Street fighter V! Comes with Ryu and 1 stage and VS mode! Other characters, stages, modes and online play sold separately on the disc but have to be paid to be unlocked.

 

[Gsak]

Old model (What a lot of gamers are suggesting is a better approach):

* Gamers want games.
* Developers make games
* Developer releases game, game doesn't sell as good as it needs to
* Developer goes out of business
* Gamers no longer have games.

Note that under this model when you do get games, you can bet they will be heavily weighted to the big selling genres without niche or risky games. Yes these games were made in the past. Past being the point.

How Capcom are looking at it (which some gamers clearly disagree with):

* Gamers want games.
* Developers make games.
* The business model of developer makes game, release game, gamers may or may not buy the game is no longer viable due to the risks.
* Developers try alternate models to stay in business like making extra content to sell as DLC later on to provide continued income to help with things like cash flow
* Developers stay in business, make more games.
* Gamers whine and complain
* Gamers get games.

I'm fine with how Capcom are going about it. I'm sure they will adjust things as they get feedback from fans and see how their revenue streams adjust. At the end of the day they made a great game in SfxT which is what it ultimately is all about.

How does DLC makes a game better? From what you're saying the things that it mainly makes better are the publisher's and dev's pockets.

If the game is good it will sell (not always, but most of the time). If a game is lackluster, then yeah, it deserves the low sales. DLC ain't gonna improve that.

 

[QisTopTier]

If Capcom gets away with this we're really going to see the ridge racer vita equivalent of street fighter next gen.

Street fighter V! Comes with Ryu and 1 stage and VS mode! Other characters, stages, modes and online play sold separately on the disc but have to be paid to be unlocked.

Troll post like this that have no chance of actually ever happening unless the game was F2P are annoying as fuck and childish :3

If the game was F2P and I just had to only pay for who I wanted to use or I could earn points via LoL to unlock them over time. I wouldn't mind that. Would be fucking garbage for tournaments and would kill that scene though. So it will never EVER happen and it shouldn't

 

[udivision]

If Capcom gets away with this we're really going to see the ridge racer vita equivalent of street fighter next gen.

Street fighter V! Comes with Ryu and 1 stage and VS mode! Other characters, stages, modes and online play sold separately on the disc but have to be paid to be unlocked.

Maybe that's the way to go. Capcom would get more money, people who only mained 1 character would get the game cheap, and those more hardcore would buy them all.

yea it's kind of lame.

EDIT: Or maybe you can use all the characters in training/trial modes, but have to buy the "rights" to use them online or in offline versus. Therefore you could learn how to play all the characters, but would need to pay to use them competitively.

 

[mclem]

If the game is good it will sell (not always, but most of the time).

I *emphatically* dispute that.

 

[Ogrekiller]

Troll post like this that have no chance of actually ever happening unless the game was F2P are annoying as fuck and childish :3

They lock away 1/3 of the game I'm sure they can lock away another 5/6 of it away if they think people will pay for it.

 

[Saint Gregory]

Because the rest *wasn't there*, I would imagine. The data being present on the disk behind a paywall isn't *quite* the same thing as it being part of the game. That's an important distinction... and one that I suspect hasn't actually been tested in law.

I think it's an important question as to whether a paywall needs to actually *exist* in the form of substantive protection or whether it can just be a notional thing, too.

One of the legal issues I could instantly see being argued against Capcom is that the locked characters would be visable to non-purchasers of the content as soon as they played with someone who did pay for the content online. The content would be streaming off the disc that they purchased and thus would be part of the game.

Look at it this way, if someone had hacked the home version of SFIII so that Gil was playable before Capcom made him playable in later versions of the game would that have been piracy?

What would have made that piracy? If Capcom wanted to charge for Gil?

 

[Gsak]

I *emphatically* dispute that.

I did say "not always".

 

[Unicorn]

And people using this as a defense ASSUME this as well. No evidence that those characters would never exist just like Javik from ME3. In fact early designs and planning on both cases point the other way. Hell Cody and Guy were in that Poison reveal trailer way back at SDCC.

The mental gymnastics people play to justify their favorite companies is getting ridiculous. Look, you want to buy the DLC, go ahead but the defenses used for this are weak thats why this argument is ongoing and never ending. And people are going to continue to bitch and call companies out on this as consumers fighting for what rights we have left. I mean FFS at this point

1) we don't own that actual disc we bought
2) we don't really own the console we bought
3) we shouldn't rent or trade in or buy used those games we don't really own
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
5) you don't get to play everything on that disc you bought
6) anything else they forgot to limit or take away from us they can just by inserting words in the EULA agreement
7) If you bring up or try to question any of this you are a whiny entitled prick

Look at the EA online pass shutting down servers thread. Here is a hint GAME COMPANIES ARE NOT YOUR FRIENDS. They don't require your defense, they are not your buddies, they are not going to come to the hospital when you are sick and they are not going to reward you for your patronage and fighting for them. Their "community managers" are not there out of the kindness of their hearts and by the grace of the company. Ono does not have a twitter account out of pure love for you and the fans. They may have some fun doing it but IT IS THEIR JOB!

They want your money, they are a business, and they want your money. End of story, no bromance or hidden agenda. PR people are there saying whatever they need to say to diffuse a situation. This is the biggest problem with gaming communities so close to gaming companies and I think it the only industry out there capable of it, maybe to an extent the music industry. They use it to gauge what the hell they can get away with and this generation they have found they can pretty much get away with most anything. I'm honest to goodness terrified of what next gen is going to end up being.

And this doucebag has the audacity to call the gamers who unlocked these on-disc characters "ballsy" Look at your damn selves Capcom.

I'm with this. What does our money buy? The cardboard and plastic.

 

[Ponn]

Because the rest *wasn't there*, I would imagine. The data being present on the disk behind a paywall isn't *quite* the same thing as it being part of the game. That's an important distinction... and one that I suspect hasn't actually been tested in law.

I think it's an important question as to whether a paywall needs to actually *exist* in the form of substantive protection or whether it can just be a notional thing, too.

Actually we do have a bit of precedence on the "content" of a disc, even if not readily accessible.

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