Support NeoGAF

[mclem]

GTA's hot coffee told us that if the content is on the purchased disc... then its a part of the user's experience... rather they have "access" to it or not.

And I thought that was bullshit at the time, too

I can only find settlements relating to the case, on that note. Was it actually tried to completion anywhere?


Edit: A quick question, paring things down to the absolute basics, ignoring everything emotive: Should it be possible for a developer to sell two *distinct* products on the same disc as one another and still have them legally regarded as two distinct products?

(Note that I'm asking "should", not "is". Ignoring the legal side of things, does that sound *right* to you? If not, why not?)

 

[Mael]

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.

Who told you who was ok with what?

It's not hacking but can't you use the Skylanders characters without even opening the box? That seems kinda sketchy.

Who cares? The value is in the figurine and the software, people WILL keep purchasing characters for their kids because of that.

 

[toddhunter]

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.

In general, people want stuff and don't want to pay for it. Nothing wrong with that, pretty natural.

Capcom have done this in a way that makes people really want it (it is right there!) and don't want to pay for it (insert justification reason #1234 here).

Hence a bit of frustration. I agree how the content gets to you or the method of sale is irrelevant. It is 2012 after all. Heck, just think of it like a little shop Capcom put on the disk to sell you more stuff.

Being up front and honest about it would be the key. I don't mind companies keeping things secret to generate hype and sales when they think they will need it most. But if it is going to be there for all to see, they should reveal it so gamers before hand so they can make their mind up if they really want to buy it or not, and hopefully not just vent the frustration after the initial purchase.

For the record I have no problem with IAP if I know they are there before I purchase. When I do purchase a game and suddenly find IAP I generally really dislike it. It changes my perception negatively of the value of the game I just purchased.
This situation is pretty much the same but at higher cost and hence higher frustration.

Edit: A quick question, paring things down to the absolute basics, ignoring everything emotive: Should it be possible for a developer to sell two *distinct* products on the same disc as one another and still have them legally regarded as two distinct products?

(Note that I'm asking "should", not "is". Ignoring the legal side of things, does that sound *right* to you? If not, why not?)

I find all these arguments about what is right or not and pretty annoying. Are we all music industry executives? A deal is a deal, there can be no argument that Capcom want people to pay extra for the content. People should just respect that and either pay the money or not.

 

[WarLox]

And I thought that was bullshit at the time, too

I can only find settlements relating to the case, on that note. Was it actually tried to completion anywhere?


Edit: A quick question, paring things down to the absolute basics, ignoring everything emotive: Should it be possible for a developer to sell two *distinct* products on the same disc as one another and still have them legally regarded as two distinct products?

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

 

[kurosawa]

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.

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.

 

[Chev]

So, let's just assume that they did what some people here suggest; that they instead developed these twelve characters over a period after the release of the game, and released it as a separate download, with a (large) patch adding the content to the original version for non-purchasers to play against the new characters.

At that point, is there anything different in *that* situation which would mean that your exact same argument isn't true?

At the very least your rights have changed because the patched stuff isn't part of the data you bought in a store, and because it's not sent until patch day hackers can't figure it out before it's there. Beyond that to really enforce restricted use of the data it's up to Capcom to enforce some vaguely serious protection, ie check someone starting an online match has purchased the character he selected and/or encrypt the DLC character data. The whole current situation stems from the fact they dumped the data in plain sight and do no check for legit users whatsoever.

And independent of *would* I be within my rights... *should* I be within my rights?

Absolutely, reverse engineering (still) is a right. If they didn't want you to use it the content shouldn't have been sold to you in a usable state. However it's also fair game for them to ban you from online playing if you mod stuff, as it is their right to choose who actively uses their online services.

 

[Mael]

At the very least your rights have changed because the patched stuff isn't part of the data you bought in a store, and because it's not sent until patch day hackers can't figure it out before it's there. Beyond that to really enforce restricted use of the data it's up to Capcom to enforce some vaguely serious protection, ie check someone starting an online match has purchased the character he selected and/or encrypt the DLC character data. The whole current situation stems from the fact they dumped the data in plain sight and do no check for legit users whatsoever.


Absolutely, reverse engineering (still) is a right. If they didn't want you to use it the content shouldn't have been sold to you in a usable state. However it's also fair game for them to ban you from online if you mod stuff, as it is their right to choose who actively uses their online services.

I'd better check if I were you because it may be banned in your country, I wouldn't know though.

 

[mclem]

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.

Why, though? You knew exactly what you were getting; you got exactly what you were promised. Why does the point of time at which the additional content was completed have *any* bearing on those two statements?

It's not actually new that potentially-additional content was completed at the time of release but instead sold as a separate product, anyway.

 

[mclem]

At the very least your rights have changed because the patched stuff isn't part of the data you bought in a store, and because it's not sent until patch day hackers can't figure it out before it's there.

Which suggests that Capcom should deliberately *avoid* bundling the patch with any subsequent on-disc rereleases, despite the increased convenience to the player and negligible cost to them at that point.

Doesn't that strike you as *fundamentally* wrong?

Beyond that to really enforce restricted use of the data it's up to Capcom to enforce some vaguely serious protection, ie check someone starting an online match has purchased the character he selected and/or encrypt the DLC character data. The whole current situation stems from the fact they dumped the data in plain sight and do no check for legit users whatsoever.

I think this may be the first time any consumer has ever complained about lack of DRM.

 

[Saint Gregory]

http://www.capcom.com/capcom/legal_privacy/online_eula.html



It's explictedly written in the EULA, you are not allowed to modify or create derivative works. Just because you brought Capcom's game doesn't mean they give you the permission to change the contents of the game you brought.

Once again, without even getting into the muddy waters of these kinds of EULAs, I don't see how what's been done here can be interpreted to have implicitly modified Capcom's work. What was circumvented here is as some have described it is a "paywall". The DLC system infact could be argued to not belong to Capcom at all but to the platform holder, in this case Microsoft.

My problem with these arguments that have been made, and all these other trial/upgrade softare analogies, is that in all other cases the agreement between the consumer and the software publisher is plain. They tell you what you're getting and you either agree to those terms, whether it's a 30 day trial or the base version of the software, and then you're allowed access to that content.

That's not what Capcom did. They willingly hid content in the game that they sold everyone, tried to pretend that it wasn't there and then got mad when gamers accessed it early and without paying for it. It's true that this is not the first time that they've done this nor are they the only ones doing this by a long shot but I do believe that this has been one of the most anger inducing cases of bullshit "DLC" so far this generation and Capcom should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[mclem]

Once again, without even getting into the muddy waters of these kinds of EULAs, I don't see how what's been done here can be interpreted to have implicitly modified Capcom's work. What was circumvented here is as some have described it is a "paywall". The DLC system infact could be argued to not belong to Capcom at all but to the platform holder, in this case Microsoft.

And *that's* a breach of the DMCA.

 

[kurosawa]

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.

Why, though? You knew exactly what you were getting; you got exactly what you were promised. Why does the point of time at which the additional content was completed have *any* bearing on those two statements?

Because when you have a contract with another party, that relashionship should be based on trust. If they came out clean in the first place, I wouldn't have nothing to argue about.

What I read from press releases is different.

Then, once the Vita iteration of the game hits shelves, the PS3 and Xbox 360 versions of the game will receive 12 additional downloadable characters. Players will be able to buy all of these characters at once for $20.

 

[Saint Gregory]

And *that's* a breach of the DMCA.

Who's the injured party though? It seems to me it would be Microsft since it's their paywall system.

Because when you have a contract with another party, that relashionship should be based on trust. If they came out clean in the first place, I wouldn't have nothing to argue about.

What I read from press releases is different.

I'm fairly certain that when pressed on why the characters would be released after the Vita version that their response was that the characters were not ready. I didn't read an exact quote directly from Capcom though.

 

[RedNumberFive]

These semantic arguements are going nowhere at this point. Can't we all just agree that this is just an expected dick move by Capcpom at this point? It's been dick move after dick move by them this generation, so I'm not sure why anyone would expect differently. This is a company that pretty much flaunts the fact that they have no respect for the intelligence of their fans. As said many times before, you can either send them a message telling them this behavior isn't acceptable by not buying their product, or continue to be fleeced by them.

 

[LowParry]

These semantic arguements are going nowhere at this point. Can't we all just agree that this is just an expected dick move by Capcpom at this point? It's been dick move after dick move by them this generation, so I'm not sure why anyone would expect differently. This is a company that pretty much flaunts the fact that they have no respect for the intelligence of their fans. As said many times before, you can either send them a message telling them this behavior isn't acceptable by not buying their product, or continue to be fleeced by them.

It's really a simple solution. You pay or you don't pay. Why even argue?

 

[Takamura-San]

You got what you payed for, which means the OG roster and their features.

What is on the disc is not relevant.

 

[jorma]

I find all these arguments about what is right or not and pretty annoying. Are we all music industry executives? A deal is a deal, there can be no argument that Capcom want people to pay extra for the content. People should just respect that and either pay the money or not.

Indeed. And yet capcom tries to charge users for content they already own. The EULA was never a part of the deal the customers made with the retail store when they bought the game. So apparantly a deal is not always a deal when new conditions can be imposed after the sale.

You see? It's not that simple an issue. If my position is that the content already belongs to me, why would i be swayed by arguments that means i should "respect" capcom? Should capcom not respect me? Should capcom not respect that legislation and the validity of eulas is different depending on where in the world you live?

 

[ninjatrigg]

Fuck everyone who agrees with this.


On disc DLC is too shady.
It gives me a feeling of being screwed over. When I buy something, I want to feel satsfied, not feeling like I was swindled lol.

Why are they still putting it on the disc???

 

[Saint Gregory]

You got what you payed for, which means the OG roster and their features.

What is on the disc is not relevant.

It absolutely is relevant.

In the last thread about this I argued on the side that accessing this kind of content without paying for it is piracy, but the difference here is that Capcom never stated prior to selling SFxT that these characters weren't part of the game. If they simply said "Hey, there's a great roster of characters available day one and 12 more that can be unlocked through DLC" people would have bitched but they would have had no valid argument for accessing the characters without paying for them. What we have now is a situation where there is no agreement between the purchaser and the publisher about what content constitutes the "game".

 

[Kintaro]

Capcom is really putting the screws to nobody but the FGC with these characters. Given the time frame the DLC characters are due to come out, the only people who will give a fuck are people in the (or perceive themselves to be) in the FGC. It will be WAY too late for casuals (the majority of buyer) to give a shit about these characters without a new disc release as the big games will overshadow SF x Tekken.

The only ones who end up buying are the ones who "support" Capcom the most. It really is sad.

 

[RedNumberFive]

It's really a simple solution. You pay or you don't pay. Why even argue?

Yup. It is that simple. Purchase the game and DLC, and continue to tell Capcom that this kind of behavior is all right, or spend your gaming dollars on products that don't actively insult your purchasing decisions. I could really care less about people circumventing the protection around these characters, but Capcpom have been complete dickheads this entire gen, and lied straight to our faces on multiple occassions. Why reward them by buying their product in the first place? It's not like there is a lack of good games out there. Especially from companies that have more common decency than Capcpom.

 

[Alx]

Can't we all just agree that this is just an expected dick move by Capcpom at this point?

We might all agree that it's a dick move to sell characters as additional content instead of having them in the main game, but it will depend on the estimated value of the game as it is now.
But people won't agree on the fact that having the content on the disk is a dick move. It bothers some people, others consider it's only a way to make it easier to purchase, and others still don't care.

As said many times before, you can either send them a message telling them this behavior isn't acceptable by not buying their product, or continue to be fleeced by them.

I agree with that. If you're not ok with this distribution model, don't buy the game. That's an honest way of dealing with transactions you disagree with (and one that I do apply, for example I'm patiently waiting for the Assassin's Creed redemption "complete version").
But taking the content without paying for it is a dick move.

 

[sleepykyo]

The real issue is why this stuff is being held back until November.

It's inexcusable, Sony moneyhatting or not. Capcom should be able to be more agile to circumnavigate this stuff, there is already a huge demand from players to get this shit in their hands as soon as possible.

This seems, on the surface at least, that it is just blowing up in Capcom's face at every single turn.

Because everyone was whining about how fast UMVC3 came out.

 

[Zoe]

It absolutely is relevant.

In the last thread about this I argued on the side that accessing this kind of content without paying for it is piracy, but the difference here is that Capcom never stated prior to selling SFxT that these characters weren't part of the game. If they simply said "Hey, there's a great roster of characters available day one and 12 more that can be unlocked through DLC" people would have bitched but they would have had no valid argument for accessing the characters without paying for them. What we have now is a situation where there is no agreement between the purchaser and the publisher about what content constitutes the "game".

They really never released the roster?

 

[Saint Gregory]

They really never released the roster?

I'm sure that they did but is that enough to constitute an agreement about what is part of the game and what's not part of the game? If there were secret characters that were unlocked through gameplay would those have not been part of the game?

Like I said, say that the 12 characters are not part of the game and are DLC unlocked characters from day one and we have no thread for this, or at least a very short one.

 

[Mael]

I'm sure that they did but is that enough to constitute an agreement about what is part of the game and what's not part of the game? If there were secret characters that were unlocked through gameplay would those have not been part of the game?

Like I said, say that the 12 characters are not part of the game and are DLC unlocked characters from day one and we have no thread for this, or at least a very short one.

Heck imagine if they got it through a bug or something...

 

[LowParry]

Yup. It is that simple. Purchase the game and DLC, and continue to tell Capcom that this kind of behavior is all right, or spend your gaming dollars on products that don't actively insult your purchasing decisions. I could really care less about people circumventing the protection around these characters, but Capcpom have been complete dickheads this entire gen, and lied straight to our faces on multiple occassions. Why reward them by buying their product in the first place? It's not like there is a lack of good games out there. Especially from companies that have more common decency than Capcpom.

At this point, I really don't give a fuck. I'll buy what I want to buy because of the fun and enjoyment I get out of that said product. If you don't like Capcom products, then don't buy them. But you're not going to tell me that I shouldn't buy a product that I know I'll get the best for my dollar.

 

[LumpOfCole]

Interesting that people respond differently to IAP and in game currency as unlocks.

Would it be acceptable if Capcom sold extra characters for 5000 gold each, and sold gold as 'DLC/IAP'? Gold can be earned within the game, albeit at a rate of 5 gold per hour of active play.

With the way F2P games are raking in the dough, don't be surprised when this model happens 3-5 years down the line for a large number of competitive games.

 

[RedNumberFive]

At this point, I really don't give a fuck. I'll buy what I want to buy because of the fun and enjoyment I get out of that said product. If you don't like Capcom products, then don't buy them. But you're not going to tell me that I shouldn't buy a product that I know I'll get the best for my dollar.

I never told you how to spend your money, and I especially never directed my comments at you personally, so I'm not sure where the hostility is coming from. God knows, I've spent money on my share of stupid shit. If you're happy with your purchase, then super! I just find Capcpom's behavior this generation insulting and bordering reprehensible, and if you agree with me, I'd urge you to no longer support them. If not, continue on!

 

[Gr1mLock]

Because everyone was whining about how fast UMVC3 came out.

Cept UMVC3 wasn't locked on the damn disc.

 

[Saint Gregory]

Heck imagine if they got it through a bug or something...

If Capcom had handled this situation appropriately and even attempted to educate gamers about these characters being essentially day one timed exclusive DLC, then I would have felt bad for them if people got the characters through a bug.

As bad as Capcom has been with their DLC business this gen I would still support them if they'd at least try to be honest with their customers instead of treating them like idiots.

 

[ThoughtsOfSpeaking]

One thing I think is important to think about in this discussion is not the issue itself, but it's reprocussions. While some have given it a passing mention, I don't think many have given it more than simple lip service.

With hackers openly and flagrantly using these characters, the actual value of them, at least in the eyes of the paying consumer will go down.

Let me explain.

The game has now been out 2 weeks or so. Already these characters are available to people who don't mind modding their disc. Far as I understand, you only need to have flashed Xbox DVD drive to get the characters, although you need a jtag to view the alts.


Tournament players have a big problem here. If they stay legit, they are at a massive disadvantage. If they dont learn these charcters they could be free to match ups with people who do.It only takes one guy in a group to take the hit of a ban for every person he trains with to learn these characters. From a another viewpoint, xboxes are not so prohibitively expensive especially used that you couldn't pick up a spare one, just to mod it for this game, even fo pure offline play. There is too much e-rep and physical cash on the table for some to not succum to temptation.

So faced with that, tourney organisers have no choice to ban DLC characters and gems. But if that is done, it removes the need to buy the characters in the first place.


Moving on to people who love the fan service. These people include some in this very thread, who love what they have already and can accept that not everything on the disc belongs to them. However, how far is that fan service going to take you? Outside of the people who lean on the competitive side, how many people do you reckon will still be actively playing this game 6 months from now? The sheen will have worn of and the game will be gathering dust. Having the release this spaced apart only is going to lead to huge potiental drop off in buyers. Before you point out sales of other FG expansions, let me point out something to you... Every other example where this didn't happen is when it was new content, something that players were not familiar with, even if they did know it existed. In 6 months, most of you could want to know about the DLC characters will be known. Yes their couple be a rebalance but familiarity breeds contempt. The DLC may be day 1 now, but the game is still fresh, what happens when you get bored of it? Will the new characters be enough to pull you back in?

My point is no matter what side of the debate you stand on, this has been a disastrous move by capcom. They are getting so much flak from the consumer and I very much doubt sales of this DLC are even going to come close to AE, never mind super.

They simply took it a step to far.

 

[KittenMaster]

I don't believe "well you don't ACTUALLY own the game" or "you paid just for the content you actually see up front" make this practice acceptable other than from a legal standpoint, because it basically means a company can pick and choose content that would normally be available from the beginning and turn it into paid DLC.

Even planning on having the content on disc at first but removing them from the disc for release would at least say, "We don't want to give the impression that we're trying to screw you over."

 

[Mael]

If Capcom had handled this situation appropriately and even attempted to educate gamers about these characters being essentially day one timed exclusive DLC, then I would have felt bad for them if people got the characters through a bug.

As bad as Capcom has been with their DLC business this gen I would still support them if they'd at least try to be honest with their customers instead of treating them like idiots.

In both cases they won't see my money anyway.
The games are actually expensive enough that they don't warrant additional content to be purchased on the day of release.
After what they pulled with the RE game with 1 save I basically lost all interest in Revelation (RE5 even managed to kill all interest I had in RE4, the game I actually bought twice!).
Their practices on the Street Fighter franchise is long known so I don't even consider a purchase, I don't even think I've touched TatsuCap and I've been gifted that one.
So yeah I can't say I'm all that concerned.

What I'm saying is that Capcom actually killed all interest in me for their products through shitty practice, regardless of the quality of their content.

 

[Haunted]

You got what you payed for, which means the OG roster and their features.

What is on the disc is not relevant.

Huh, I thought you would've earned a corporate apologist tag by now or something. I always see you take the anti-consumer stance in these discussions.

 

[Mael]

Huh, I thought you would've earned a corporate apologist tag by now or something. I always see you take the anti-consumer stance in these discussions.

I'd be a pissed off about him getting a tag for that before I get one!

 

[Alx]

because it basically means a company can pick and choose content that would normally be available from the beginning and turn it into paid DLC.

Of course they can. They're the ones developing the software, they get to decide what they sell, when and at what price.
As a consumer, you only get to decide if the package is worth what you pay for, or not.

 

[Takuya]

Huh, I thought you would've earned a corporate apologist tag by now or something. I always see you take the anti-consumer stance in these discussions.

the solution is easy then. Developers just have to remove content and give you less for $60 and charge you for it later even though it's ready. Right? That makes it ALL better.

 

[Mael]

Huh, I thought you would've earned a corporate apologist tag by now or something. I always see you take the anti-consumer stance in these discussions.

the solution is easy then. Developers just have to remove content and give you less for $60 and charge you for it later even though it's ready. Right? That makes it ALL better.

I get it you're trying to get a tag too?

 

[Duxxy3]

It's really simple if you simply don't support games that have this amount of bullshit surrounding them.

 

[Chev]

And *that's* a breach of the DMCA.

As mentioned before, it's legally arguable it's not because there is apparently no attempt to prevent unlocking of the data. Taking advantage of the absence of DRM isn't circumventing DRM, and there's no copy of whatsoever made so there's no copyright infringement either.

I think this may be the first time any consumer has ever complained about lack of DRM.

I'm not complaining at the lack of protection, actually. Having done my share of poking into game files to me being able to play with the data as is is fine
What isn't is naively thinking people are gonna sit down and pay for fully functional data they already have.

Which suggests that Capcom should deliberately *avoid* bundling the patch with any subsequent on-disc rereleases, despite the increased convenience to the player and negligible cost to them at that point.

Doesn't that strike you as *fundamentally* wrong?

Not at all. If Capcom wants to sell the right to play characters, they better make sure the characters can't be played with methods from 20 years ago, or at least not act surprised when those methods are applied.

Admittedly it's difficult for a multiplayer game because of the deterministic model of only sending commands, which means the character has to be fully implemented on both sides. But once again UE3 games, for example, have built-in well known methods based on encryption that have done a much better job of protecting or even hiding on-disc DLC.

It's not actually new that potentially-additional content was completed at the time of release but instead sold as a separate product, anyway.

I think with that one players were busy being pissed off at everything else the release did wrong (including, well, all the cut stuff they found remnants of by poking at the data, amusingly)

That being said, it's worth noting the speech pack had no bearing on gameplay, so it's a closer equivalent to SFxT additional costumes, which little to no one really seems to mind.
Also in many markets they directly released the full talkie version, the US may be one of the few place where they still attempted the separate speech pack.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Because everyone was whining about how fast UMVC3 came out.

And they were right to whine about it, because it was wrong not to even give those who purchased the original game the ability to download the twelve characters.
Capcom pulled some bullshit excuse out of their ass why they decided not to do it, but lo and behold, SF vs Tekken will have 12 "DLC" characters. So yeah, in the end MvsC3 purchasers got shafted on this.

 

[Gsak]

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.

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

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.

 

[mclem]

Not at all. If Capcom wants to sell the right to play characters, they better make sure the characters can't be played with methods from 20 years ago, or at least not act surprised when those methods are applied.

I'm sorry, I think there's considerable scope for streamlining the process. It shouldn't need to be this dumb. At the moment *everyone* is getting a slightly worse experience - developers *and* consumers alike - in order to fulfil the bureaucratic red-tape required to safeguard the developers' rights. I don't think that's how things ought to be. Ultimately... can't we do better?

At the risk of flogging this dead horse way too much, I would love a legal entity to rule on whether the item you are purchasing in a store is a game which is supplied on a disc or a disc which has a game on it, because those are two very different transactions.

I think with that one players were busy being pissed off at everything else the release did wrong (including, well, all the cut stuff they found remnants of by poking at the data, amusingly)

I did consider using Privateer's, but I wasn't quite sure if that was released at the same time as the base game.

That being said, it's worth noting the speech pack had no bearing on gameplay, so it's a closer equivalent to SFxT additional costumes, which little to no one really seems to mind.

Well, yes. No-one really seems to mind because the DLC involved isn't very desirable - but that's a double-edged sword, because DLC needs to be desirable to, well, sell.

 

[Seanspeed]

The only on-disc DLC I'm ok with is if its incentive for buying new or pre-ordering. Everything else is just ripping us off.

 

[Saint Gregory]

Of course they can. They're the ones developing the software, they get to decide what they sell, when and at what price.
As a consumer, you only get to decide if the package is worth what you pay for, or not.

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. By not telling people prior to buying the game that these characters were intended to be on disc DLC they essentially gave them away for free.

 

[Venfayth]

I do feel ripped off, but I'm also glad I'll actually be able to see other people who are using the costumes I haven't purchased yet. That sucked in AE.

 

[behem0th x]

And they were right to whine about it, because it was wrong not to even give those who purchased the original game the ability to download the twelve characters.
Capcom pulled some bullshit excuse out of their ass why they decided not to do it, but lo and behold, SF vs Tekken will have 12 "DLC" characters. So yeah, in the end MvsC3 purchasers got shafted on this.

Thats pretty much the reason why SF4 will be the last fighting game from them that I will ever buy new @ $60. I raged way hard when they simply went and released a new game.

 

[Chev]

I'm sorry, I think there's considerable scope for streamlining the process. It shouldn't need to be this dumb. At the moment *everyone* is getting a slightly worse experience - developers *and* consumers alike - in order to fulfil the bureaucratic red-tape required to safeguard the developers' rights. I don't think that's how things ought to be. Ultimately... can't we do better?

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.

 

[Hero]

Interesting that people respond differently to IAP and in game currency as unlocks.

Would it be acceptable if Capcom sold extra characters for 5000 gold each, and sold gold as 'DLC/IAP'? Gold can be earned within the game, albeit at a rate of 5 gold per hour of active play.

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.

I'm curious as how you came to both of these 'conclusions' of yours since I don't see anyone responding to your inquiry about IAP or any of the other points you're claiming.