We take a look at Ubisoft's next iteration in the Far Cry universe to see just what is on offer
Badger Badger Badger - Far Cry 4 Reviewed
We chat with Blizzard RTS veteran Allen Dilling on the past, present and future of StarCraft!
StarCraft II: Legacy of the Void Developer Interview
The first expansion for Company of Heroes 2 has landed. How does one attack Adrennes Assault? Read our review to find out!
Company of Heroes 2: Adrennes Assault Review
Post by Steve Farrelly @ 11:27am 03/04/12 | 55 Comments
Capcom may have taken the on-disc DLC debate to new heights. Outraged over the revelation the publisher included locked content on-disc, at retail, to be unlocked as part of a future charged DLC release plan, consumers took their case to the Better Business Bureau (a consumer watchdog in the US) where Capcom responded with the following statement (thanks Gaming Blend).
At Capcom, we value our customers and make every effort to resolve customer complaints. We are sorry to hear that [censored] was so disappointed with the Street Fighter x Tekken game ("SFxT"), and would like to respond to his complaints.

SFxT has an enormous amount of content, fully developed and available for play and enjoyment immediately on-disc. Given the 38 characters available for full play, as well as multiple play modes, SFxT provides great value for all players from day one. While Capcom is sorry that some of its fans are not happy about the chosen method of delivery for the DLC, we believe that this method will provide more flexible and efficient gameplay throughout the game's lifecycle. There is effectively no distinction between the DLC being "locked" behind the disc and available for unlocking at a later date, or being available through a full download at a later date, other than delivery mechanism.

We hope that this addresses [censored]' concerns.
I highly doubt a total admittance of keeping completed content locked on a retail disc, to be released later, as part of an ongoing charging system for consumers "addresses" anyone's "concerns". Moreover, claiming that there's no "distinction" between on-disc locked content and content released digitally post-release is as brazen as the hackers who exposed the content in the first place. (They also released "how to" videos for people to get on board and expose Capcom's content model.)

The topic has never been hotter with EA also coming under fire recently for similar moves. Mass Effect 3, for example, had Day One content available for download (From Ashes) which irked consumers. BioWare, however, responded to the move with executive producer, Casey Hudson, revealing that "content creators [had] completed the game in January", and then immediately moved on to the From Ashes content, which they had completed in time for the game's retail release. (Thanks Gamespot.)

"It takes about three months from 'content complete' to bug-fix, certify, manufacture, and ship game discs," Hudson wrote on Twitter. "In that time we work on DLC. DLC has fast [certification] and no [manufacturing], so if a team works very hard, they can get a DLC done in time to enjoy it with your first playthrough on day one."

Chiming in on the subject, ex-BioWare designer, Christina Norman, spoke out at GDC defending the Day One content model and DLC in general.

"There's no point in releasing DLC a year after your game has come out when most people have already sold your game back to GameStop three times," she said at the conference (via ShackNews). "That means getting it out early; that means even day-one DLC. That is a terrible thing to some players. Players rant--they know nothing about this DLC that's coming out except its name. But then it's 'oh this game must be incomplete, the game must be ruined.' Game developers are not evil. (Some are evil.) But most are not evil.

"We just want to release awesome stuff," she concluded. "Players please, give us a chance. Judge our games based on what they are. Judge the DLC based on what it is. Stop thinking you're a producer and telling us when and where we should be building our content."

What this presents though, is a question of delivery and entitlement. There's absolutely no harm in continuing stories and gameplay for a game post-release, and Mass Effect 2 was an excellent example of this with meaty content at affordable prices, all well spaced out. And certainly there's some truth in Hudson's argument over the timing of a game's completion and the completion of extra content. Capcom's argument, however, is a little murkier. And when you consider they plan on unlocking their on-disc content for US$20, you have to start to question the motives of developers and publishers from a content perspective versus grabbing for money.

There was a time in the industry when you would earn locked characters by actually playing through the game. They were rewards for persistent players, not incentives with a price-tag.

By all means, drop us a line with your thoughts on the topic in Comments section below.



capcombiowaredlccontentstreet fighter x tekkenon-disc dlcday one dlc





Latest Comments
Khel
Posted 11:41am 03/4/12
See, Day 1 DLC like what Bioware did I can live with, cos what they say about having finished the game in January and working on DLC while waiting for it to go through certification, etc is probably true.

But to have the DLC on the disc, thats just blatantly removing parts of the game to sell later, because it would have had to be there when they sent the game off for certification and when it went off into production, so they have absolutely no defense, they developed it at the same time as the game, as part of the game, then locked it off. That sort of thing is pure dodgy bulls***.
greazy
Posted 11:50am 03/4/12
I thought DLC's had to go through a similar process to a completed game i.e getting certified, bug fixing and distribution agreement?

They are right in saying that there is no difference apart from the distribution method but that isn't what people are arguing about. It's whether what they are doing is ok or not.

In the end, they can do whatever they want, you should vote with your wallet (or with your inner pirate).
Herron
Posted 11:57am 03/4/12
That sort of thing is pure dodgy bulls***.


But the price you pay for is the product you have unlocked. If the DLC wasn't available on the disc then was the game suddenly less valuable?

ManJello
Posted 12:15pm 03/4/12
Excuse me for possibly being ignorant, but I was under the impression that DLC stood for Downloadable Content. Not Downloadable Unlocks.
ShwaMiller86
Posted 12:17pm 03/4/12
Didn't Activision do this with Black Ops?

I remember my mate asking me, "why was the first DLC pack only a couple of megabytes and the new pack is a gig?" - my only explanation for him was that the first pack must have been on the disk and the small file was some kind of authenticator/unlocker.

Does anyone have any clues on this? Who else does it? I mean, it's almost like Capcom's real crime is admitting they do it.
step
Posted 12:28pm 03/4/12
"Players please, give us a chance. Judge our games based on what they are. Judge the DLC based on what it is. Stop thinking you're a producer and telling us when and where we should be building our content."
What a douche.
demon
Posted 12:42pm 03/4/12
i rekn day one dlc for money is bulls***. all the bulls*** m$ points dlc in dirt3 gave me the s****. the game just isn't as good without the monty carlo dlc.

i'm gonna be following the dlc issues with me3 closely before i buy it. if it's too over the top i won't be buying it.

i'd say i'm gonna boycott capcom but i already do. if the dlc wasn't bad enough, telling their customers to shutup & accept it is fkn lame.
Reverend Evil
Posted 12:48pm 03/4/12
i rekn day one dlc for money is bulls***

Yeah. It's a bit of a slap in the face to people who are paying for your games. At least wait like a month or so if you're gonna charge for it.
Khel
Posted 12:48pm 03/4/12
I thought DLC's had to go through a similar process to a completed game i.e getting certified, bug fixing and distribution agreement?


Yeah, they'd still have to go through certification, but they don't have to be pressed onto discs and distributed or anything like that, since they just chuck it up online once its ready to go.

My point was more that, for Capcom's DLC to be on the disc, that means it was finished months before the game came out, because once its submitted for certification you can't change the game significantly or you need to get it re-certified. Which means that stuff they shipped on the disc was well and truly developed as part of the actual game, at the same time as the game.
parabol
Posted 12:54pm 03/4/12
BioWare, however, responded to the move with executive producer, Casey Hudson, revealing that "content creators [had] completed the game in January", and then immediately moved on to the From Ashes content, which they had completed in time for the game's retail release.

See, that actually makes sense. Whereas Capcom's justification is logically flawed.

Merely saying there is no distinction between on-disc and post-distribution DLC doesn't make it true.
Tollaz0r!
Posted 02:27pm 03/4/12
It is pretty obvious there is a distinction as many people are thoroughly irritated by it...
Raven
Posted 03:33pm 03/4/12
So can I get s***ted off at Microsoft for locking out features of Visual Studio or Office from the 'Standard' version when some of the 'Pro' features are right there on the disc?
Khel
Posted 03:38pm 03/4/12
Flimsy strawman is flimsy
d^
Posted 03:39pm 03/4/12
And this is why ladies and gentlemen you wait for the GOTY edition or similar. You miss out on nothing except playing on release.
Seven
Posted 03:42pm 03/4/12
They're not advertising two different versions for different prices though, they're saying they have post-release downloadable content. I see where you're coming from, but there is still a bit of deceit and tactlessness to this ploy.
parabol
Posted 03:47pm 03/4/12
So can I get s***ted off at Microsoft for locking out features of Visual Studio or Office from the 'Standard' version when some of the 'Pro' features are right there on the disc?

At first glance that seems like a valid analogy.

However the Pro features of Microsoft products which are developed upfront cost the full, normal price of the product - but you can buy scaled back versions if there are features you don't want. Capcom instead wants to charge the full, standard game price for the scaled-back version (it IS scaled back, as it used up the original development time, but was cut out and labelled 'DLC') and charge more overall for the complete package.

If the game cost $10 less at retail price for the DLC-less version, then the comparison would be fair.

last edited by parabol at 15:47:43 03/Apr/12
Herron
Posted 04:24pm 03/4/12
That's as stupid as people complaing about the ME3 ending and demanding change. You get what you pay for and that's the decision you make before buying the game. Why can't the developer create mods for later sale during the period spent on the release version? You don't pay for their time.

When the developer holds content back they run the risk of releasing a thin game but that's counter productive - or spending time on development that they won't get back if the original release is a flop.
Khel
Posted 04:54pm 03/4/12
So you're ok with them selling you a game, and then charging you more money to unlock the features of the game you just bought, that are right there on the disc of the game you just bought?

I don't hate DLC, I love DLC, but as other people have point out, this isn't DLC.
Dazhel
Posted 08:13pm 03/4/12

However the Pro features of Microsoft products which are developed upfront cost the full, normal price of the product - but you can buy scaled back versions if there are features you don't want. Capcom instead wants to charge the full, standard game price for the scaled-back version (it IS scaled back, as it used up the original development time, but was cut out and labelled 'DLC') and charge more overall for the complete package.


That's kinda splitting hairs. In both cases you pay $X to get something and $X+$Y to get something more. Each buyer is evaluating the value proposition in both instances.
Is SFxT without the extra content worth $X? If it is, is paying $Y more worth it for the extra content that's provided (call it whatever you want...DLC, unlocks, add-ons, expansions, etc)?

The root cause of why people are pissed off with this kind of shenanigans is that games makers are slowly getting away with a piecemeal chopping up of the gaming experience in order to charge more dollars while at the same time providing less value.
Raven
Posted 08:37pm 03/4/12
Exactly - but the problem is that people want as much as they can get for the lowest price. They know there's more content out there, they know stuff has been developed extra, they're just expecting to be given it as part of whatever price they paid.
Games seems to be the only thing this applies to. Noone seems concerned that Microsoft can take Office or Windows and put another higher price on a version with more features. Clearly they've developed those features the same way. Does anyone expect those be given to them at the Standard price when they want Pro features? Not really, at least if they do, they're not taken seriously.

Why should games be any different? What does it matter if they were shipped with the original version or shipped at a later date? Just because Rovio give you more Angry Birds levels every few months doesn't mean Blizzard should give you free access to the next WoW expansion.

All the same, publishers are entitled to charge whatever price for whatever portion of the content they want. If you don't like the portion of content you're getting, don't buy the product.
Tollaz0r!
Posted 09:07pm 03/4/12
Did Capcom tell people that the DLC was shipped on disk and you had to pay extra for it?
Khel
Posted 09:10pm 03/4/12
I'm going to assume Raven is just trolling, because surely you can't have that much trouble seeing why this is a bad thing.
Grundar
Posted 10:12pm 03/4/12
Everytime I see that Christina Norman quote I always think "Yeah the gaming public aren't publishing your games but sure as poo they will be responsible for another one getting made!" She clearly forgets that annoy enough gamers and they will just look elsewhere with their gaming dollar.

And I agree with d^, go with a GOTY edition/later release in these circumstances, prices are lower they generally bundle in the expansions(s) (well DLC nowdays).

Sadly for every decent DLC out there, you see a lot more crap and when a game seems to have content purposely omitted to be released as high priced DLC, it reduces the value you get from the initial purchase.
Herron
Posted 10:56pm 03/4/12
So you're ok with them selling you a game, and then charging you more money to unlock the features of the game you just bought, that are right there on the disc of the game you just bought?


It makes no difference if it's on the disc or not. You paid for what they said you get for your money. They didn't say you get Character X or Map Z before buying the game only to find out you have to pay extra to get access to it. That content was never part of the package you paid for.

Did Capcom tell people that the DLC was shipped on disk and you had to pay extra for it?


It sounds like it was hidden and only discovered by some hackers.
Tollaz0r!
Posted 11:26pm 03/4/12
Exactly, so it isn't the same as the above examples.
Blizzard
Posted 11:45pm 03/4/12
It isn't DLC if you don't have to download it.

It is PAYGUC, a term I just made up which stands for Pay As You Go Unlockable Content. Its like playing the first level of a game, then having to insert $10 into your disc drive to continue playing. You know there is a whole game on the disc, but for some reason you have to keep shelling out the cash.

You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig. Don't call it what it isn't.

I like DLC, I especially loved how Borderlands and DOW II: Retribution did it.
Khel
Posted 12:23am 04/4/12
It makes no difference if it's on the disc or not. You paid for what they said you get for your money. They didn't say you get Character X or Map Z before buying the game only to find out you have to pay extra to get access to it. That content was never part of the package you paid for.


So you're happy for games to be made that way? They make a whole game, and then cripple bits of it and cut bits out of it and make you pay to unlock them? I mean, this isn't extra content on top of the original game we're talking about here, this is part of the original product, locked off and held for ransom.
kos
Posted 01:03am 04/4/12
It makes no difference if it's on the disc or not. You paid for what they said you get for your money. They didn't say you get Character X or Map Z before buying the game only to find out you have to pay extra to get access to it. That content was never part of the package you paid for.

QFT.

Forget all the examples or analogies, it simply doesn't matter what's on the disc. They say you get X when you pay for the game and you get exactly X. Doesn't matter if they fill the rest of the disc with animal porn or with extra content that they may or may not charge you for later, it's not hurting you by existing. If you don't like how they did it then just don't pay for it later.

Fact is it's no different to actually downloadable DLC that was made before the game was released, only difference is that you know they made it before instead of after, and in the end it still has absolutely no effect on your life or your gaming.

Edit:
I mean, this isn't extra content on top of the original game we're talking about here, this is part of the original product, locked off and held for ransom.

Really? I thought the game in question was Street Fighter vs. Tekken and the unlockable extra content was novelty crap like Pacman?

Regardless, the way you describe it makes it sound like they promised it on the box then when you get it home you have to pay more to unlock it, which isn't the case. If they've crippled bits out of the full game then you should see that you are not getting a complete game at purchase and you simply shouldn't buy it.

So much flawed logic in this thread because people love to be outraged.
Dazhel
Posted 01:00am 04/4/12
this is part of the original product, locked off and held for ransom

What's the real difference between that and charging for day one DLC though? or charging for any DLC really?
Having some content ready before some arbitrary gold master date instead of some other arbitrary street release date?

I agree that slicing up games into smaller and smaller portions isn't a practice I like as a customer for a number of reasons. A big one is that it makes it much harder for customers and game reviewers to evaluate the full package and comment on whether each piece or all the pieces as a whole provide good value for money.

Selling extra content though, whether it's unlocked from the disc or downloadable at/after release or patched into the game as an expansion isn't necessarily good or bad thing, it just is what it is. If gamers don't agree with how capcom want to price the content they've created, or think they can get a better deal on a different game from some other publisher they certainly have the option of leaving SFxT on the shelf.
IVY_MiKe
Posted 01:42am 04/4/12
I don't really see the problem in including the content on the disc... provided that the original title is as it was advertised; who cares what else is on the disc?

I'd be pissed if I bought "Street Fighter x Tekken' and put the disc in, only to find I'm playing 'Street Fighter' and then had to pay more to unlock 'Tekken'... but I don't think that is the case.

Take some other examples:

One that I can readily think of is Gran Turismo 5 on PS3... when 'DLC' comes out... that month there is a HUUUUGE patch for all users (regardless of DLC purchase). In this case, I can only assume that everyone is 'forced' to download all the game assets/resources so you can see others in Multiplayer out on the track in their purchased cars. (but again, you're downloading tracks too, and you can't even get a glimpse of those unless you pay for them.)

As I see it, they are simply including 'other assets/resources' on the Disc... in days gone by I recall using map editors (think Warcraft 2, or C&C) and finding dozens of 'unused' assets, units that weren't used in the original title etc etc. Sure you can't do that on the console, but you've had to pay nothing extra, and can't access what you 'haven't paid to access'.

They're doing Aussies a favour... with our sucky metered internet access, should you buy it, you don't have to download it.
(who knows, maybe this keeps their operating costs down so they don't have to pay M$ or $ony to host this content on their digital download services.)
IVY_MiKe
Posted 01:51am 04/4/12
So you're happy for games to be made that way?


Khel, you seem to be mad about 's***** downloadable content' not the delivery method.

Say that 100% of the content on disc is 'SFxT' and then they lock 15% down, and try and on-sell it as 'DLC'... this seems to be what you're mad about (and I'd agree, that would suck massively)

look at it this way:
There's actually 115% content on the disc. You've paid for 100% of it, and then, the other 15% you can pay for later. (but don't have to download)


I'm pissed off at a lot of game companies for releasing really s***** DLC in general... 'here have an extra in-game toy for 5% of what you paid for the game; it will completely ruin this title (which in turn is amplified if it's a multiplayer game) but hey, pay the dosh and go on'

I'd like to see games attempt 'DLC' as what PC gamers have come to know as 'expansion packs'.
Now that I think of it, wow is a good example of that... (disregard the 'subscription' component of WOW charges, and their expansion packs are a great example of 'DLC'; the subscription part is a necessary evil for the management/maintenance of the infrastructure to run the game for it's player base as I see it..., not that I've ever played it.)
ian
Posted 10:15am 04/4/12
Under the Australian consumer and current affairs act, the owner of that disk now owns all contents of that game including the DLC. Game companies who use DLC are becoming way to greedy, like Mass Effect 3 and making you pay for day 1 content, which has a lot to do with the story. I usually stay away from games with DLC, apart from the fallout series cause there DLC is good and always worth the 10 dollars you pay. Yet other games with DLC just scream out a not complete game, if the game aint complete then why not, download it free from pirate bay?
Khel
Posted 10:31am 04/4/12
look at it this way:
There's actually 115% content on the disc. You've paid for 100% of it, and then, the other 15% you can pay for later. (but don't have to download)


But see, that doesn't make sense to me, because 100% of the game to me is the game that was developed over the product's development life cycle, which is the content on the disc, which I'm not getting all of. And it wasn't like they locked off a few characters, it was something like 20 characters on the disc which you couldn't play. Thats a pretty significant chunk of content to lock off, this isn't like "Pre-order and get a bonus outfit", this is a large chunk of the game that they are with-holding.

This is just so wrong, its so wrong that I don't even really know how to fully explain how wrong it is, its just one of those things I never assumed I would have to actually explain or argue strongly for, its just one of those things I assumed anybody who is a gamer would instinctively know is a bad thing.

I can't believe people are so happy to let this slide and let this stand as a precedent for the way games should be developed in the future. Its just so wrong, on so many levels, and I'm sitting here genuinely shocked that people are willing to accept it. Whats next, a remake of Quake where you have to pay extra to unlock the rocket launcher and the lightning gun? FPS games where you have to pay to unlock other levels to play on? RTS games where you have to pay to be able to build the more advanced units? This isn't DLC, this is paying for a game, and then paying more to get the rest of the game you have already purchased, and if this is the future of game development, and people are so happy to roll over and take it, then its not a very bright future.

What's the real difference between that and charging for day one DLC though? or charging for any DLC really?
Having some content ready before some arbitrary gold master date instead of some other arbitrary street release date?


Well, for a start, the content was ready looooooooooong before the gold master date, it was ready months before the game came out because it would have been in there before certification. The difference is a lot of Day 1 DLC is done outside of or on top of the product development cycle, its like "Ok, our game is finished, its off to certification, we now have another 2 or 3 months to kill before it comes out and a whole team of people with nothing really to do except fix bugs if certification fails, so hey, lets make some more game". I'm ok with that, and I'm ok with paying for that, because thats something above and beyond the original product. They're delivering a complete game to me, and then they're delivering MORE game on top of that, as far as I'm concerned, thats a good thing.

On the other hand, the way Capcom do it is they develop a fighting game with a roster of 60 characters, then at the end of development before it goes off to certification they pick which 20 of those characters they're going to hide as "DLC", then they ship the game off for certification and laugh in a really superior way while smoking cigars and sipping cognac and stroking white cats.

Don't get me wrong, I love DLC, I'm always the guy who sticks up for DLC when people have a go at it. Games like Mass Effect 2, Fallout 3, Alan Wake, they had fantastic DLC. The difference being they delivered a complete game, and then they followed it up with more game. I'm happy to pay for that, because its above and beyond the original game that was delivered. Like Mortal Kombat, there was a fighting game that delivered new characters in a way that worked. They delivered a full game, with a full roster of characters, then over the following months they made more and released them as DLC.

This is lazy on Capcom's behalf, and a breach of trust. As a gamer, you trust they're going to do their best to deliver a full game to you, but in this case, they haven't, they've delivered two thirds of a game to you and locked the rest behind a payment gateway. If the game was cheaper as a result, like two thirds the price of a normal game then you can buy the other characters if you want them, then sure, that'd be good, and in fact even sounds like a pretty interesting idea. Hell, make a free to play fighting game where you have to buy ALL the characters, and let the player buy the ones he wants to play, that sounds like a pretty awesome idea. But it isn't that, its a full price for what essentially is not a full game. And people are happy to support this business model? For shame.
Raven
Posted 11:16am 04/4/12
But see, that doesn't make sense to me, because 100% of the game to me is the game that was developed over the product's development life cycle, which is the content on the disc, which I'm not getting all of.

Which is just plain wrong.

Going by your argument, are you also entitled to all other content that studio developed at the time - including expansion packs if they were working on them, or other games?

This whole thing just reads as greed to me on the part of gamers who are expecting to be given everything for free.

Clearly they have delivered a 'full' game. You just expect the world.
eski
Posted 11:37am 04/4/12
In theory I have no problem with this. They pay a team to develop the game, they pay another team to make the DLC. The development of the DLC is independent of the main game development. The DLC is an addition to the game, not a subtraction.
Hogfather
Posted 12:04pm 04/4/12
The QQ is strong over this issue.

If the released game (or its DLC, or its unlocks, or its subscription model) isn't good value then don't buy it. There's a whole industry (HI AGN) set up to help you with this evaluation.
Khel
Posted 12:28pm 04/4/12
I didn't buy it, don't intend to buy it, and in the light of this probably wont buy any more Capcom games in the future. I'm just very concerned about the precedent its setting and how content gamers are to roll over and be shafted these days. What the hell happened?!?

In theory I have no problem with this. They pay a team to develop the game, they pay another team to make the DLC. The development of the DLC is independent of the main game development. The DLC is an addition to the game, not a subtraction.


I have no problem with that either. But thats not what happened in this case.

Going by your argument, are you also entitled to all other content that studio developed at the time - including expansion packs if they were working on them, or other games?


No, because thats stupid. I'm obviously talking about one specific game in my examples, not everything the studio was doing on every game and project they're working on.

Clearly they have delivered a 'full' game. You just expect the world.


I don't want the world, I just want your half.
Hogfather
Posted 02:38pm 04/4/12
I'm just very concerned about the precedent its setting and how content gamers are to roll over and be shafted these days. What the hell happened?!?

typo
Posted 03:20pm 04/4/12
So you're happy for games to be made that way? They make a whole game, and then cripple bits of it and cut bits out of it and make you pay to unlock them? I mean, this isn't extra content on top of the original game we're talking about here, this is part of the original product, locked off and held for ransom.


Here's the argument from the other side:

* You tell your customers that you are going to sell a product that has features { a, b, c}
* Customers find this acceptable, and purchase your product.

Is it relevant that you actually made features {a, b, c, d, e, f}? It isn't apart of the social, or legal, contract between the customers and the content producers. They promised {a, b, c}, but actually invested in {d, e, f} as well. Should they be forced to include those extra features for free? Why?

What happens if features {d, e, f} were actually features for future games? That is, using game engines for an example, you create an engine that has amazing support for FPS games (features {a, b, c}), but also for RTS (features {d, e, f}), and so the next game (an RTS) would be really fast to develop. Is that wrong?

If that's okay, what is the core difference with advertising a game that has characters {a, b, c} but also develop characters {d, e, f}, with the intention of selling them later?

Now, don't get me wrong here. If the developer promised to make features {a, ..., f} but after you bought it you discovered that they only delivered {a, b, c}, and you would need to pay more for {d, e, f}, that is wrong.
IVY_MiKe
Posted 05:25pm 04/4/12
Khel seems to be getting upset because the 'game was made, then crippled'.

If that's the case, then sure, it's pathetic.

But if 'SFxT' (which I have no intention of playing FWIW) is a solid stand alone title without the DLC, there shouldn't be a problem.

I'll try to use another 'hypothetical' game title.

Say it was 'Mortal Kombat Vs Street Fighter' and the game included all of the MK and SF characters, and locations.
Then the DLC 'Tekken' arrives; yip yah! I have an extra chunk of content! (regardless of whether or not it is 'on disc' or not)

IF however the game is 'Mortal Kombat Vs Street Fighter' and it only includes say the cast of the original Mortal Kombat and Street Fighter games respectively... then the 'DLC' is the 'rest of the cast'; well I think that's lame, but frankly Capcom have done that sorta s*** before...
At this point, I say 'vote with your money'

As for 'ian':
Under the Australian consumer and current affairs act, the owner of that disk now owns all contents of that game including the DLC. ...


Can you please cite that reference? coz I'm pretty sure there's a little thing you may have heard of called a 'EULA' which states pretty clearly that all of the intellectual property belonging to that software in *no way* belongs to you, and that you aren't to reverse engineer, or illegitimately modify any of said content to profiteer on. (or words to that effect).
Sure you own the disc it came on, but you can't then 're-print' that content and on sell it... that's not how this 'legally' works mate.
eski
Posted 05:38pm 04/4/12
EULAs dont override local laws
Whoop
Posted 05:48pm 04/4/12
But if 'SFxT' (which I have no intention of playing FWIW) is a solid stand alone title without the DLC, there shouldn't be a problem.
So you're happy to pay $100 for a game that essentially has half its finished content removed, only to have to pay another $30 or whatever later on?

What if this was windows? What if you had paid $400 for the "ultimate" version of windows, only to find all it did was basic file management? It's still a fully functional standalone OS but half the s*** has been removed and you still have to pay another $100 to unlock the "ultimate" features.

I'm sure everyone would kick up one hell of a stink in that case.
Khel
Posted 06:35pm 04/4/12
Khel seems to be getting upset because the 'game was made, then crippled'.


Yes, thats exactly it. Just to cite specifics, heres the characters that are on the disc but locked off until you pay extra for them:

- Sakura
- Lars
- Blanka
- Alisa
- Guy
- Bryan
- Cody
- Jack-X
- Elena
- Christie
- Dudley
- Lei

Thats not just a few gimmicky characters, thats some core characters from both the series.


* You tell your customers that you are going to sell a product that has features { a, b, c}
* Customers find this acceptable, and purchase your product.


I dunno, I guess I'm just an idealist, or not an a******, but if I was making a game and planned to develop a game which had a feature set of { a, b, c }, and then I found out I had time to add even more features and make it more awesome and develop a feature set of { a, b, c, d, e, f} in the same time, then I'd deliver the game with the expanded feature set and blow people away so they'd be OH MY F*****G GOD THIS IS F*****G AWESOME. Instead, Capcom obviously just saw it as a matter of "Well people are only expecting the bare minimum anyway, so we can lock the rest of these characters off and charge extra and nobody is missing out".

I guess it depends whether you're coming from a position of just wanting to make as much money as possible, or a position of wanting to make the best games possible. Personally, I have a passion for games, and I'm more about making quality games and I have more respect for studios who have the same goals. I have no respect for studios like Capcom who just don't give a f*** about their audience and just want to milk every dollar they can out of them.
Dazhel
Posted 07:03pm 04/4/12
Yeah, it's unfortunate but that's what happens when the suits get involved in the games biz.
It's a somewhat douchy move to exclude content that they probably could have easily provided as part of the package, but at the same time it's their prerogative.

It's rare to find game companies out there that don't seem to enjoy sticking it to their customers, Capcom isn't unique in that regard.
e.g. Zynga makes games that are mathematically designed to extract as much cash from you as you'll let them. Ubisoft makes games that need an always on internet connection even in single player. EA creates game series only to serve up the same game year after year after year, etc.
greazy
Posted 07:03pm 04/4/12
You're a bit crazy Khel to think less of a company that wants to make more money from their target demographic. I don't know why you expect the gaming industry to be above such tactics. Massive d*** move, the question is are you going to buy the game?
Khel
Posted 07:14pm 04/4/12
I'm not against companies that want to make money, but when making money becomes more important than making good games, I'm against that. Its probably a bit idealistic, but f*** it, I'd rather be an idealist than the alternative in this case. And yeah, I hate this trend of crippled games that let you pay your way to success via microtransactions too, but thats a whole new rant :P

Yeah its their prerogative, they can make their games however they want, I just think its a s*** way of making games, and I was suprised so many people seem happy to swallow it. I guess its not so much a matter of expecting the game industry to be above it, as expecting people to be more discerning about accepting it. Especially on a forum full of passionate gamers, I expected more outrage against getting screwed and less acceptance.

And no, I'm not buying the game, it never really interested me even before this DLC controversy, but now I'm definitely not buying it. In fact, I don't think I'll buy anymore Capcom games full stop. Yeah yeah, I know thats not going to make a difference in the grand scheme of things and they're still going to get rich and swim around in their money pools, but its just a matter of principle, and I wouldn't be able to in good conscience talk all this s*** if I wasn't willing to back it up.

And Mortal Kombat sold more copies than all the Capcom fighting games released over the past few years combined, so thats gotta say something for making quality games over trying to make a quick buck.
Khel
Posted 07:18pm 04/4/12
Yeah, I talk a lot of s***, and sometimes its just cos I'm bored and want to argue with someone, but this is just genuinely s***. Whether its their right to do it or not, that doesn't matter, and whether its good business practise or not, who cares. For gaming, and for gamers, this is bad.
Dazhel
Posted 07:37pm 04/4/12
You weren't going to buy it before, you're *definitely* not going to buy it now & you're definitely not going to buy something that you may or may not have bought in the future? That'll show Capcom how serious the issue is!
;)

sometimes its just cos I'm bored and want to argue with someone, but this is just genuinely s***

That's OK, I'm unsurprised at the sneaky s*** big games companies pull these days and felt like arguing the opposite side. Don't mistake my indifference for acceptance though, I'm not planning on buying it either. Long term I can't see the trend as being particularly good for customers, that we can agree on.
Khel
Posted 09:23pm 04/4/12
You weren't going to buy it before, you're *definitely* not going to buy it now & you're definitely not going to buy something that you may or may not have bought in the future? That'll show Capcom how serious the issue is!


Damn straight! Feel my fury!
typo
Posted 09:57pm 04/4/12
For gaming, and for gamers, this is bad.


What's bad is the rise of large gaming publishers with billions of dollars at their disposal. They aren't in it for the passion, or the experience. They are in it to exploit as much as they can from their consumers.

Actually, an example of what is wrong with the entire mind set of game developers is the CTO of Sony at E3 last year. He came out and said something along the lines of (to paraphrase): "I'd like to thank you, our consumers, for supporting our brand during this time of trouble."

Your not a person, player, or gamer. They don't even have the privilege of having you as their customer. You're a consumer, and they have to bribe you to stay loyal. Hell, they aren't even a gaming company, or a publisher. They consider themselves a brand. That's the mindset that operates here.

So, when they make a social (and legal) contract that says they are going to deliver a game with the features {a, b, c} that is all they are obliged to do, and their right.

I was making a game and planned to develop a game which had a feature set of { a, b, c }, and then I found out I had time to add even more features and make it more awesome and develop a feature set of { a, b, c, d, e, f} in the same time, then


You'd get fired.

When you sink tens/hundreds of millions of dollars in a game, you need to know what you're going to try to deliver before you strike a single line of code. If you quoted that N million dollars would produce X features, but you you discovered that it could actually produce 2X features half way through, they don't want you on their team.


Now, I suspect you know how I personally feel on the issue. The people that are the problem are the people who invest the money, and don't want to take any risks.
CHUB
Posted 10:11pm 04/4/12
I expected more outrage against getting screwed and less acceptance.
No need to rage, just show them with your $$.

I'll be skipping this now.
Superform
Posted 10:36pm 04/4/12
"We just want to release awesome stuff," she concluded. "Players please, give us a chance. Judge our games based on what they are. Judge the DLC based on what it is. Stop thinking you're a producer and telling us when and where we should be building our content."


this kinda blew my mind..

what an arrogant c***
greazy
Posted 11:46am 05/4/12
I'm not against companies that want to make money, but when making money becomes more important than making good games, I'm against that. Its probably a bit idealistic, but f*** it, I'd rather be an idealist than the alternative in this case.
I think it's nearly always about making as much money as possible, even the indie companies set out to make a game, not just to make one but to strike gold and make millions.

Good you're voting with your wallet!
Raven
Posted 11:56am 05/4/12
this kinda blew my mind..

what an arrogant c***

bahahaha, I laughed reading that. That's awesome that they'd have the gall to put out such a response. Props from me here :D
typo
Posted 03:03pm 05/4/12
I think it's nearly always about making as much money as possible, even the indie companies set out to make a game, not just to make one but to strike gold and make millions.


In regards to Indy developers: It's disingenuous to suggest that Khel, or anybody else, is asserting, or even making implications, that they believe indy gamers aren't hoping to strike it rich.

However, what Khel is arguing for is the idea that the people who get into Game Development to /make/ games - Artists, Developers, Designers - do it out of creative passion as well as hoping to make money. How can I state this so clearly? Because with the amount of raw talent that the people with high technical skill have, they could make more money making boring iPhone applications, or collaboration tools for banks.

If you go out and ask Indy developers what they would want if they didn't have to worry about money, they almost always answer "I'd make games". Why? Because they want to play the games they make.
Commenting has been locked for this item.
55 Comments
Show