Because if it was on the disc, it gives off the impression that it is content that would have been part of the regular game if DLC wasn't a thing.
Which could be true or not true. But it's a very real possibility that it is content specifically witheld from the main game to nickel and dime people, and not additional content that was never meant to be part of the core game. And with the way Capcom operates, it is not an illogical conclusion to come to.
Did anyone mention that Sony is giving away a free Vita game tomorrow to all Vita owners in the US? Supposed to be one of the better games at that (Motorstorm RC - has 82% on Gamerankings). Quite a nice bonus/incentive for early adopters.
Because if it was on the disc, it gives off the impression that it is content that would have been part of the regular game if DLC wasn't a thing.
Which could be true or not true. But it's a very real possibility that it is content specifically witheld from the main game to nickel and dime people, and not additional content that was never meant to be part of the core game. And with the way Capcom operates, it is not an illogical conclusion to come to.
Exactly. And this is only exasperated by the fact that the "DLC" was finished and ready to go at the same time as the main game. And the fact that one console gets the DLC unlocked for free.
If Capcom wants to run this nickel and dime bullshit pony show, they should try out a F2P model. No one enjoys being told they have to pay a good bit of real money for the mission 25% of the roster for the game they just paid $60 for.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
The whole game was held back to nickel and dime you, instead of just being released as freeware. Why is it all right to charge for one chunk of it but not okay to charge for another, smaller chunk of it?
It could very well be that all the relevant media was on the disc, but they weren't able to finish the programming on the dlc characters before the game went gold (probably not, though)
Did anyone mention that Sony is giving away a free Vita game tomorrow to all Vita owners in the US? Supposed to be one of the better games at that (Motorstorm RC - has 82% on Gamerankings). Quite a nice bonus/incentive for early adopters.
And yet people with a PS3 get nothing. Screw you and your nickel and diming, Sony.
It could very well be that all the relevant media was on the disc, but they weren't able to finish the programming on the dlc characters before the game went gold (probably not, though)
This was the case in RE5 with the Versus mode, but the main difference is that Capcom is not using that as the explanation. Instead, they're using a bullshit "compatibility" excuse that's been objectively wrong since at least Burnout Paradise.
The whole game was held back to nickel and dime you, instead of just being released as freeware. Why is it all right to charge for one chunk of it but not okay to charge for another, smaller chunk of it?
Dlc is suppose to be additional content to the original game that's released to reward customers by adding new use out of an old game. Now, it's become commonplace for doc to be planned before the game's release, but to complete the dlc, put it on the game disc, and then release the ability to unlock it months after the game is released is a betrayal of trust. Dlc is meant to reward customers with additional content because of the games success, not remove content that should be part of the game if it's on the disc.
Oh, man. I honestly can't believe people can be so stubborn in their convictions that getting thoroughly dicked over is a good thing. It's all Stockholm Syndrome up in here.
I always find it funny when people do mental gymnastics to explain why they don't mind getting dicked over. You just haven't thought about it from the other end guys!
It could very well be that all the relevant media was on the disc, but they weren't able to finish the programming on the dlc characters before the game went gold (probably not, though)
This was the case in RE5 with the Versus mode, but the main difference is that Capcom is not using that as the explanation. Instead, they're using a bullshit "compatibility" excuse that's been objectively wrong since at least Burnout Paradise.
Didn't Mortal Kombat have a huge problem with its DLC in this regard? Like, people would buy the DLC (that wasn't on the disc) and have problems playing against people who didn't have the DLC because it required the latter folks to download a compatibility patch. Maybe Capcom's explanation is bullshit, maybe it isn't, but compatibility among players isn't necessarily a shitty excuse for on-disc DLC on its face. Seems like it kind of depends on how the game is set up.
The whole game was held back to nickel and dime you, instead of just being released as freeware. Why is it all right to charge for one chunk of it but not okay to charge for another, smaller chunk of it?
Dlc is suppose to be additional content to the original game that's released to reward customers by adding new use out of an old game. Now, it's become commonplace for doc to be planned before the game's release, but to complete the dlc, put it on the game disc, and then release the ability to unlock it months after the game is released is a betrayal of trust. Dlc is meant to reward customers with additional content because of the games success, not remove content that should be part of the game if it's on the disc.
DLC isn't supposed to be anything other than a way for gamers who like a game and want more of it to purchase more of it. Or I guess for gamers who don't like a game and are feeling particularly insane to purchase more of it. It exists as an option for developers to offer, and they have no inherent moral obligations to offer or not offer that option.
It does not matter if you think this is a mechanically superior way to do DLC. It doesn't even matter if you happen to be right about that fact. It's a psychological issue. Consumer orders product, Retailer gives them product +extra and says "If you want the extra, you can pay more". The default response will be "But you're giving me the extra already. Why should I pay for it?". Instead you give them just the product and say "If you want the extra, you can pay more". And then pull the extra out from under the shelf. Then the consumer actually thinks he's getting extra, rather than feeling like he's having to pay for something he's already getting. That's just how society and people work.
In the first scenario, the customer hears "You can't have this unless you pay more".
In the second scenario, the customer hears "You can have this if you pay more".
You can't unless... vs You can if...
The second is always more appealing to people. It doesn't matter one bit if the first one is easiest for everybody.
The Wolfman on
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
It does not matter if you think this is a mechanically superior way to do DLC. It doesn't even matter if you happen to be right about that fact. It's a psychological issue. Consumer orders product, Retailer gives them product +extra and says "If you want the extra, you can pay more". The default response will be "But you're giving me the extra already. Why should I pay for it?". Instead you give them just the product and say "If you want the extra, you can pay more". And then pull the extra out from under the shelf. Then the consumer actually thinks he's getting extra, rather than feeling like he's having to pay for something he's already getting. That's just how society and people work.
In the first scenario, the customer hears "You can't have this unless you pay more".
In the second scenario, the customer hears "You can have this if you pay more".
You can't unless... vs You can if...
The second is always more appealing to people. It doesn't matter one bit if the first one is easiest for everybody.
I agree completely, it looks worse to people who aren't willing to consider it objectively. Which is why I said that it's a maturity issue.
It does not matter if you think this is a mechanically superior way to do DLC. It doesn't even matter if you happen to be right about that fact. It's a psychological issue. Consumer orders product, Retailer gives them product +extra and says "If you want the extra, you can pay more". The default response will be "But you're giving me the extra already. Why should I pay for it?". Instead you give them just the product and say "If you want the extra, you can pay more". And then pull the extra out from under the shelf. Then the consumer actually thinks he's getting extra, rather than feeling like he's having to pay for something he's already getting. That's just how society and people work.
In the first scenario, the customer hears "You can't have this unless you pay more".
In the second scenario, the customer hears "You can have this if you pay more".
You can't unless... vs You can if...
The second is always more appealing to people. It doesn't matter one bit if the first one is easiest for everybody.
I agree completely, it looks worse to people who aren't willing to consider it objectively. Which is why I said that it's a maturity issue.
It's not a maturity issue though. It's a society issue.
If everybody felt about it the same way as you, I'm sure the world would be a better place. But they don't. So it is what it is.
"The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
There needs to be another word for what we are talking about too as it feels weird to be referring to this as "Downloadable Content." Disk Locked Crap? Damn Lucrative Content? Dicking Loyal Customers?
It could very well be that all the relevant media was on the disc, but they weren't able to finish the programming on the dlc characters before the game went gold (probably not, though)
This was the case in RE5 with the Versus mode, but the main difference is that Capcom is not using that as the explanation. Instead, they're using a bullshit "compatibility" excuse that's been objectively wrong since at least Burnout Paradise.
Didn't Mortal Kombat have a huge problem with its DLC in this regard? Like, people would buy the DLC (that wasn't on the disc) and have problems playing against people who didn't have the DLC because it required the latter folks to download a compatibility patch. Maybe Capcom's explanation is bullshit, maybe it isn't, but compatibility among players isn't necessarily a shitty excuse for on-disc DLC on its face. Seems like it kind of depends on how the game is set up.
Bolded edited text.
I also had a problem with the way Netherealm handled their DLC. If you're going to submit DLC, submit obligatory free DLC, and do not let people without either the paid or free versions play with people that have the content.
And DLC like this comes across as not something made to allow people who like the core game to purchase more of it, but instead something that would have been part of that core game had DLC not been a good option and was held back on purpose simply because they can.
Which may or may not be true. A company isn't going to fess up if they do it, so we can only speculate. And with a company like Capcom, with their frequent obvious money grabs and low regard for their fanbase, it's not a very massive leap in logic to come to that conclusion.
Honda releases a car that comes with a CD player inside of it. The player only works if you pay the CD player unlocking code. But the entire time an owner owns the car, the CD player is in the car. The only thing that keeps it from working is the unlock code. Does this sound sane?
I think jothki just read Ayn Rand for the first time. Don't worry. This will pass.
People are upset about this because it's a breaking of the norm in a way that is objectively worse for consumers. No, Capcom does not owe its customers shit. If it operates from that basis, though, it's being a shitty company.
If a company puts profit above offering its customers the best product/service they have available, and then they announce that fact, they're going to get some flack.
I think the problem is a general one with how people view companies. Companies exist to make a profit, but that profit exists entirely because of their customers. Instead of realizing this and being honest and fair to their customers, companies betray their trust. Instead of acting as if they owe their entire existance to consumers they act as if the reverse is true. And consumers eat that attitude up.
It does not matter if you think this is a mechanically superior way to do DLC. It doesn't even matter if you happen to be right about that fact. It's a psychological issue. Consumer orders product, Retailer gives them product +extra and says "If you want the extra, you can pay more". The default response will be "But you're giving me the extra already. Why should I pay for it?". Instead you give them just the product and say "If you want the extra, you can pay more". And then pull the extra out from under the shelf. Then the consumer actually thinks he's getting extra, rather than feeling like he's having to pay for something he's already getting. That's just how society and people work.
In the first scenario, the customer hears "You can't have this unless you pay more".
In the second scenario, the customer hears "You can have this if you pay more".
You can't unless... vs You can if...
The second is always more appealing to people. It doesn't matter one bit if the first one is easiest for everybody.
I agree completely, it looks worse to people who aren't willing to consider it objectively. Which is why I said that it's a maturity issue.
Have you noticed that you are the only one on Capcom's side? I wouldn't consider this a maturity issue.
This is a situation where you are on one side, everyone else is on the other side, and the discussion is just going to go around in circles until you leave the computer or some other shiny story comes along.
I think jothki is the only one making any sense here.
looking at the 12 held back, most if not all don't fall into regular tournament rosters. These are the definite b tier dudes.
Odds are if they weren't planning to sell them later, they wouldn't have been made at all.
Decry that all you will, I know people like to get upset about how a company chooses to sell their goods.
In the end, would it have been better for them to not exist at all? This was clearly something budgeted for. Without even knowing the price the outrage is even goosier.
Keep on getting outraged though. Or just don't buy it.
I think jothki is the only one making any sense here.
looking at the 12 held back, most if not all don't fall into regular tournament rosters. These are the definite b tier dudes.
Odds are if they weren't planning to sell them later, they wouldn't have been made at all.
Decry that all you will, I know people like to get upset about how a company chooses to sell their goods.
In the end, would it have been better for them to not exist at all? This was clearly something budgeted for. Without even knowing the price the outrage is even goosier.
Keep on getting outraged though. Or just don't buy it.
I defend DLC all the time. I appreciate console games getting more content after they go gold, like PC games have gotten for years. However, this is content that was created and finished before the game went gold and placed on the disk that is being purchased. I don't have to pay extra for the special track on a CD or pay extra to unlock the extended scenes on the Bluray I own.
But even beyond all that, the argument is so that everyone can play together without the content being downloaded. Which makes no sense considering that you have to connect to the Internet to play online, so downloading the content shouldn't be a problem, and characters do not take up a lot of space.
It does not matter if you think this is a mechanically superior way to do DLC. It doesn't even matter if you happen to be right about that fact. It's a psychological issue. Consumer orders product, Retailer gives them product +extra and says "If you want the extra, you can pay more". The default response will be "But you're giving me the extra already. Why should I pay for it?". Instead you give them just the product and say "If you want the extra, you can pay more". And then pull the extra out from under the shelf. Then the consumer actually thinks he's getting extra, rather than feeling like he's having to pay for something he's already getting. That's just how society and people work.
In the first scenario, the customer hears "You can't have this unless you pay more".
In the second scenario, the customer hears "You can have this if you pay more".
You can't unless... vs You can if...
The second is always more appealing to people. It doesn't matter one bit if the first one is easiest for everybody.
I agree completely, it looks worse to people who aren't willing to consider it objectively. Which is why I said that it's a maturity issue.
Have you noticed that you are the only one on Capcom's side? I wouldn't consider this a maturity issue.
This is a situation where you are on one side, everyone else is on the other side, and the discussion is just going to go around in circles until you leave the computer or some other shiny story comes along.
But it's the internet, and you're wrong!
It just feels like people aren't tackling the issue rationally. If you're annoyed by having the existence of the DLC waved in front of you (but not really, since Capcom tried to keep it hidden), then fine. But there's no reason to paint Capcom as a villain just because they're pursuing a perfectly legitimate release strategy. There is no "problem" for anyone to be a part of besides Capcom possibly losing annoyed (rationally or not) customers, and that's for them to deal with.
I think the problem is a general one with how people view companies. Companies exist to make a profit, but that profit exists entirely because of their customers. Instead of realizing this and being honest and fair to their customers, companies betray their trust. Instead of acting as if they owe their entire existance to consumers they act as if the reverse is true. And consumers eat that attitude up.
Right but the problem is that making games isn't really a high profitability enterprise.
The key about DLC, whether downloadable or not, is that it allows publishers to engage in price discrimination (i.e. charge customers that are willing to pay more more) and thus maximize their revenue. It's basically the same reason that popcorn costs so much in theaters. It's not that they are trying to rip you off, it's that putting extra people in the theater doesn't cost them more money so they don't want to raise the ticket price so high that cheap people don't go to the movies at all but they want to get extra money from those that feel like splurging on a night out.
In the case of games, I think that DLC is a superior business model if for no other reason then because a lot of people don't finish game. But I think the pricing isn't flexible enough. They should have lowered the price of new games to get more people to buy then try to get more money via DLC from the types that would have bought at $60.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
Isn't this Capcom DLC essentially the same concept as the "Online Pass" offered by every other publisher? The only difference seems to be that around here the Online Pass concept is overwhelmingly seen as a GOOD thing to lock out the content on the disc behind a paywall because used games are screwing over the game developers.
It does not matter if you think this is a mechanically superior way to do DLC. It doesn't even matter if you happen to be right about that fact. It's a psychological issue. Consumer orders product, Retailer gives them product +extra and says "If you want the extra, you can pay more". The default response will be "But you're giving me the extra already. Why should I pay for it?". Instead you give them just the product and say "If you want the extra, you can pay more". And then pull the extra out from under the shelf. Then the consumer actually thinks he's getting extra, rather than feeling like he's having to pay for something he's already getting. That's just how society and people work.
In the first scenario, the customer hears "You can't have this unless you pay more".
In the second scenario, the customer hears "You can have this if you pay more".
You can't unless... vs You can if...
The second is always more appealing to people. It doesn't matter one bit if the first one is easiest for everybody.
I agree completely, it looks worse to people who aren't willing to consider it objectively. Which is why I said that it's a maturity issue.
Have you noticed that you are the only one on Capcom's side? I wouldn't consider this a maturity issue.
This is a situation where you are on one side, everyone else is on the other side, and the discussion is just going to go around in circles until you leave the computer or some other shiny story comes along.
But it's the internet, and you're wrong!
It just feels like people aren't tackling the issue rationally. If you're annoyed by having the existence of the DLC waved in front of you (but not really, since Capcom tried to keep it hidden), then fine. But there's no reason to paint Capcom as a villain just because they're pursuing a perfectly legitimate release strategy. There is no "problem" for anyone to be a part of besides Capcom possibly losing annoyed (rationally or not) customers, and that's for them to deal with.
I can agree with part of this. If the strategy makes money for Capcom and doesn't turn away too many potential customers then good for their executives. They just grabbed more cash out of the same development cost which gives them a higher percent return.
If it backfires, like I wish it would, then maybe they learn a lesson. I know I won't buy it and I'll be curious if Tekken X Street Fighter does the same thing.
Isn't this Capcom DLC essentially the same concept as the "Online Pass" offered by every other publisher? The only difference seems to be that around here the Online Pass concept is overwhelmingly seen as a GOOD thing to lock out the content on the disc behind a paywall because used games are screwing over the game developers.
No
No, it's not the same thing at all, as this is affecting new buyers as well
New buyers are the ones that publishers supposedly like. Supposedly.
Damn Allforce, I've seen you bitch about online passes a lot before, is this why? Did you really have that crazy-ass misconception that they were making new purchasers pay a ten-dollar fee to unlock the online mode?
I think jothki is the only one making any sense here.
looking at the 12 held back, most if not all don't fall into regular tournament rosters. These are the definite b tier dudes.
Odds are if they weren't planning to sell them later, they wouldn't have been made at all.
Decry that all you will, I know people like to get upset about how a company chooses to sell their goods.
In the end, would it have been better for them to not exist at all? This was clearly something budgeted for. Without even knowing the price the outrage is even goosier.
Keep on getting outraged though. Or just don't buy it.
I defend DLC all the time. I appreciate console games getting more content after they go gold, like PC games have gotten for years. However, this is content that was created and finished before the game went gold and placed on the disk that is being purchased. I don't have to pay extra for the special track on a CD or pay extra to unlock the extended scenes on the Bluray I own.
But even beyond all that, the argument is so that everyone can play together without the content being downloaded. Which makes no sense considering that you have to connect to the Internet to play online, so downloading the content shouldn't be a problem, and characters do not take up a lot of space.
it doesn't really matter when they made it. They made it to be dlc and it wouldn't have been made otherwise.
Last I checked, Sony still makes publishers pay for bandwidth. So they'd have to charge more to make the planned profit.
Maybe this was the characters will end up reasonably cheaper. We won't know though.
chocobolicious on
0
Options
minor incidentexpert in a dying fieldnjRegistered Userregular
The worst thing I can think of from an EA Sports game:
Recently I've been playing a lot of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 12. In that game's career mode, it will take you through the season and through different tournaments, and during the season some tournaments will be blocked out and it'll inform you that you don't have the course required, and that you should pay to download it. It was available day one. These are actual downloads, however, not content unlocks. But still. I don't mind if they have a bunch of DLC courses, just please don't advertise the fact that I'm missing them during the main campaign of your game.
I still really enjoy the game, and it has plenty to it (aside from the Masters course at Augusta, it has 14 additional courses and the career mode is lengthy so it's not hurting for content). But something about not letting me participate in certain tournaments really bugs me. They should just slide those tournaments into the career mode accordingly if you choose to pay for them.
Posts
Which could be true or not true. But it's a very real possibility that it is content specifically witheld from the main game to nickel and dime people, and not additional content that was never meant to be part of the core game. And with the way Capcom operates, it is not an illogical conclusion to come to.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Zeboyd Games Development Blog
Steam ID : rwb36, Twitter : Werezompire, Facebook : Zeboyd Games
I continue to be very glad I got a Vita.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
Exactly. And this is only exasperated by the fact that the "DLC" was finished and ready to go at the same time as the main game. And the fact that one console gets the DLC unlocked for free.
If Capcom wants to run this nickel and dime bullshit pony show, they should try out a F2P model. No one enjoys being told they have to pay a good bit of real money for the mission 25% of the roster for the game they just paid $60 for.
And yet people with a PS3 get nothing. Screw you and your nickel and diming, Sony.
This was the case in RE5 with the Versus mode, but the main difference is that Capcom is not using that as the explanation. Instead, they're using a bullshit "compatibility" excuse that's been objectively wrong since at least Burnout Paradise.
Twitter
Dlc is suppose to be additional content to the original game that's released to reward customers by adding new use out of an old game. Now, it's become commonplace for doc to be planned before the game's release, but to complete the dlc, put it on the game disc, and then release the ability to unlock it months after the game is released is a betrayal of trust. Dlc is meant to reward customers with additional content because of the games success, not remove content that should be part of the game if it's on the disc.
I always find it funny when people do mental gymnastics to explain why they don't mind getting dicked over. You just haven't thought about it from the other end guys!
Didn't Mortal Kombat have a huge problem with its DLC in this regard? Like, people would buy the DLC (that wasn't on the disc) and have problems playing against people who didn't have the DLC because it required the latter folks to download a compatibility patch. Maybe Capcom's explanation is bullshit, maybe it isn't, but compatibility among players isn't necessarily a shitty excuse for on-disc DLC on its face. Seems like it kind of depends on how the game is set up.
Bolded edited text.
I think you just made a far more ironic and accurate comparison between bullshit and art than you meant to.
Of which I approve.
DLC isn't supposed to be anything other than a way for gamers who like a game and want more of it to purchase more of it. Or I guess for gamers who don't like a game and are feeling particularly insane to purchase more of it. It exists as an option for developers to offer, and they have no inherent moral obligations to offer or not offer that option.
In the first scenario, the customer hears "You can't have this unless you pay more".
In the second scenario, the customer hears "You can have this if you pay more".
You can't unless... vs You can if...
The second is always more appealing to people. It doesn't matter one bit if the first one is easiest for everybody.
I agree completely, it looks worse to people who aren't willing to consider it objectively. Which is why I said that it's a maturity issue.
It's not a maturity issue though. It's a society issue.
If everybody felt about it the same way as you, I'm sure the world would be a better place. But they don't. So it is what it is.
I also had a problem with the way Netherealm handled their DLC. If you're going to submit DLC, submit obligatory free DLC, and do not let people without either the paid or free versions play with people that have the content.
Twitter
Which may or may not be true. A company isn't going to fess up if they do it, so we can only speculate. And with a company like Capcom, with their frequent obvious money grabs and low regard for their fanbase, it's not a very massive leap in logic to come to that conclusion.
My Let's Play Channel: https://youtube.com/channel/UC2go70QLfwGq-hW4nvUqmog
People are upset about this because it's a breaking of the norm in a way that is objectively worse for consumers. No, Capcom does not owe its customers shit. If it operates from that basis, though, it's being a shitty company.
If a company puts profit above offering its customers the best product/service they have available, and then they announce that fact, they're going to get some flack.
Have you noticed that you are the only one on Capcom's side? I wouldn't consider this a maturity issue.
This is a situation where you are on one side, everyone else is on the other side, and the discussion is just going to go around in circles until you leave the computer or some other shiny story comes along.
looking at the 12 held back, most if not all don't fall into regular tournament rosters. These are the definite b tier dudes.
Odds are if they weren't planning to sell them later, they wouldn't have been made at all.
Decry that all you will, I know people like to get upset about how a company chooses to sell their goods.
In the end, would it have been better for them to not exist at all? This was clearly something budgeted for. Without even knowing the price the outrage is even goosier.
Keep on getting outraged though. Or just don't buy it.
XSeed is starting to publish Falcom games on Steam, starting with the best Ys game of all time (so far).
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
I defend DLC all the time. I appreciate console games getting more content after they go gold, like PC games have gotten for years. However, this is content that was created and finished before the game went gold and placed on the disk that is being purchased. I don't have to pay extra for the special track on a CD or pay extra to unlock the extended scenes on the Bluray I own.
But even beyond all that, the argument is so that everyone can play together without the content being downloaded. Which makes no sense considering that you have to connect to the Internet to play online, so downloading the content shouldn't be a problem, and characters do not take up a lot of space.
But it's the internet, and you're wrong!
It just feels like people aren't tackling the issue rationally. If you're annoyed by having the existence of the DLC waved in front of you (but not really, since Capcom tried to keep it hidden), then fine. But there's no reason to paint Capcom as a villain just because they're pursuing a perfectly legitimate release strategy. There is no "problem" for anyone to be a part of besides Capcom possibly losing annoyed (rationally or not) customers, and that's for them to deal with.
Right but the problem is that making games isn't really a high profitability enterprise.
The key about DLC, whether downloadable or not, is that it allows publishers to engage in price discrimination (i.e. charge customers that are willing to pay more more) and thus maximize their revenue. It's basically the same reason that popcorn costs so much in theaters. It's not that they are trying to rip you off, it's that putting extra people in the theater doesn't cost them more money so they don't want to raise the ticket price so high that cheap people don't go to the movies at all but they want to get extra money from those that feel like splurging on a night out.
In the case of games, I think that DLC is a superior business model if for no other reason then because a lot of people don't finish game. But I think the pricing isn't flexible enough. They should have lowered the price of new games to get more people to buy then try to get more money via DLC from the types that would have bought at $60.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I can agree with part of this. If the strategy makes money for Capcom and doesn't turn away too many potential customers then good for their executives. They just grabbed more cash out of the same development cost which gives them a higher percent return.
If it backfires, like I wish it would, then maybe they learn a lesson. I know I won't buy it and I'll be curious if Tekken X Street Fighter does the same thing.
No
No, it's not the same thing at all, as this is affecting new buyers as well
New buyers are the ones that publishers supposedly like. Supposedly.
I go into GameStop, I buy a copy of EA Sports Game X, it costs me 60 bucks and I gotta pay 15 bucks to unlock the rest of the game modes.
No it doesn't
Do you even know how online passes work
That code that unlocks the other modes is packaged in with new copies for free, son
Man you have no idea how happy this makes me
I hate that most Xseed titles are on the PSP, since I don't have one. I look forward to buying the hell out of everything they release on Steam.
Twitter
it doesn't really matter when they made it. They made it to be dlc and it wouldn't have been made otherwise.
Last I checked, Sony still makes publishers pay for bandwidth. So they'd have to charge more to make the planned profit.
Maybe this was the characters will end up reasonably cheaper. We won't know though.
Listen to this man or he will slit your throat with a boxcutter.
Recently I've been playing a lot of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 12. In that game's career mode, it will take you through the season and through different tournaments, and during the season some tournaments will be blocked out and it'll inform you that you don't have the course required, and that you should pay to download it. It was available day one. These are actual downloads, however, not content unlocks. But still. I don't mind if they have a bunch of DLC courses, just please don't advertise the fact that I'm missing them during the main campaign of your game.
I still really enjoy the game, and it has plenty to it (aside from the Masters course at Augusta, it has 14 additional courses and the career mode is lengthy so it's not hurting for content). But something about not letting me participate in certain tournaments really bugs me. They should just slide those tournaments into the career mode accordingly if you choose to pay for them.