Capcom Charges You Extra For Game Content You Already Paid For

Earlier this month, Capcom drew controversy when Street Fighter X Tekken, released in the US on March 6 and in other regions later that week, proved to have locked, future "DLC" content on the retail launch disc.

Capcom claimed there were benefits to the disc-based DLC, saying the content on the disc would ensure "compatibility", would prevent consumers from enduring lengthy downloads, and would guarantee the longevity of retail editions of the game for years to come. On the Capcom-Unity blog, they wrote:

By including these 12 characters on the disc, the idea was to ensure easy compatibility between players who do and do not choose to download the characters when they arrive as DLC.

The update also saves on file size — instead of a massive download, there will be a much smaller unlock that brings the new content to the surface.

This move also furthers our desire to avoid a "Super" version of the game down the road. Everything you need to enjoy this game for months (and years) to come will be accessed by the retail disc available this week.

Consumers, faced with the prospect of having to pay twice to access content on the discs they'd already purchased, disagreed with Capcom's positive framing of the issue. Several of those customers took their grievances to the Better Business Bureau, filing complaints against Capcom.

According to CinemaBlend, Capcom's response to one of these BBB claims outlines the company's position on DLC in starkly clear terms. In response to BCC Complaint #57217509, Capcom said:

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.

Many players would argue that, in fact, there is a significant difference between DLC being "locked behind the disc" and being "available through a full download at a later date". The latter is truly DLC, downloadable content. It's an extra that wasn't finished before launch and then taken out for later sale; rather, it's an add-on option that can be purchased at a later date. Metaphorically, it's akin buying a house and then later deciding to expand and finish the basement.

The former is game content that, necessary or not, was planned before launch and been deliberately disabled with the intent of charging more later to enable it. To players, it's as if they had bought a house with a basement that they couldn't unlock the door to unless they went back to the seller six months after moving in and forked over extra cash. To Capcom, that's just the way it is.

According to CinemaBlend, the customers who filed the initial, now-resolved complaints, are attempting to amend their complaints to have them reconsidered. We asked Capcom for a comment but have had no response. We will update if we hear back.

Capcom Responds To BBB Complaints: No Distinction Between DLC And Disc-Locked Content [CinemaBlend, via GamesIndustry]


Comments

    I really believe that Capcom has no right in doing this.

    They had the characters ready at release, a game for which people are paying full retail price for! Therefore there is no excuse for not including the characters in the game.
    To charge people extra for what they already paid full price for is just disgusting.

    But this topic has quickly become the "flogging as dead horse" situation... As long as people keep buying games that do this it won't go away, which means it will always be around.
    Capcom don't care, they make their money and that's all they want to do. They are a business, after all.

    Also, Capcom aren't the first to do things like this, they're just following a trend, regardless of their long-standing tradition of releasing new versions of the same game months later.
    This is exactly why i NEVER buy their first iteration of games, and avoid some of their games all together.
    I'd much rather give my hard earned money to people like CD Project for The Witcher 2.

      Chuloopa, I respect you a lot man, but you are dead wrong here.

      Completely ignoring the process of production which means that they didn't necessarily have these characters completed when they sent the game in for certification, even if they did, why do they owe you them?

      Why do you feel ripped off by a fighter that gives you 40+ characters out of the gate, and offers you 12 more for an extra fee?

      If Capcom had released a "standard" and "premium" edition of the game in retail box, and the only difference between them was that premium came with the extra 12 unlocked, but cost more, people wouldn't be complaining at all about not getting the extra 12 when they purchase the standard edition.

        I understand what you're saying completely.
        But if something is ready when a game is released, which it most certainly seems is the case here, why shouldn't it be part of the package?

        I usually have no qualms with DLC, as it was originally a way of extending a players enjoyment and experience of a game, rather than a means to add more $$$ to the original cost.

        The Exterminatus game mode from Space Marine, for example, required some fine tuning so was not available at release, but the developers/publishers/whoever-is-in-charge-of-extras didn't charge anything extra for it. They released it for free.

        I'm sure you see me posting quite a bit, and if there is one thing that pisses me off, it's entitled gamers. I hate the way gamers are becoming these days, thinking they are owed everything. If anything, we owe the people that make our games.

        But charging us for something that was already there is just a bit much to me..

        I know we can easily apply this in the real world. A meat pie, for example.
        Yes, you pay 20c extra for sauce with your meat pie - but the meat pie was $4, not ~$90.
        And the sauce was never packaged with the pie. It's available separately. There pie doesn't come in a box with a number to call to get an access code to the sauce.

        As i said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. I think it's a bit much to outright call me "Wrong".
        If i am so wrong, then why do other developers take completely different approaches, such as CD Projekt, and others?

        We could argue this all day if we want. And i do understand that it is still a premium game with an impressive roster, but it still doesn't make it feel right to me.

        What would you say if Capcom went ahead and released a "Super complete" edition at a later time for a cheaper price anyway, which even though they said they wouldn't is always a possibility?

        Neither one of us is wrong, mate - we just see this differently - and believe me i am not trying to be entitled in any way shape or form.

          Then again.. maybe i am becoming a little "gimmie gimmie" in my old age... i don't know anymore... lol

          I think what he means is that you're wrong to say that Capcom has no right to charge extra for additional content. I know that's not what you really mean (I'm looking at the sentance where you say you're ok with DLC right now), you mean on-disc additional content, but on-disc or downloadable DLC is just DLC.
          It's possible (hell, preferable) for the DLC and core content to be produced together and this doesn't automatically make the DLC part of the core.

          Think of it this way, you want to make a game and you've got it all planned out. It's going to have four playable characters and six multiplayer maps. That's going to cost your $250,000 to produce and to make your money back you'll need to charge $20 per copy. You figure you'll want some DLC character+map packs, and that's going to cost $50,000 to produce and need to sell at $5 per copy. So you get yourself $300,000 and build it all at once (because building it all at once means you can justify bringing a few more people into the project and create some new jobs). By the time the game is ready to go gold you've lucked out, everyone is done with their parts in the project and have either moved on to post-launch support for the game or new projects.
          Does that mean you can afford to include the DLC in the main game and still only charge $20? No. Does the additional content mean you should raise the price? Well you could, and you probably have to in order to pay your bills, but that's really just forcing people to buy your DLC isn't it?
          I guess you could just sit on the DLC for a few months, but that seems pointless and frankly is just scerwing over fans who want more but don't want to hold onto the game so long that EB will only give them $5 when they eventually trade it in.

          As long as the core game is worth the price and the DLC is 100% optional, I'll always prefer on-disc day-one DLC over having to wait months then download.

            I've stated in another thread on CAPCOM in the past that I think this is simply a cash grab, I know what you are saying there, but my gut feeling (I have no proof) is that this whole product that CAPCOM made was a single budget, the game was always meant to be a one-off special as specifically with fighting games they spend alot of time balancing the characters to make sure no one is "that" overpowered.

            Now 12 characters isn't a simple bandaid patch, it's almost a quarter of the "complete" roster. So they get everything done and then restrict content at the end of the day. If CAPCOM want to be that ballsy, then release the complete game to begin with at a higher RRP (something like $120-130) here and see how it goes.

            They won't because it would probably impact sales as being too expensive, so take another approach and this isn't limited to CAPCOM, have publishers/developers have a more modest budget!!

            Everyone keeps mentioning "don't you feel as though 38-40 characters is worth full price?" Of course it is, but so would be 25-30, it could have been released earlier and made just as much money for them without taking this approach.

              I can understand feeling like that. Personally I think they're just absolutely terrible at DLC. It actually seems too poorly handled to be a scam. =P

      I'd also like to add that i'm not one of those idiots that are yelling out "boycott!" at the top of my lungs - that's just pointless - i'm merely stating my own principles... People, of course, are entitled to their own thoughts on this matter.

        Second side note - chances are i'll still be buying Dragon's Dogma - lol

          You're on the money.... it's BS and annoying.
          There are many other options which leave the customer NOT feeling ripped off. How about just adding in the content from launch and charging us a few more bucks. Surely charging everyone an extra $4 is equal to 30% of people paying for the DLC.

          It would actually annoy me less if I went into EB games and there was a sign next to SF vs Tekken saying, "For an extra $10 you can get 12 MORE CHARACTERS !!!!!". At least they're being honest. It just grinds my gears when they bust this out like 3 weeks later, you just feel like they're trying to extract dollars from you.

          It's not like you spend $200 on star wars blu rays and then you find out later for $10 there's an extra few minutes of footage. If they have the stuff ready to go they should just be open about it.

          For me, DLC works when the game has been out for a while and they want to extend the life of the game so they add in additional chapters or content. You feel like you're part of a community and not some shit eating tactics to get extra cash off you on day 1.

      Chuloopa, think of it this way, if they decided to never release these extra characters, would it have made any difference?

      Personally, what had me fuming, was the way they handled SFIV. i bought it on release, then they release a Super version, whose multiplayer was incompatible with the standard, offering no upgrade option for those that owned the standard edition.

      Guess what happened to the online numbers from SFIV? they all shifted to SSFIV. I have no issue with on disc DLC so long as the base game is complete, and the DLC serves the sole purpose of actual extra content, and not patching up an incomplete game.

        Yeah... that;s fair enough, i guess.
        But are you just accepting this because SFIV was so badly bungled?

          Lol I can see why you may suspect as such, but the way i see it is if the base game ships complete without features missing that directly affects the experience promise, than i have no issue. As long as the content that Im paying is for the sole purpose of enhancing this experience.

          If I were however forced to pay for content that was originally promised, or necessary to obtain the full experience, id be fuming.

      I don't particularly like it, but there's nothing *wrong* with what they're doing.

      You buy the disc, you get access to 40-odd characters and the full fighting game. You can then pay extra to unlock another 12 characters if you like, but if you don't, you'll still see them if other players are using them.

      The distinction here is that by buying the solid disc, you are not entitled to everything ON that disc in total - only what the "product" part of it is that you bought.

      Technically, you didn't buy the extra 12 characters.

      Again, not saying that this is particularly awesome, but it's not *wrong*. It's no more wrong that pre-order bonuses from specific retailers, or day one DLC/costume packs.

        I'd like to give the award for "The most civil, down to earth and down right pleasant argument ever posted on Kotaku" to Chuloopa, Jordaan, N3RD & Zap. Well done guys, you're making the internet a better place, one comment at a time.

    http://extra-credits.net/episodes/mass-effect-3-dlc/

    Watch this video, and tell me if you still have an issue with on-disc locked content.

    As someone getting started in the games industry, I am horrified by the overly self-entitled vantage point so many people have. This sense that you're entitled to everything a company produces when you purchase the base product is something that needs to go away.

      I have to admit that I wholly agree with this, people do need to stop bitching... I mean even one of the reasons Capcom is doing this is to avoid 'Super' editions in the future and correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this one of the things people didn't like and laughed at Capcom in the first place for?

      It wouldn't be so bad, bad the argument doesn't work for stuff that's already been produced, rather than developed while the game's being certified...

        So it would be better if they deliberately didn't finish the content, put the game out, THEN finished the content?

        When you buy the disc, you're getting X amount of content and characters and whatnot. If that's not enough for you, don't buy it. There's no entitlement to say "for this price, I should get everything Capcom has made up to this point in time".

        While I'm happy that I got a massive amount of content without DLC for Kingdoms of Amalur, it was MASSIVE. If Schilling and co had taken a look and said to themselves "you know what, there's already well over 100 hours of content here. We could take off 20 hours worth of sidequests and make it DLC"... that would not have been unreasonable. By leaving it all in, of course, they've established a lot of goodwill for the next game. But it would not have been greedy to include "only" 100 hours content for the box price instead of 120-150.

          Most of your points are absolutely correct Arky and it's unfortunate that most people don't see it the way we do.

          One point of contention with your argument though; you shouldn't be advocating the presence of DLC based solely on the quantity of the game. In other words it is not acceptable for Reckoning to have DLC just because it is 100 hours long. Games are about experiences. If you bought a game and had a great experience playing it then DLC is something extra to enhance that. Call of Duty 4 was a great game, but only 4 hours long. If Infinity Ward had come out and revealed maps packs hidden within the game, it should not upset you... because you enjoyed the game you bought initially, and had a great time.

          Also, there's something people haven't thought about when they get into these arguments. If DLC is on the disc, we own EVERYTHING on the disc. Whether we can get to it, is an entirely different matter. Capcom asks you to pay for the KEYS to unlock the content. Is it an honorable way of doing DLC? Of course not. But it's not "wrong" either. They're selling you a key you DON'T have, whether you choose to buy it or not is your perogative.

          And here's something else for you to think about: If somebody is clever and talented enough to hack the disc content and unlock the DLC Characters and start playing with them online or whatever, Capcom can't do shit about it (though they'll certainly try) because you own what's on the disc, you paid for it. Like I said, the only thing you DON'T own is the key to get to them.

      That is simply not true. You were paid for the hours you worked on the game, The employee INTENTIONALLY, by the companies command, put in a specific code to "unlock" hidden files on the disc.

      Now i fully understand that a developer needs to pay its staff, for its software, for its electricity and so on.
      But you CANNOT call this DOWNLOADABLE content, that's bullshit. You're cheating us and you're making it harder on yourselves. The more of this i see, the more i WANT to pirate games, i don't want to see this bullshit micro transaction thing get support in any way, shape or form. (when it was included on the disc)

      And you can't liken it to an MMO, as i stated earlier the developers need to pay their employees, and for the servers, and that's fair enough.

      You need to go away, and every other wrong-brained person of your ilk.

      Hopefully this triggers the downfall of Capcom, and serves as a warning to other companies not to do the wrong thing.

    Capcom are stupid, pissing off your fans with cheap tactics will not end well in the long run.

    While I agree that if the content is ready in time for the launch then it should be released; just because you have purchased the disc does not mean you have purchased everything on it. You have only purchased the license to use it, or certain parts of it. Example, a trail disc of microsoft offi ce will have the full program on it, but you've only paid to use the limited version and when you pay the extra, the rest of the disc is open to you. You have paid for Street Fight X Tekken, but not those 12 characters.

    I don't agree with it, but this is hardly a new thing in the world of software.

      Yes, but I didn't pay full price for my trial version of Office. And when I do, I would expect all of Office to be available, not just Word with Powerpoint as an 'unlockable extra' if I pay more later.

        So how is that any different? If you purchase the base version of office you get access to certain applications. If you want the rest, you pay extra anyway, and then have to download them. How does that not benefit you when you are saving on the bandwidth and have access to the content immediately?

        Basically guys, you are getting exactly what was promised to you with your base purchase. Nobody ever said you were getting these extra characters on your base purchase only to pull them away. Stop complaining about getting "half the game" when you actually got the exact content that was promised.

    It's not the 12 d/l characters at a premium that annoys me. It's the fact that I know they will release a 'Super' or 'Hyper' edition of this game 3-6 months down the line. It makes me feel like I'm paying for a demo - and should wait a little for the final build to be released. I bought the LTD Edition of Street Fighter IV, then sold it to pick up the 'Super' edition, then paid even more to get the 'Arcade' edition. By that time, I could barely find players on Xbox Live to play against who had the Arcade edition.

    Same thing also happened to Marvel vs Capcom 3. After I sold that to pick up the 'Ultimate' edition, I swore to wait a year or so before I pick up another Capcom game. At least this way, I'll only have to pay $30 or so for the final build of the product.

    Honestly don't see anything wrong with this. They could've easily just NOT have had the extra 12 characters and sold it at the same price and THEN put the characters as DLC and still charge you the same price they're already planning to charge or even worse, making you buy the game again with a SUPER/ULTIMATE tag thrown on.

    Why hasn't anyone complained to ACC or BBB about the 360 no co op mode but it is on the manual.

    I can defend the multiplayer mode for Resident Evil 5, and I can defend a lot of the DLC for the majority of games. I also hate the entitlement a lot of gamers think they have (just check out the forums for any game). But hiding content on a disc and planning to sell it later is really lame and greedy.

    If the content was incomplete and you basically need to download the character that's fine (Like with the first Mortal Kombat DLC character). But these characters aren't incomplete, they're available on other platforms. There's no reason to keep it locked.

    The only time that on-disc DLC bothers me is when the game is truly incomplete without it. How many companies would never have bothered to develop this additional content if there were no promise of additional payment. It makes sense that it be worked on alongside the main game, which sometimes makes on-disc inclusion possible.

    It all comes down to what one considers "DLC" to be.

    Is it something a developer makes after its game, because their fans asked for it? Or is it something the developer always intended to include, but hold off on releasing at launch (perhaps to detract pre-owned trading in, or maybe just to make more money on the product).

    I like to think DLC should be the first example. And therefore what Capcom is doing is bullshit. BUT, I am also not so gullible to believe that the latter isn't something every other developer does as well!

    The fact that Capcom defends their position legally, by stating that the only difference in this case is the "delivery machanism", is actually a great example of how broken the concept of DLC is in the games industry!!!

    I'm completely with Chuloopa on this.

    What so many people here are misunderstanding is THE TRADE. The form that business has taken since its inception. Whether you notice it or not, every single person evaluates the spending of their money as a transaction of value. You always want to get something that is worth more than the money in your pocket.

    Why is on disc DLC bad? Because it's an uneven trade. It doesn't matter if the developers intended it to be separate. It doesn't matter if what you got for your money was already good value. It doesn't matter if the developers finished it before the full game is made (although for many including me this does matter) What matters is that these people HAVE something in their possession they can't access because they didn't pay more. They traded money for something and got something that needed more money to be that something.

    This is why people feel cheated,whether they deserve it or not, whether they're "entitled" (seriously guys) or not.

    Capcom are arguing that they are making things here convenient for multiplayer, not that it was so hard before when players had to just download the missing content as a free single time action, you could argue that he doesn't have access to that character he just downloaded, but it was a free addition on the basis that he wants to fight guys who use that character - trade complete.

    How about this as an analogy. Normally you buy a toy and you play with it, and your friend buys a toy and you both have more fun when you hang out playing with these toys Your friend gets an a cool add-on for his toy and you don't so you only get to play with it when you visit. So now you buy a toy but there's a special function in it that you can't access because you didn't pay more. Your friend pays more and can access this function on his toy and even on yours but only when you visit and only he can use it, even though: IT'S YOUR TOY.

      ->" It doesn’t matter if what you got for your money was already good value" // "It's an uneven trade"
      ???

      "They traded money for something and got something that needed more money to be that something."
      They traded money for a fighting game with a big roster (40+ fighters) they got a fighting game with a big roster (40+ fighters).

      At no point were the purchasers promised they'd get those 12 characters for free, in fact it's been openly stated they were extra. How did anyone not get what they were told they'd purchased?

      As per your toy analogy: They made the toy and the addon at the same time. You buy the toy, and look, the slot is there for the addon. You didn't buy the addon, but the slot is there for it, the addon exists, why do I not get it for free? ITS MY TOY. I DESERVE ALL THE ADDONS AVAILABLE AT TIME OF PURCHASE FOR FREE.

        "They traded money for a fighting game with a big roster (40+ fighters) they got a fighting game with a big roster (40+ fighters)."

        No, you're not looking at it from the primitive mammalian brain enough. They traded money for Street Fight X Tekken, that's it, on a disc. On said disc are 52+ characters of which 12 are stuck behind a paywall. I don't know about you but if I paid for only 40 characters then I don't want that 12 sitting there.

        "How did anyone not get what they were told they’d purchased?"

        Yes they weren't promised anything, but what did they get? Something they can't have anyway. In fact you could argue they got MORE than what they purchased, except no they can't play with it. It doesn't matter whether they were promised it, what matters is that it's there.

        I recommend you reread my toy analogy and yours which completely missed the point. There's no problem with "toy that accepts add-ons with a fancy tab to insert" but there is a problem with "toy that accepts add-ons where said add-ons come in the same box but you have to send more money to the makers before you can even insert them in fancy tab."

    While AS A CONSUMER (i feel like this point gets confused with the publisher's point of view) there is a right to be dissatisfied with a product and no, this does not need to go away just because developers want freedom to do whatever they want. People are being denied content they otherwise in previous years would have had for free and has been denied based solely on the purpose of making a few extra dollars down the road. While in broad terms I don't think there is anything "wrong" with this but it does show an incredible contempt for and is quite condescending to their audience. It's not much different than sales add-ons. Except this is something they COULD have given you but thought they'd try and dwindle some more cash out of you. Now this is nothing new but it's slowly crossing over in grey territory where endings are being denied from buyers, dlc in all its legitimate and ridiculous forms is here to stay - pretty much to destroy other legitimate businesses like second hand retailers - but there is definitely a debate of how far it should go that many developers and publishers just seem to want to ignore.

    if one of the big movie distributors sold a box that plugged into your tv that included every single movie in their back catalogue stored inside it, but they were all locked from the start and you were required to pay for each movie you unlocked for viewing, would anyone be complaining at their pricing structure? i dont see how anyone is complaining with having to pay money if they want to have more stuff

    If it's on the disc, it's not DLC. It's just.....C.

    I'm not a fighting game fan so I don't know, but I sure hope that the vanilla game was cheaper than normal.

    It's not the 12 DLC characters at a premium that annoys me. It's the fact that they keep releasing upgraded versions at retail the likes of 'Super' or 'Ultimate'.

    I purhchased the Limited Edition of Street Fighter IV and sold it later so I can get the 'Super' edition. A little later down the line they released the 'Arcade' edition, effectively charging me three times for the same game when I upgraded it online. I feel as though what I buy from Capcom is a demo rather than a final build.

    Same thing happened with Marvel vs Capcom 3. I sold my version so I can pick up the 'Ultimate' edition 6 months down the line.

    The problem here is I had issues playing the game against others online as the sales for the newest builds of the game didn't match up with the original releases, hence less available players.

    I can't help but feel people focus too much on the fact that it's on the disc without looking at what they're getting. The game is either incomplete without the DLC, in which case you should be mad at them for charging full price for an incomplete game, or the game is fine standalone and DLC is either worth the price or not.
    You wouldn't complain about a ticket price to the The Return of the King because some of the footage was shot at the same time as The Two Towers. You wouldn't sit there going 'well, this scene was shot at the same time as a Two Towers, so I already paid for it when I went to see that movie.
    Likewise I'd expect BioWare to get all the Mass Effect 3 cast members to record their core and DLC dialogue at the same time. Regardless of when they do it and in what order the actors need to be paid for their work. You don't get to just tack the DLC dialogue onto the core as unpaid overtime.

    I think another part people miss is that the people who aren't automatically annoyed with on-disc DLC aren't automatically happy with DLC and the state of games. If there was DLC that turned Terminator: Salvation into the good third-personal squad based tactical shooter I imagine it was intended to be, and they charged a single cent for it, I'd be massively pissed. The game was incomplete and not worth the retail price tag.
    I don't care when, how or at what cost this magic DLC fix is created, anyone who owns the original Terminator: Salvation disc should be mailed out a disc with the DLC on it for free along with a letter apologising to them for the state of the game when it hit retail (and until then they have the right to a full refund on the original game). The same goes for BioShock 2's multiplayer. Even if it wasn't on-disc, even if they created it six months later, the DLC for BioShock 2 was a scam.
    Fable II on the other hand could have put those DLC packs on the disc and blocked them off and I'd still be happy to pay for them. Regardless of how/why they were created the core Fable II game was worth what I paid and the DLC packs were each worth what I paid for them.
    Brutal Legend could of (I can't remember if it did) put up bad on-disc DLC, but the core game was more than worth what I paid. The DLC could be completely ignored so it was truly optional, meaning they could do anything and charge anything for the DLC without shafting the fans.

    Everything I've heard about Street Fighter X Tekken says that it's not 12 characters short of being worth the price tag. Like I always say some people are going to take advantage of the situation and hold content back, but you need to ensure that you're always looking at what you're getting and how much you're paying, not when it was created. If you hate on-disc DLC or even just general DLC on principal alone you're only hurting yourself. You're only walling yourself in to the point where you can't enjoy the good/fair DLC.

      You're right Dogman, everybody is focusing on the fact that the content is locked on the disc: That's the point.

      Peoples complaints about how the DLC was complete at the time of purchase is actually a separate problem: The issue of Day-1 DLC. This is about having said DLC handed to you in a state where it's still not yours.

      The problem with pointing out that people already get the value of the 40 characters is that we don't actually have a metric for the value of diagetic game components. We live in an age where for $100 you could get a game that lasts average 100 hours, or averge 6 hours: Which is better? Arguably it's subjective. In this case the publisher has set the conditions for value, when our only reference is the past: As in games that where complete as specified and expansions that were complete as specified.

        When it comes down to it though how is that any different to being up for download on day one? The game in the box is either what was advertised on the box or it isn't. The playable section of the game is either worth what you paid or it's not. If you brought Street Fighter X Tekken and felt it didn't have enough characters it doesn't really matter if there are extra characters on-disc, up for download or whether they exist at all. You take the game back and complain $90 was a rip off.
        If you buy a game with extra paid on-disc content you're getting BONUS data for free (unless they advertised it as being included, in which case they're ripping you off). It's garbage data that's useless to you with the unlock but it's included for free. Fable II lets you download the DLC before paying a fee to unlock it, which really isn't much different to on-disc, but no one ever complains about that (note to Capcom: this is how normal companies handle DLC compatibility issues in multiplayer).

        Bare with me a second because I'm sure you've heard the first part of this example before. If they put a demo for their next game on the disc, and to make things easier they make it so that inputting a code unlocks the full version of that game, do you automatically own the full version of the demo when you buy the disc?
        I can understand if you feel that it being on the disc gives you the right to do whatever you want with it, so in a way you do own the full version and are free to play it if you can crack it. If they didn't want you fiddling with it they shouldn't have given it to you. I wouldn't think very highly of you but I can understand it.
        What I wouldn't be able to understand is if, based purely on the principal of the matter, bypassing any judgement on the value of the products you're looking at, you demanded Capcom unlock the full version of the demo for you.
        That's essentially what you're doing here. You stopped looking at the game content and decided that even though it's not an advertised part of the game or an essential part of the game, they should unlock it for you simply because it's there.

        The argument that you can't put a price tag on games by the kilo is a bit odd though. We might not be able to say eight characters is a full roster and anything more is a bonus, but we can say that 40 characters is a solid amount of characters for a fighting game and we can look at those 40 characters and judge whether we feel both the Tekken and Street Fighter rosters are represented well.
        From there we can look at whats on the table and judge how fair the deal is and in this case I'd say the core game is a fair deal. Personally the part of the deal that's souring me is that Capcom will probably release an Ultimate version of this that kills the original SFXT multiplayer.

        [Side Note: I can't stress enough how against shady DLC packs I am. There's plenty of people making dishonest DLC. They're a cancer on the industry and frankly criminals. The only issue I have is with people judging DLC based on the timing and delivery method rather than quality and price.]

    I drew my line years ago when there was that NFS game that came with more cars if you paid an extra $10.
    If it's a full retail release, it should be a complete product. If they want to withhold / release parts of the game later for more money, they don't want me as a customer.
    And yes, I even felt ripped off by 'legitimate' DLC for fallout 3 when I bought the game on launch. Now I wait for complete editions before I buy games.

    I look at it this way:

    Capcom dedicate a budget to the base game, which considering the size of the roster and the level of polish this game has, it represents good value. Then they dedicate a smaller auxiliary budget to the DLC, which they need to recoup costs on. I think they have every right to charge for this, it's business, plain and simple.

      "it’s business, plain and simple."

      Not an excuse and never should be one. When was the last time you bought something for the sole purpose of contributing to a business? You pay for what that business does, a product, service or whatever. I never want to hear "It's business" I only want to hear "We're making that awesome game you wanted, soon you'll be able to buy it!"

    I remember buying a copy of Ultimate Doom in the 90s that had EVERY ID game also on disc but encrypted, and you could contact ID for an unlock code for a small price for all the other games. This sorta reminds me of that disc, except that you were buying DOOM and got DOOM - the rest was bonus.

    Just another thing to remember guys, video game development is a business not a charity.... much how apple goes through a new phone/pad/pod variation every year.

      So? Don't excuse it.

        Why are you hating businesses so much for being businesses. If there wasn't money to be made, there would be no games at all. You paid for whatever this game is, (from memory it's Epileptic Fit 7: Button Mash Supreme) and that's what you got. They're actually doing you a favour, by not making you actually download the thing, and it states specifically they did it this way because everyone got whiny when they released Button Mash 6: I Can't Feel My Fingers edition with extra content. Why do you think you're entitled to the full contents of the disc?

        WAIT A MINUTE SNACUUM, YOU'RE RIGHT!

        I'm calling Western digital right now. I bought a 2TB drive, and I can't access the FAT32 tables, and they make my hard drive more like 1.92TB's. I'm going all the way to the top with this one!

        In every game you've ever bought, there's been content on the disc that you haven't been able to access. The DRM code? Nope. The game's source code? Nope (some exceptions). Are you going to complain about these as well?

          "Why are you hating businesses so much for being businesses."
          I don't. I'm hating on businesses for using the fact that they are a business as an excuse to screw over customers and manipulate the market.

          "They’re actually doing you a favour"
          No they're not, no business does anybody favours. They either do something people like and get traded money for that thing, or do something people don't like and either: don't get money for it and have a lot of angry people who gave them money for something they don't like. Which do you think a business should do?

          "they did it this way because everyone got whiny"
          I can think of a way where nobody gets whiny, but then you'd probably call me a 'dinosaur' or 'entitled.'

          "I’m calling Western digital right now. I bought a 2TB drive, and I can’t access the FAT32 tables, and they make my hard drive more like 1.92TB’s. I’m going all the way to the top with this one!"

          Think about your analogies before you say them. Is it possible for it to be WD's fault for a standardised file system structure to use space that way? You're also implying that if it was I should be happy with the amount I get when previously I got more value for money...

          "In every game you’ve ever bought, there’s been content on the disc that you haven’t been able to access. The DRM code? Nope. The game’s source code? Nope (some exceptions). Are you going to complain about these as well?"

          Of course not. In these cases the function and usability of said code was already at full requirement for what I paid for. Please point out the games where for a little bit more cash they could unlock the DRM code or source code for me.

            "Of course not. In these cases the function and usability of said code was already at full requirement for what I paid for"

            Yup, this is still true here. From the moment you pop the disc in, the game is perfectly functional. You got exactly what you paid for, SFxT. Whether you think you got value for money, well, that's up to you, but the game is a complete and functional game as it is.

    I would much prefer them to just lie to my face and just make it a full sized Download DLC and release it a month or two after its release date.

    At least that way they can pretend they were working hard on it post release and I won't get angry with them. =P

    Only reason Jordaan is getting antsy about this is because he can't actually play fighting games.

    What sh!ts me is that they've put out content for free for PS3 owners which is DLC for Xbox owners - that just ensures that I won't give this game the time of day - not that I was that excited for it anyway - Street Fighter is played out at the moment - I'm more interested in the Namco interpretation.

Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now