Fun With DLC - This Week: Crapcom

[Friendly]

Of course it's bad pactice no matter where the content is stored.

Having it on the disc and locking it just makes the company that does it look even more immoral.

[Davey]

That's like buying a car and then having to pay extra later in order to enable reverse, based on the logic that no one drives backwards over the course of a normal day.

A car that can't go in reverse is essentially non-functional, so the analogy is kind of weak. Sticking with cars, I'd say it's more akin to buying a car with a speed governor, and the dealership telling you they can disable it for an extra fee.

The best physical analogy I can think of is a hotel mini-bar. Even if you paid handsomely for the room, you're not entitled to the contents of the bar unless you pay extra, even though the cost to the hotel is nowhere near what they charge you.

[Skykid]

I tend to think DLC is fair game for a developer when it's actually additional content. For instance, when the whole market was finding its feet, an FPS could be out for 6 months by which point everyone had run it into the ground, and then some packs became available to prolong its life and expand the longevity of the multiplayer. I don't see a problem with this.

It's more the fashion they're doing it in now, where they create and purposely withhold content that should really be standard. For fighting games to have a bunch of DLC characters who may offer people with more disposable income an advantage seems unreasonable. It's not the same as selling costumes, arenas or maps.

[Friendly]

Regarding the car analogy, it's more like you buying a car and then noticing that the glove compartment is locked. The seller then offers to sell you the key for an additional payment, and tells you that you mustn't use a screwdriver or create your own key to open it.

[shmuppyLove]

I tend to think DLC is fair game for a developer when it's actually additional content. For instance, when the whole market was finding its feet, an FPS could be out for 6 months by which point everyone had run it into the ground, and then some packs became available to prolong its life and expand the longevity of the multiplayer. I don't see a problem with this.

It's more the fashion they're doing it in now, where they create and purposely withhold content that should really be standard. For fighting games to have a bunch of DLC characters who may offer people with more disposable income an advantage seems unreasonable. It's not the same as selling costumes, arenas or maps.

Good points. I think the reason we're seeing this shift is that DLC has been proven to be a significant source of additional revenue, so they're looking at how to increase it even more.

Am I correct in assuming this stuff is unlocked by entering a code in the game itself? Because then they gain a larger audience -- people without good broadband access or credit cards, etc.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Am I correct in assuming this stuff is unlocked by entering a code in the game itself? Because then they gain a larger audience -- people without good broadband access or credit cards, etc.

No, you need to have an internet connection to go to Xbox Live (which needs a broadband/cable connection and a credit card # to buy stuff) to download the patch that basically sets the game when it's played to have whatever you downloaded unlocked. The hacks that enable playing the on-disc DLC basically do the exact same thing without having to download them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's basically like Mushihimesama Futari's 1.01 version; the data's on the disc but you need a code to enable a download of the patch which then flags the game on startup to open that menu option (whereas the Black Label version is not on-disc, you actually download all the data for it).

Speaking of which, on-disc DLC that can only be accessed by people who bought the game first (as in there's no legit way to access the data for later buyers) seems harsher, since unless you got the code in the first print run, you don't even have the option to buy it. Of course, I understand that it was probably the easiest thing to do logistically just to put 1.01 on the disc itself and give out a code for a small patch as an incentive for preorders, but still. Doesn't make Capcom's forcing you to shell out like a hundred bucks to unlock all the extra on-disc options any better; the price really stings.

[Friendly]

I am surprised how many here don't seem to see how it's fundamenatlly wrong to SELL additional characters in a fighting game as DLC, instead of giving them to you for free, eg. as a reward for beating the game. As long as they sell only costumes and wallpapers, nobody has a problem. But characters? That's the horse in the room.

[shmuppyLove]

I am surprised how many here don't seem to see how it's fundamenatlly wrong to SELL additional characters in a fighting game as DLC, instead of giving them to you for free, eg. as a reward for beating the game. As long as they sell only costumes and wallpapers, nobody has a problem. But characters? That's the horse in the room.

True I think it's crappy, especially in a competitive game, to allow an "uneven" playing field. But also goes back to what I was saying before; if all the characters weren't on the disc, how could you fight online against someone who had purchased an extra character and you hadn't? In the case of a costume/recolour, who cares. If they are stages, that's easy enough to handle - the two consoles can poll each other to see what the other player has an only show common choices. But how else could you handle one player having a character the other didn't?

[BareKnuckleRoo]

But how else could you handle one player having a character the other didn't?

There's already games like Castle Crashers where the game only allows online play when you're patched to the latest version for this reason - so your patched version has all the characters even if you haven't bought some of them. Of course, then you have a patched version with characters in it that you need to buy to unlock, but I think the main PR fiasco comes from Capcom so blatantly holding back the characters purely to make money off on-disc content as DLC (and then lying with their explanations of "the characters weren't ready/playable yet" when clearly they are). People respond better when DLC is truly added content that's not on the disc itself so it doesn't get perceived as being ripped off for stuff on the disc.

[Davey]

Regarding the car analogy, it's more you buying a car and then noticing that the glove compartment is locked. The seller then offers to sell you the key for an additional payment, and tells you that you mustn't use a screwdriver or create your own key to open it.

I don't know if any car analogy will really work because the business model for physical goods is fundamentally different from that of intellectual property.

You can't buy a car without a glove compartment; I imagine it'd increase manufacturing costs too much to provide such a trivial option. So, they put a glove compartment in every car whether you want one or not, because even if you don't want one, it's ultimately cheaper that way.

However, digital content isn't bound by the limits of physical manufacturing, so you can be more precise with what you're selling. If only some customers want certain content in a game, you can charge just those people for the extra development cost that went into that content. The alternative is include all the content in the main game and raise the price, in which case some people end up paying for more content than they really want.

I am surprised how many here don't seem to see how it's fundamenatlly wrong to SELL additional characters in a fighting game as DLC, instead of giving them to your for free, eg. as a reward for beating the game.

I think it's dumb for fighting games because it screws up the balance online, but that's not the same as arguing against it from a financial perceptive. Seems like two debates are going on at once here.

[Specineff]

I wonder if any other company has tried to do this before, with the PC, for example. Didn't EA catch heat for trying this on Bully or Godfather, by cordoning off areas of the game that later would be unlocked (paid for) later?

The glove box and key analogy is better. I'm also reminded of the FF9 official guide fiasco, requiring you to go online to enter a code gotten from the guide, so you could find the info THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRINTED ON THE GUIDE THAT YOU PAID FOR TO BEGIN WITH.

[Ed Oscuro]

I wonder if any other company has tried to do this before, with the PC, for example.

It's been done on consoles before for sure.

It also is funny to think that if the stuff was not on-disc, tying up users' bandwidth and time as they patiently bought and downloaded every skin, there would be no controversy (or at most it would be an op-ed somewhere saying "this stuff probably could have all been given from the start...)

I haven't been following this debacle that closely, but the outrage seems misguided to me. I'll probably be accused of sucking the cocks of our corporate overlords for saying this, but where that extra content comes from is simply a matter of logistics. As greedy as Capcom may be, the fact is that you didn't pay for that content, and you knew that when you bought the game. IANAL, but the fact that it happens to be on a physical disk that you own doesn't seem relevant to me (a slap in the face, maybe).

I was with you up to IANAL. I can't understand anything with that acronym in there.

I agree with it being a matter of logistics, but it shows that game companies are trying to push more profits out of a smaller timeframe, and some things that consumers believe are core values of the discussion are being lost in the process.

Whoever mentioned EULAs is a wise man. I recall that, when I "bought" Killing Floor (ace game btw), the license says this:

Tripwire Interactive would like to thank you for getting Killing Floor. We hope
you enjoy the experience. But before you get started, we need to make some
matters clear. When you paid for Killing Floor you did not actually buy the game.
What you bought was a license to use the software that comprises the game and its
related materials. And that license is subject to the terms of this EULA. This EULA
is a binding contract between you and Tripwire Interactive and its licensors,
licensees and suppliers.
We know you want to get the game installed and start playing it. But, please
take the time to read through this agreement first because BY INSTALLING KILLING
FLOOR YOU ARE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT YOU HAVE READ THIS EULA, AGREE TO
ITS TERMS AND AGREE TO BE BOUND BY THEM. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO
THESE TERMS, PROMPTLY DISCONTINUE THE INSTALLATION PROCESS AND
CEASE ANY AND ALL USE OF THIS SOFTWARE.

Strange, they didn't make that distinction clear when I was looking at the game on its Steam Store page. That being said, they have nicely captured the fact of the matter in current gaming (and even some of the spirit of copyright law, even if you disagree with their bold language).

The "shrinkwrap license" is a pretty controversial issue because it's not made clear at the storefront what your rights are, and you don't have a right to return media if you find its terms of use not to your liking. None of this mattered in the days of books where it was assumed that the types of uses you could have (reading, annotating, plagiarizing) could all be covered by one scheme since all books had the same expected uses (aside from free tracts or books that explicitly called to be copied, or that otherwise gave up the normal protections). Yet now we have programs which can output screenshots (Wikipedia and apparently most legal scholars would argue that a screenshot is the copyright holder's property, even though it only came about because of your use of the program, and could contain a meaningful measure of your artistic expression), which don't appear controversial because game companies know which fights to pick, while preserving the one-sided nature of the rights debate.

Of course Tripwire Interactive (and everybody else, including Capcom) are dealing with other issues here as well. Legally speaking there are measures in place that enshrine one side of the argument in the divide: The right of rightsholders to get paid. There's nothing, however, on the other side about people having a right to use what's been physically or otherwise delivered to them, and that they must abide by somebody else's restrictions on how they use their own hardware (or even, as the XBox 360 signature scrub debacle showed, whether they can expect their game system to be treated, as if it actually is theirs).

[Ruldra]

As long as they sell only costumes and wallpapers, nobody has a problem. But characters? That's the horse in the room.

For me, anything that's already on the disk that requires money to unlock is a scam, even extra costumes or whatever. Same with day 1 DLC, they intentionally remove stuff from the game to sell as a bonus. I refuse to pay for that shit.

That kind of stuff used to be extras you unlocked by playing. Now they're milking you as much as possible.

[kernow]

Welcome to modern gaming.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

That kind of stuff used to be extras you unlocked by playing. Now they're milking you as much as possible.

The most hilarious DLC is Tales of Vesperia, at least for the Xbox version. All of the stuff you can buy is stuff that's obtainable in game (costumes and what through sidequests) or worse, items and such you could get if you simply grinded for the gold or don't need (why pay for a DLC pack of healing items when it takes like 10 minutes of selling enemy crafting drops to buy the same stuff?).

[Ed Oscuro]

That kind of stuff used to be extras you unlocked by playing. Now they're milking you as much as possible.

The most hilarious DLC is Tales of Vesperia, at least for the Xbox version. All of the stuff you can buy is stuff that's obtainable in game (costumes and what through sidequests) or worse, items and such you could get if you simply grinded for the gold or don't need (why pay for a DLC pack of healing items when it takes like 10 minutes of selling enemy crafting drops to buy the same stuff?).

This is why I love Steam Stats, by the way.

Fuckers pay out the ass for a game and then they don't play past the first map. WHAT

People who care =! people who have money

[null1024]

That kind of stuff used to be extras you unlocked by playing. Now they're milking you as much as possible.

The most hilarious DLC is Tales of Vesperia, at least for the Xbox version. All of the stuff you can buy is stuff that's obtainable in game (costumes and what through sidequests) or worse, items and such you could get if you simply grinded for the gold or don't need (why pay for a DLC pack of healing items when it takes like 10 minutes of selling enemy crafting drops to buy the same stuff?).

That's just exploiting stupid people with money.

[Ed Oscuro]

That kind of stuff used to be extras you unlocked by playing. Now they're milking you as much as possible.

The most hilarious DLC is Tales of Vesperia, at least for the Xbox version. All of the stuff you can buy is stuff that's obtainable in game (costumes and what through sidequests) or worse, items and such you could get if you simply grinded for the gold or don't need (why pay for a DLC pack of healing items when it takes like 10 minutes of selling enemy crafting drops to buy the same stuff?).

That's just exploiting stupid people with money.

How far do you support that? Is it okay that they don't have a neon sign off to the side saying "this stuff you can unlock, dummy?" Why isn't it okay when the only sign a "stupid" person would have that it's unlockable is some shit buried in a license agreement?

[BareKnuckleRoo]

This is why I love Steam Stats, by the way.

One of the many reasons I haven't ever downloaded Steam; it's way too fucking creepy for them to spy on and record my playing habits. Yeah, nice marketing data for them I'm sure, by I certainly don't appreciate it. Speaking of which, all of the social networking sites (Facebook, Twitter, etc) that want you to hand out personal info like candy creep me the fuck out. Whatever happened to discretion? It's not like I have anything to hide, but it still weirds me out to think of basically everyone on the net being able to get my life story, where I went to school, etc.

[Davey]

I was with you up to IANAL. I can't understand anything with that acronym in there.

I felt the need to throw that in there because from a legal standpoint, I don't know what you're truly buying when you buy a copy of a game. However, I feel pretty safe saying that buying a disc with a game on it doesn't grant you full rights to everything on that disc, but a lot of people seem to think it does.

[Shelcoof]

Business practices like this is the reason why I no longer purchase and play Capcom games.

I speak with my money but I'm surprised to see others willing to throw money at companies that implement these types of business methods.

[kernow]

I'll never buy them new, why buy it when you know 'ultimate' is coming out in 6 months? pfft.

Not to mention the whole SF4 series was a fucking travesty.

[Ganelon]

Regarding whether this type of DLC distribution is a scam, that's not clear. Let's gather the facts:

1. The unlock distribution method is decades-old since at least the introduction of rev limiters in cars
2. The existing out-of-the-box content is comparable with that of other modern fighting games
3. Capcom decided the exact content cutoff for the $60 retail price
4. Capcom paid to have the additional content made, just as it would have paid if the content had been downloadable later
5. Capcom wasn't upfront to consumers about the on-disc DLC content
6. On-disc DLC saves all players download time and space (purchasers use the content, non-purchasers may need compatibility)
7. Capcom still hasn't announced a full download schedule

The real question is whether Capcom would have bothered to even spend time and resources to make the DLC content if it didn't expect to make extra money off of it. Another question actually helps us answer this question: if old Capcom had released SFXT, would it have bundled all the DLC into the initial package? Judging by Capcom's fighting game roster history, I'd say Capcom would've withheld at least most of the content anyway. They've always been about providing just enough and adding a few new characters in a revision. But perhaps next time, Capcom will factor PR into the equation instead of pure monetary gain for better or worse.

[null1024]

The most hilarious DLC is Tales of Vesperia, at least for the Xbox version. All of the stuff you can buy is stuff that's obtainable in game (costumes and what through sidequests) or worse, items and such you could get if you simply grinded for the gold or don't need (why pay for a DLC pack of healing items when it takes like 10 minutes of selling enemy crafting drops to buy the same stuff?).

That's just exploiting stupid people with money.

How far do you support that? Is it okay that they don't have a neon sign off to the side saying "this stuff you can unlock, dummy?" Why isn't it okay when the only sign a "stupid" person would have that it's unlockable is some shit buried in a license agreement?

Take note of what's being offered for sale -- things that are normally offered in game. See here: http://www.1up.com/news/tales-vesperia-dlc-buy-levels and here: http://www.xbox-hq.com/html/modules.php ... e&sid=4899
And notice that there is in fact a note saying that you can get the listed items through normal play on them.


Also, the whole business with SFxT is mostly that you spent $60 on it, now give me everything on the disc, as if I want to unlock all of it, I'd have to spend another $100, which is a totally insane idea that should not be entertained for stuff that I have here.
DLC should be to extend the life of a product, rather than to nickle-and-dime your customer for even more money. This is the latter.

I know we've dealt with Capcom's revisionist bullshit for enough time that we pretty much expect a Super/Hyper/Ultimate release with everything/near-everything unlocked eventually, but trying to squeeze money out of people like this is more excessive than that and shouldn't be a thing.

[also, to be honest, I like SFxT, and think it's asstons more fun to play than SF4, and hope Capcom stops doing stupid bullshit that damages their customers view of them and gets to patching the issues with the game]

[brokenhalo]

Doesn't clock keep going while you perform supers in, like, every SF game ever? For example, people use ultras in the last few seconds of the round to get a time out victory all the time in SF4.

you can do that to waste 2 or 3 seconds max at the end of a round, but in sfxt you get hit with a team super and it knocks 12 seconds off the clock. totally unnecessary and just panders to people who love flashing lights and shiny things. add in the fact that you can link super off literally everything in this game and you spend an inordinate amount of time watching cinemas instead of playing.

On topic: one of the more interesting things is that the characters were initially announced as ps vita exclusives. i don't know what the deal between capcom and sony looks like, but i'm assuming capcom got a money hat from sony and now they'll be adding to it with the dlc fees on console. win win for capcom....

oh and people are using the dlc characters in online ranked matches already.

[UnscathedFlyingObject]

I'm been boycotting all sorts of dowloadable crap because I knew they'd eventually start pulling shit like this.

Enjoy your DLC, suckers .

[CMoon]

I'll apathetically play the devil's advocate here:

Let's suppose Lord of the Rings was all filmed in one go. How many people would be offended that the movie was split into three movies, and they had to pay full movie price to see each installment?

Let's take it a step further. What if when Lord of the Rings came out on disc, it actually contained all three movies, but only the first was unlocked, and you had to pay additional money to unlock the second and third movie?

I'm not saying that people don't have grounds to be pissed off, but I'm not entirely convinced there's anything really wrong or unethical about it. The comparison to a glove compartment is funny, but unlike a visibly unlocked glove compartment, the only reason we even know this is here is because of hackers.

[BareKnuckleRoo]

Let's suppose Lord of the Rings was all filmed in one go. How many people would be offended that the movie was split into three movies, and they had to pay full movie price to see each installment?

I'd argue this isn't quite the same thing; the original book WAS actually written as all one volume and then split up into three as far as I'm aware, and most of its releases are in box sets of the three. The movie wasn't filmed all in one go, but it makes sense to split it even if it were, as sitting through all 3 movies in one go in a theatre is an unrealistically long movie (you'd need bathroom breaks, etc).

[Sonic R]

I've not read far into the 2nd page of this thread (yet) BUT I want to throw in my analogy - and a car one at that.

it's like buying a car and it has all the components for ABS brakes... and you go to the dealer and pay extra for them to activate the feature...

where as if the car didn't have the ABS components, and you go and have the sensors, wheel hubs, and the computer module re-program to recognize the additional components and activate the ABS system, yes you should pay extra here as the vehicle was manufactured without the feature, but was added in addition to the stock component...

buying a car and it already having all the necessary proprietary components, but not having use of them with out paying extra so the dealer/manufacturer can essentially just "flip a switch" and now it works... I do not agree with that...

just my personal feeling and some 2¢

[Ex-Cyber]

Here's how I'm thinking about it at the moment: the issue really comes down to whether a publisher's definition of a "product" lines up with the customer's expectation of a "product". To a publisher swimming in the endless possibilities of DRM, it seems perfectly natural to slice and dice the content along whatever lines they think will make the most money. But when a customer goes into the store and picks up a box, they're usually expecting a product with a clear identity and definite feature set. When the customer learns that some (or all, in egregious cases) of the DLC content was in that box to begin with, it seems like a fraud. It feels like they paid for a box that claimed to contain "Street Fighter IV" and what was inside was actually "Street Fighter IV: Shareware Edition" (please tell me I'm not the only one who remembers shady companies pulling that shit ~20 years ago).