Capcom says 'no distinction' between on-disc and DLC
Capcom has responded to Better Business Bureau complaints regarding its large on-disc roster update for Street Fighter X Tekken.
On-disc DLC tends to ruffle feathers, making gamers feel like they're forced to shell out more money for content they've already bought. The dust was most recently kicked up in the case of Street Fighter X Tekken, when it was revealed that the large roster update coming to Vita much later in the year is already on-disc in the console versions, ready to be purchased for 20 bucks when Capcom flips the switch.
This led some fans to the Better Business Bureau, and Cinema Blend reports that Capcom has now issued an official response to the complaints.
SFxT has an enormous amount of content, fully developed and available for play and enjoyment immediately on-disc. Given the 38 characters available for full play, as well as multiple play modes, SFxT provides great value for all players from day one. While Capcom is sorry that some of its fans are not happy about the chosen method of delivery for the DLC, we believe that this method will provide more flexible and efficient gameplay throughout the game's lifecycle. There is effectively no distinction between the DLC being "locked" behind the disc and available for unlocking at a later date, or being available through a full download at a later date, other than delivery mechanism.
In terms of legal realities and business planning, Capcom is probably right. DLC is built in such a way that it usually wouldn't be made in the first place if the business plan didn't count on making more money from it, on the disc or not. And thanks to how digital rights law works, you're really not purchasing ownership of everything on the disc anyway.
However, the problem with on-disc DLC is largely about fan perception and good PR, so this justification is likely to only add fuel to the fire. Plus, for a company that's grown infamous for reviving its Super and Hyper editions lately, having a large roster update ready to roll out on day one may feel like a back door to the same end.
-
Shacknews
replySteve Watts posted a new article, Capcom says 'no distinction' between on-disc and DLC.
Capcom has responded to Better Business Bureau complaints regarding its large on-disc roster update for Street Fighter X Tekken.-
[deleted]
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
[deleted]
-
-
Dollar Locked Content
-
-
-
horseshit!
-
Do any publishers not have their heads up their asses?
-
-
Sadly, Capcom are right on this one. Doesn't mean we have to like it though.
-
-
"Right" is pretty subjective here.
-
Legally right then?
-
They are right in the sense that giant douchebags are sometimes right.
-
-
-
It might be legal but that doesn't make it right.
-
-
-
-
Are you talking about IAP?
Yeah, it's a similar thing except that you're paying an extremely small price to begin with usually. I can't even buy a coke for $0.99. If you want more money for more levels I'm more apt to comply than when you're charging $60, which is more than you used to charge, and then still want more money for the rest of the game.
-
-
-
other than delivery mechanism and time of development. DLC is often planned ahead of time and built into schedules, but often completed/worked on after the game is finalized. seems here they planned and executed all at once, which really is the same (they would have sold that content regardless) but people should know by now that putting huge chunks of content behind a pay wall infuriates gamers.
-
What would be the alternative?
As in, you're saying that DLC is planned ahead of time, worked on after the game is finished and then delivered later, but was part of the original goal.
I'm on the impression that what used to happen is the developer would finish the game and then start working on another one.
If so, then why did that stop happening? As in, they make $X on the game and then $Y on the DLC so they want to make $X+$Y on the game. If DLC didn't exist as a possible concept would they just charge $X+$Y? Would they scale down the scope of the game because they can only charge $X? Or do they just want $Y extra?
All of the possibilities are valid, I'm just wondering what would happen if DLC were impossible.-
It stopped happening when millions of people ate up all kinds of DLC. I don't know who the first was to do it, but I think the modern warfare community proved it very viable. I think it's a good idea for developers to make back more money on one title than move directly onto another one, to help offset costs and such. But when it's on the disc, I consider it completed alongside the original product, and no community managers or game developers are going to sway my thoughts on that.
This move by capcom is, while legally allowable, a dirty slap in the face to the people buying their games.
What's really sucky is that people are going to buy it up anyhow, and send the message to capcom that it's okay to do. -
DLC to me is the modern day equivalent of an expansion pack - but instead of waiting ages for a large expansion pack that cost $30 or whatever, you wait a couple months and get a smaller chunk for a range of $5-10 on average. whether you like this or hate it, that's how i see it - i'm not advocating or demonizing it.
the industry has changed a lot. when i was a kid, patches were unheard of, pretty much - so it's cool we get those these days (yay internet) and DLC is also a kind of evolution like that.
but yes, a lot of companies plan DLC these days. it's no secret that it exists, a large chunk of people like it and buy it, and for those people, that extends the life of the game.
if DLC was impossible, i suppose we'd go back to the world we lived in 20 years ago.-
I used to buy expansion packs; I bought the expansion packs for Quake and Quake 2, as well as Q3 Team Arena (before realizing that it kinda sucked, and selling it back to EBX), and Wages of SiN.
In the FPS genre, I haven't seen any legitimate single-player campaign expansion packs, aside from Fallout 3. Expansions of that scope take a lot of work to create, far more work than the usual "create assets and code stuff during the time between entering cert and release" timeline of DLC production. Instead, we see multiplayer map packs, horde mode maps, and cosmetic items or DLC weapons.
Id Software was planning to do DLC for Rage, but then... didn't. No word since then, despite an interview from Tim Wililts mentioning DLC: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/26/rage-interview/
Actually, the programmers are all very, very, very busy, but the level designers and the artists are starting to work on some DLC. But we want to hold off a bit and find out what people like.
Yeah, that... didn't happen.-
-
Well, then developers shouldn't talk about it before release. Even a vague quip about DLC development is disingenuous if that developer then ends up developing NO DLC. I don't think Willits anticipated that at the time; he was all smiles before release, but then after, there was the rumor of the layoffs (which later were acknowledged by Pete Hines), then the rumors that Doom 4 was cancelled (which Pete Hines later flatly denied: http://www.joystiq.com/2012/02/28/bethesda-doom-4-isn-t-cancelled/ ).
If DLC is not a "done deal", why do some developers keep harvesting community expectations that it is?-
-
Actually, I would prefer to hear nothing aside from a title, genre, and short premise until release. That's what I'm doing for Bioshock Infinite right now. I've only seen the original August 2010 unveil trailer, the one from E3 last year, and then after that point, when there's a news article about Ken Levine talking about another key aspect of the game, I just go, "NOOOPE! DON'T WANT TO HEAR ABOUT IT!"
If his artists were working on potential DLC assets, don't mention it, because that makes me think that there might be DLC. I'd rather not know at all, instead of having to couch that news story into "might be scuttled after bad financial numbers on release".-
but if you don't know any DLC is coming you're more likely to sell the game back to Gamestop (which means potential lost revenue from both you not buying the DLC and someone else buying that used copy instead of a new one).
-
I'm an anomaly. I don't buy games for what DLC they're going to have; I buy them for what they contain on the disc / Steam payload on launch. I can't sell PC games back to Gamestop, and I almost never buy games that I'm going to sell back. With the death of pre-release demos, and the lack of XBL / PSN accounts, I watch gameplay videos to see if the game's good, and if there's any non-visible problems like control lag.
I look at the average gamer's patterns of preordering stuff that fizzles, and say, "Wow, you're wasting a LOT of money per year!" Preordering a game these days is a huge gamble for the base game on launch, considering how many post-launch bugfests and disappointing gameplay gaffes we've seen (Homefront probably being the most egregious example). I think the last game I purchased before release was Bioshock, and I got burned by the DRM, and said, "Never again!"
Then again, this is coming from the guy who preordered a car over a year prior to its release, but that's a bit different, since I did a ton of research on what it was going to be.-
I'm an anomaly. I don't buy games for what DLC they're going to have
I didn't say it would make you more likely to not buy the game, I said it'd make you more likely to sell it back when you're done.
-
-
-
-
-
this doesn't really have anything to do with DLC, it's a standard issue with early disclosure in software development. You risk over promising/under delivering or having to renege on something people expected because it didn't end up being feasible for whatever reason. But if you say nothing then people fill in the vacuum and complain about a lack of information.
-
-
-
one other change has been 'expansion packs' being stand alone products more and more often, (like Relic's RTS expansions) which makes sense, no reason to immediately restrict your addressable market to those who already bought your previous game.
-
-
-
-
-
"we believe that this method will provide more flexible and efficient gameplay throughout the game's lifecycle"
So, I'm not trying to justify anything, but I just want to touch on this particular part of the comment. Often times, this stuff is included on disc because its a multiplayer game and even people who did not buy the content need to have it. For example, if you didn't buy the DLC, but the guy you're fighting online did. Well, he has to appear as the fighter he bought. One of the console makers limits how much content can go into a patch, so you can't just throw the new characters into an update. Even if you offered up the content for free download, there's no guarantee everyone will get it. So, shipping the DLC content with the game prevents the online population from getting segemented between those who bought the DLC and those who didn't.
-
Mortal Kombat handled the situation via "compatibility patches" which were required for online play. It worked just fine.
-
The way Mortal Kombat did it did not work well at all. There were numerous issues that lasted for months when people tried to play online.
-
Interesting. in my experience, XBL limits the size of title updates across a title. It's tough to add much content into them.
-
Oh nevermind, I see what you mean. Interesting way to do it...if MS lets you.
-
-
-
-
Does any one actually remember the shareware/demo CD days? I remember when games like Wolfenstien 3d, Quake, Heretic, and Doom were sold as demos but you could call a phone and unlock the full game. This is bit shady in this case but this practice has been used well before the internet.
-
Not really a good analogy since
a) That was playing a free demo then unlocking a full game, and
b) Companies stopped doing the CD thing since the only places that would stock them were competitors that they were undercutting and once hackers figured out how to unlock the games they realized it was a stupid idea. -
-
i don't remember the specifics of the others but Doom definitely didn't work that way. the shareware version had a special WAD containing only the shareware levels so that it would be impossible for an enterprising hacker to unlock the full version with just the shareware files. to this day, with Doom emulators, you can either use the shareware WAD and get the shareware levels, or a retail WAD and get all the levels. i don't ever recall a Doom shareware release where the full assets were included and unlockable
-
He's referring to the registered Quake 1 CD which had encrypted, unlockable versions of all previous id games. Wound up being a big liability once hackers figured out how to unlock the games for free. It was a "dawn of the CD-ROM, pre-digital distribution" fad that died out pretty quickly. The best way to get the discs into the hands of consumers was to have stores distribute them, which wasn't going to happen since the stores then wouldn't make any money off of the software encrypted on the disc.
-
-
-
-
-
game is ok but it's a little broken. You have two health bars, a lot of regen, and a fairly strong defensive defensive option on wakeup, so there's a lot of hp to get through without gems. Gems increase damage output significantly, but they take a long time to configure and are sold as DLC. Also, some of the rumored DLC gems look really really dumb. So there's quite a bit of hesitance about the game.
For my two cents, the late hitbox changes they made to air vs ground were a poor choice. Wonky AAs encourage bad play.-
It really does have have the best bugs. I laugh my ass off every time I see fat Mega Man leap into the sky, as in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAJUelWRWBs
The game is kinda a disaster for comp play right now and even Ono and Harada have said it's meant to be a more casual game than I think the fighting game community is treating it as. I'm curious to see how long it survives.
-
-
-
-
-
I think that Capcom should be upfront and list what comes on the disc with your purchase and what is locked behind a paywall. Informing your customer about what they'll be getting for their money BEFORE the game hits stores will go a long way towards calming the anger.
Knowing that you can access X content but not Y content before you put your money down, could shift the argument back to where it needs to be. "Is X worth the asking price or do I want to wait until X becomes cheaper so I can buy access to the Y-add on?" instead of "I bought the disc which contains data for x and y. Why do I have to pay extra to access Y?"-
-
Depends on the DLC. In a fighting game they add new characters which changes how people play the game. If you want to be competitive you need to purchase those characters to learn them. That is shitty for the consumer. Especially when you are putting out 12 new characters at $4-6 a pop.
If it's gold guns or a mission pack that isn't tied to a main story line I'm fine with it but when you have to buy it to get the complete story like in ME3 it sucks for the customer. Especially when it's offered on day one. -
First of all, it's insulting to think that the content is there, but not accessible yet. And when it can be unlocked, you will have to dish out for it. In my mind DLC may cost money because it incurs additional developer costs. It doesn't make sense that the DLC is already finished before the game even ships, and indeed ships on the disc. Shouldn't that just be considered part of "the game?"
-
-
This cap com guy is actually extraordinarily honest in a way most people won't understand.
DLCs are profit, core business and they will be there whether made during or after, it makes no difference. Even if not made during, they'll be laid out for a short production long before base game release.
The key is the Amount of base game content. That decides whether DLCs are legit or not.
-
-
-
-
-
-
If people just feel better for continuous being lied to about the whole rationale of DLC:
*ahem* gibe monies *ahem*
Then I'm sorry, you're an emo fool. Apart from a few rare examples like gta4, fo3, new vegas (betheda learned the hard way *horse armor*), DLCs are thinly-veiled money grabfest.
-
-
-
[deleted]
-
Why does the timeframe matter? They shot all the Lord of the Rings movies at the same time- should they have charged you three times to see the movie? What about the extended footage they left out and then included on the blu ray edition? That was in the can at the time of release but no one got it.
I'm trying to figure out the logic here?-
They shot most of all 3 movies at the same time, but they didn't finish photography on all 3 films before release of the first one. Not like it matters anyway because there is much more to a film than just principal photography. Work on the successive films continued, they were not shelved when Fellowship was released, unlike this DLC.
As for the EE BDs, everyone on the planet knew they were coming. Obviously the studio wanted you to double dip, but there really was no reason to unless you wanted a copy of the TE. It's not like the EE were on the TE discs waiting to be unlocked for full price.
-
-
-
-
