Capcom Defends Downloadable Fighters for Marvel vs. Capcom 3

Recommended Videos

Shale_Dirk

New member
Mar 23, 2010
201
0
0
No individual character add-on DLC for a fighter should ever cost more than $2.99. The industry should be trying to prevent this crap from happening; it's bad press no matter how you slice it.

Hey Capcom, here's a tip:
Don't announce that you are going to have DLC characters, and then openly state that they could have been released on disc, but you are choosing to milk your fans for an extra $20. How does that in any conceivable form of logic sound like something reasonable to say to your customers?

You should have just kept your mouth shut about DLC, included no extra characters on launch (or at least reasonably priced ones), and then made a big announcement two weeks later that "due to the massive popularity of sales, we have decided to expand upon MvC3 with more characters".

NEVER EVER TELL THE CONSUMER THAT YOU ARE INTENTIONALLY TAKING THEM FOR FOOLS AND TRYING TO MILK THEM DRY
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Sir John the Net Knight said:
Therumancer said:
Sniptastic Bus.
Wow, that's a lot of words there when your argument can be summed up with one word, "Bawww!"

You know people are not gonna stop buying games that they want to play just because you don't like certain business practices. Yeah, certain things suck and they're underhanded. But sadly, that's how the world works. DLC is not an "abuse", no one is forcing you to buy it. I bought Starcraft 2. I hate the multiplayer aspect of that game, I dislike the multiplayer maps that force me to play in a way that mind doesn't subscribe to, but the campaign mode was worth it to me. It was fun and I didn't mind paying the price of admission. Same with Black Ops. It's not a game I play because I just don't like that sort of thing. But others do and who are you to tell them they shouldn't buy something they want to buy.

It's like all those whiny TF2 people who haven't stopped bitching about the Mann-conomy store since it was introduced. Well same thing again, don't use it if you don't want to pay for it. No one is forcing you to buy shit. So yeah, I'm gonna buy MvC3, and I'm probably gonna buy DLC to boot, because I want to.

Now go "Bawww" elsewhere.
Well, actually I think given time and a consistant enough effort people will eventually decide to stand up to the gaming companies. Like it or not there are a lot of people who agree with me, it's just most either can't, or don't articulate it.

It says a lot that all you can really say in response is to flame me as well.

One point I will address specifically is that I think your relatively new to the gaming community. If you weren't you would know more about DLC and the intent and the promises that were made when this system was conceived of and launched. It definatly counts as "abuse" or outright "lies" when someone says one thing about a system like this, and then turns around and uses it for something else entirely once it's going.

That does indeed happen with a lot of things, which is why I think people need to either wise up and stick to their guns, or call people on what they see happening, and do it with how they spend their money.

That said I doubt we'll have much to say to each other. I do however think that the attitude you express is part of the problem, and that if you really believe it (other than general trolling, and perhaps hoping to incite a flame war) with time I think you'll come to regret this position.
 
Mar 26, 2008
3,429
0
0
This is bullshit and I wonder if this could be defended in any other industry. You pay for the goods in total and not drip-feed consumers what should have been there in the first place.

It would be like Nissan selling you the frame, engine, drivetrain, etc for a brand spanking new Skyline but further on down the track they'll sell you the windows, car paint and stereo. Sure you can drive the thing, but where's the incentive?
 

jtir123

New member
Nov 25, 2010
2
0
0
People are absurd. I don't know how long (and how much) people have been asking for DLC, and when we get proof of it happening, they end up hating the very company that's taking it into account. I understand the fact that revealing it early is a reason to complain, but if they kept it secret and revealed it later, what's the dif? How many other companies do you think have done that? If you want it, then buy it. If you don't, then don't buy it. I suppose I shouldn't say much more as it's human nature to complain. We are never satisfied.

Now I shall go complain about my dinner being undercooked.
 

tycho0042

New member
Jan 27, 2010
154
0
0
WOPR said:
teh_Canape said:
damn...

what happened to the old "beat the game as Chun Li to unlock Cammy" and shit
What happened to buying a game and having everyone from the get go so you can actually party with it!

(and how many characters are we talking? didn't MvC2 have 54 or 56?)
Perhaps my gaming group was strange but when MVC and MVC2 came out we had parties to unlock the characters! With fighting games particularly it gets kind of dull to just beat some heads. as long as the starting roster has some good characters to work with then some more awesome ones to unlock is probably the best I think. In all honesty my group started to get bored of the game once all the characters were unlocked because there was nothing really left to do aside from what we were doing already. Though I think there's a limit to unlocking character too. Beat the game as X character is ok, but Beat it as X character all perfect, hyper combo finishes or whatever is when they get ridiculous for those that remember I refer to examples like toshinden 2 to play as vermilion.
 

jamesworkshop

New member
Sep 3, 2008
2,683
0
0
MelasZepheos said:
I hate to agree with him, but I do. I might hate DLC, but it really has become this whole part of gaming now. And that really annoys me, because it feels so much like a cop-out way for game designers to dangle carrots in front of us and extort even more money.

My main example would be Bioware, who made probably my favourite game ever in the Mass Effect series. Brilliant game love it completely.

Except that when Mass Effect 2 came out they announced that there would be a code to unlock the Cerberus network, and from there you could download the Normandy mission and Zaeed. On release day. So why in the name of God and all the heavens didn't you just include the Normandy mission and Zaeed in the game as released on the day? I got Mass Effect 2 after the offer of it being free had run out, which meant that on top of buying a full price Mass Effect 2 I then would have had to fork out another £20 to get the full content that was already on the fucking disk.

And I also hate that DLC is becoming the new GotY. I used to enjoy getting GotY editions of games, which would include a little extra content (the Batman Arkham Asylum extra Joker mission). It was something physical, that I could have and would transfer around as long as I had the disk, instead of having to transfer things between hard drives and memory cards. Left 4 Dead GotY edition? Could have been the basic edition, it had none of the DLC.

So like I say, I hate DLC, I think in the most part it's being used for extortion, whatever the developers say, and I think that it diminishes part of the joy I always felt at actually owning the game, with a disk and a box. But I do think it's here to stay, and my whining about it won't change anything.
The first DLC for DA:O and ME2 were free to show people how DLC works
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Sir John the Net Knight said:
What does 1979 mean to you? Not much probably, but to me it was the first time I played a video game. So I have 3 decades as a gamer under my belt and your accusation that I'm hobbling in here after landing my first XBox is highly inaccurate.

Honestly, I don't give a shit about intent and promises. Because the intent is to make money and no one promised you anything. Once again I fall back on my knowledge of economics to tell you that DLC isn't going anywhere. People are obviously are buying it, so clearly a demand exists to have games extended in ways in exchange for a small fee. It's not abuse, it's called marketing. It can't be abuse because you have the option to not buy in. You want to know what an abuse is? Taxes. You can't choose not to pay them. (Well you can, but then you go to jail.) And you have little to no say in how your taxes are spent. That's abuse, only one party wins here.

And yes, I clearly do believe every point of my argument. Perhaps it was a little strong of me to accuse you of whining. But when you're trying to stir up the torch and pitchfork crowd to stamp out a completely optional and totally legal business transaction that really doesn't hurt anyone and is mutually beneficial to both parties...

Well, I don't know what else to call it.

See, but that's the problem. If you had been following games since 1979, you would know that there WERE promises made about what DLC, digital distribution, and similar things were going to be used for. You can say that there wasn't, but I *DO* remember when these systems were still being planned and why people were supporting them through their infancy.

See, I am 35 (for real), and I remember this. For you *NOT* to know this then you have to be substantially younger. Hence my comments. Either that or you haven't been paying attention, at which point you should probably be listening to those of us who were.

Comparing this to taxes is so far out of context to this discussion that I can't help but wonder if you are just argueing for the sake of it.

The point here being, that DLC and similar things are being used in an exploitive fashion. What's more due to the "business model" it's become, developers are holding back parts of already expensive games in order to sell them later. It's not a matter of them waiting to see if a game is successful, and then releasing substantial DLC later. What's more the prices are constantly rising as people... who do whine... continue to pay more money for increasingly trivial content that should have been included to begin with.

Sure, nobody is forcing you to buy this, but then again nobody really forces you to buy anything. What do people do when someone starts charging too much for a product or otherwise taking advantage of the consumer? Easy, they stop buying the product. Then the company changes it's practices and/or lowers the prices to a more reasonable level. It's a very basic, and very common thing. It's just that we gamers have yet to embrace the mentality of other consumers, which is why I post messages like this. We behave a lot like addicts, which is why we're treated that way by the industry, and have to constnatly counter accusations of game addiction.
 

mocruz1200

New member
Jan 17, 2009
562
0
0
the only thing i got from that article was "there is yet hope for megaman and zero to be in this game"so i am rejoicing
 

BoredRolePlayer

New member
Nov 9, 2010
727
0
0
I can kinda understand why capcom is doing this, they do have to re do everyone from scratch not like MvC2. But as long as it's a huge list to pick from and it won't affect online play and the price is fair, I don't think it should be a problem.
 

Mr. Omega

ANTI-LIFE JUSTIFIES MY HATE!
Jul 1, 2010
3,902
0
0
While I do somewhat agree with the principle of the arguement (DLC is part of gaming), the way this guy said it just made me see the Capcom logo with a top hat and Snidely Whiplash mustache.

Yes, making back a profit is hard in this day and age, I can understand that, but basically holding a part of the game out with the defense "We want more money" REALLY isn't going to help your image, no matter how trivial (at least I think it's trivial) the content is.

Really, whether or not I think this is genius or dick-ish will depend on the cost of the DLC.

Edit: Also, having DLC planned BEFORE THE GAME IS EVEN FINISHED almost never looks good.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Sir John the Net Knight said:
No, I'm arguing because I disagree with your argument, and because I disagree with this "revolt" mentality that you're suggesting.

I've spoken with people who are "industry insiders". And what I learned was that early DLC is usually the result of content that was cut from the game due to time constraints. And then released as DLC later, rather than simply trash it. Yes, I agree. $65 is a rather high price for game buy in. But I've tackled that issue before and it lies solely in the realm of the publisher and their reliance on outdated business models. DLC is the beginning of Digital Distribution, which is the clear direction gaming is going in.

Which brings me to the other point I wanted to make. If people don't buy something, sure they stop making it. But like I said, DLC is jump off point for a new business model, one that is quickly catching on. No one can argue that Steam has taken off huge, or that XBLA and PSN downloadable games aren't selling big. Oh and did you know Blizzard sells it's games through Digital Distribution now? And like I said, people are buying DLC. If they weren't buying it, it wouldn't be made. Clearly you are in the minority here. A rather vocal minority, but I'm starting to think that "vocal minority" is becoming a redundant term in society.

One last thing. Don't drop the term "addict" so lightly, especially when making a point like this. You really have no idea what addictions are like until you've actually been around someone who's addicted to a controlled substance.

P.S. Everything I told you about my age and my gaming background is true. If you want to question that, or any part of my wisdom that's your deal.
Oh, I'm not dropping the term "addict" lightly. What's more if you've been paying attention that's one of the big issues the gaming community is facing. Get used to it, because that's a battle that's going to be fought. While I do not agree that gamers ARE addicts, we are exhibiting similar behaviors, and the way we buy products is among them.

Also there is no "Rebellion" being encouraged here, all that is being suggested is that we act like any other group of consumers who are being overcharged, or given lower quality goods by an industry. Games as buggy as say "New Vegas" should never have seen release in that shape, and that's hardly an isolated example. By the same token to use one of Game Informer's old arguements, what we're seeing from DLC nowadays is a situation like a sports game publisher releasing the entire game, except there is no air in the ball. Oh sure they argue, you can do anything with the game, and all the content is there, but if you want them to inflate the ball for you, that costs extra.

Game developers and publishers are of course going to have plenty of reasons to defend their desicians. The bottom line is that the gaming industry got along just fine without charging a few bucks apiece for exra characters, making people pay extra for multi-player modes, and similar things. They do it now because they have learned that despite the constant "BAAAAW" that you mentioned, and the sentiments that lead to enough criticisms that articles like this one exist on the Esapist, that people will dish out the money.

My statement is simply that instead of whining about it in forums after you bought a product, simply do not buy products from that company. What's more don't buy any product from a company you know engages in these practices. The people complaining about "Marvel Vs. Capcom 3" should simply not buy the product. What's more people who don't like the way the industry is behaving in general should stop buying products from those responsible until they change.

Granted YOU don't like it, but let's get real: people have been complaining about guys like Bobby Kotick for quite a while now. You see articles about him, and dozens of complaints being made about him and what a jerk he is, and how bad his policies are. However those same people who sit there complaining about him, run right out and spend millions of dollars buying his games, and then wonder why he continues to act that way.

Seriously, read some of the messages here on "The Escapist" in various articles about Bobby Kotick for example. Then consider how many of those people ran right out and bought Black Ops.

Read some of the messages about what Capcom pulled with "Resident Evil 5" and it's multiplayer mode and such. Now consider how many of those same people making the complaints are going to run right out and buy more Capcom products like "Marvel Vs. Capcom 3". People are complaining about their expressed DLC plans, just like they did about "Resident Evil 5" and what happened with that. My answer is "don't buy the game if you don't like this kind of business plan".

No rebellion, just a straightforward act by consumers.

I just happen to remember the things that irritate me, instead of suffering amnesia when the latest shiny thing gets waved in front of me.
 

jtir123

New member
Nov 25, 2010
2
0
0
Also, having DLC planned BEFORE THE GAME IS EVEN FINISHED almost never looks good.
Yeah. People are very short-sighted though. I dunno how long people have been begging for DLC. And the roster was already finalized awhile before DLC was announced (I think it was back in August? Don't take my word for it). They just made the bad choice of revealing DLC before it was released.
 

p3t3r

New member
Apr 16, 2009
1,413
0
0
if you don't like it then wait a year for the supper special every dlc edition to come out
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Shale_Dirk said:
No individual character add-on DLC for a fighter should ever cost more than $2.99. The industry should be trying to prevent this crap from happening; it's bad press no matter how you slice it.
Except consumers are stupid and will buy it in droves regardless of PR.