Do you feel cheated?

[pulse2]

Using Marvel Vs Capcom as my first example, I'm a little irritated, I only just got around to buying the game no less than a month or so ago only to hear that there's a new one out, before I've even had a chance to get into it I find I'll need to trade it in for the new version, why? Because it's not an entirely new game in the same vain that a sequel to a game is, for example, I would still buy Uncharted 2 despite 3 coming out if I didn't already have it, simply because it's a different game, different campaign, different story etc. UMVC is the same damn game! Just with the stuff they could have patched and added through DLC! ANNOYING >_< Capcom did this with Street Fighter and they'll be doing it with Street Fighter X Tekken, I have no intention of buying SXT and if I do, it'll be when its in the pre-owned section going for £10, because if I do buy it new, an update will release that is better then the version I have, I will no longer look awesome because everyone has the updated version of the lame one I now have -_-

Then there's modern warfare, okay, so I've bought MW1, but now I need to buy all the expensive DLC just to keep up with my mates, okay, finally have that now. What's that? MW2 is releasing soon? And the worst part is I can't carry all the stuff I bought and had over -_- Or trade the DLC in once I've bought it. If they know they are going to do that, why can't map prices be the same as say, Killzone's, which are reasonably priced.

So yes, does this annoy you or are you fine with it, what other games and developers have you encountered that pull these money making schemes.

 

[ZeroMachine]

I never buy things to "keep up". The only multiplayer DLC's I've ever bought were the Noble and Defiant map packs for Reach, and that was, admittedly, just because I love Halo.

So... no, I guess, even though I feel like a couple DLC's I've gotten over time are a little sub par. But I can still understand why you would. IMO, releasing a new version of a game less then even three years after a game comes out, save for a "Game of the Year" collection that comes with DLC for those that didn't buy it before ala Oblivion, is just in bad taste.

 

[manythings]

Businesses seek to make money. Also don't try to keep up with the Joneses, that's the heart of envious consumerism and why people have (metric) fuck tons of debt.

Do what I do; Buy what you want and fuck the rest. Can't afford game X and the inevitable DLC? Then skip this iteration, buy the sequel and it's DLC. You've dodged the upgrade bullet. Is it really that important to have Game Y? Is game Y going to be a staple of your gaming experience for a long time? If you're playing 5 hours a week for a month, is that enough to make the game pay off for you? 2 months? 6 months?

My friends and I have a policy, when looking at a game every euro (we're in europe) has to correspond with at least one hour of gameplay. If I think a game is going to give me 20 hours of entertainment I'm not buying it for more than ?20. Try and find a similar application for your spending power and you'll find yourself cutting out things until you buy at a level you conider worthwhile.

 

[The Lawn]

That's why I waited for the Arcade Edition of SF4 before I bought it.

But this thing has always happened. And you can still play the game, you just won't be able to play with any of the new characters.

Also the bother of multiple DLCs that would inevitably add up to just as much if not more than what's going to be a 39.99 game isn't really worth the effort.

 

[pulse2]

Businesses seek to make money. Also don't try to keep up with the Joneses, that's the heart of envious consumerism and why people have (metric) fuck tons of debt.

Do what I do; Buy what you want and fuck the rest. Can't afford game X and the inevitable DLC? Then skip this iteration, buy the sequel and it's DLC. You've dodged the upgrade bullet. Is it really that important to have Game Y? Is game Y going to be a staple of your gaming experience for a long time? If you're playing 5 hours a week for a month, is that enough to make the game pay off for you? 2 months? 6 months?

My friends and I have a policy, when looking at a game every euro (we're in europe) has to correspond with at least one hour of gameplay. If I think a game is going to give me 20 hours of entertainment I'm not buying it for more than ?20. Try and find a similar application for your spending power and you'll find yourself cutting out things until you buy at a level you conider worthwhile.

Well that's the reason I didn't bother buying black ops, only for people to tell me I missed the greatest one in the series. I beg to differ personally, the amount of money that has gone towards the first 2 MW games was ridiculous, just for maps. Did I think they were worthwhile at the time? Yes. But now? No. In hindsight I could have saved that money, could have gone towards Skyrim. So I've learnt my lesson and I'll be avoiding MW3 because I spent enough on MW and MW2.

As for MvC, I did think it was worth it, that's why I bought it, only to find out a month later that my version is no longer the full game, I want the full game, not 70% of it :/ So I have to trade it in to get the Ultimate version.

I understand that it's to make money and its all business, I should know, I studied the accursed subject at uni -_- But it doesn't change the fact that I'm pissed, because its a dodgy business move. All that will make me do is stop buying Capcom games (their Street Fighter games anyway because they don't do this often with their other series') brand new, which has the reverse affect on business, if people were to share my opinion and wait for any possible updated versions of the game, their games won't sell as well because consumers will just play the waiting game. "Don't mind us Capcom, we'll just wait until you've added everything to the Ultra Hyper Supreme version of Street Fighter Mega Turbo Edition".

And its not as if its a revamp of an old game, it didn't release that long ago.

 

[DustyDrB]

That's why I waited for the Arcade Edition of SF4 before I bought it.

But this thing has always happened. And you can still play the game, you just won't be able to play with any of the new characters.

Also the bother of multiple DLCs that would inevitably add up to just as much if not more than what's going to be a 39.99 game isn't really worth the effort.

It hasn't always happened with this franchise. In fact, it has never happened with Marvel vs Capcom before. You know how many years were in between the second and third game? Eleven. No updates.

Some of that time had to do with licensing issues and I'm not saying there should be a decade in between every installment. But nine months? At least give us a year and a half before you re-release the game and split up the online community.

 

[Just_A_Glitch]

EDIT: Posted in the wrong thread. Apologies.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

I got MvC3 on day one and looking back I don't feel like I got reamed too badly. If I played online then yes, I'd be feeling pretty pissed at this point especially if I can't download the new characters and whatnot (be it for free or for a nominal fee). I don't care that by this time next year it will be highly unlikely that I'll be able to play MvC3 online because I only ever played it online once and really didn't care for it (mainly because I'm not big into fighting games to begin with)

As for games like Modern Warfare...once again, I don't play online. I plan on getting the Modern Warfare collection which I highly doubt will have any of the DLC maps but that's not why I'm getting those two games. I'm getting them because I never played the first and I liked the second enough on the PS3 to make me want to get those same achievements on the 360 (I rented the PS3 version just for clarity)

When it comes to other titles like Bethesda RPGs I picked up Fallout 3 on day one even though by the time that came out I knew about Oblivion likely being re-released with DLC. I buy certain games like the upcoming Skyrim early because...well, I want now. That voice is always in the back of my head telling me I'm an idiot for not waiting on that game but I do wait on certain ones.

Duke Nukem Forever will likely be released in a few months with DLC and if nothing else it's price will drop to the point that when I do buy it I can make fun of the people who did pick it up on day one for $60 where as I picked it up on Black Friday for $20.

To end my ramblings, I am a bit miffed about Ultimate MvC3 but in hindsight, I really should have seen it coming. I mean, Street Fighter IV is up to it's what, 4th iteration? 5th? It'll be the same with Street Fighter X Tekken and I was a fool to think it wouldn't happen with MvC. Although to it's credit, I don't see Ultimate MvC3 Tournament Edition X-2 coming out...ever (outside of iOS of course).

 

[Broady Brio]

Only with Fallout 3.

That was because I got it day one.

Then all the DLC came out, which I inevitably bought. Then Zeta and Point Lookout decided to die...

*Shakes fist

 

[Shadu]

It doesn't really bother me. If it's the same game, then I have no problem keeping my older version. Why should I jump through the hoops to try and buy the new version when I have a perfectly servicable older version, possibly missing a few characters and maybe one or two new features.

 

[DigitalSushi]

You must remember that the arcade version of a beat em up was all about shoving money into it, maybe they thought it'd be OK to do that because of the very insular relationship VS arcade games have with your money?, its a relationship that doesn't extend to your latest balls to the wall FPS. You expect Valve to give you free levels, why not fighters in the latest hardcore capcom fighting game?

 

[TooMuchDerp]

If they just called it MvC4, would you feel cheated?

EDIT: I guess the point was worded poorly. Basically, what I'm trying to say is, the gaming industry does this all the time. So many sequels are put out that add little to nothing to the previous game. And that's basically what UMvC3 is, a sequel of sorts.

 

[Sean Renaud]

I'm not upset about UMvC cus I already got my money out of that game, I'll just gift it someone and pay the 40 bucks for the what's easily 40 dollars worth of new content. If anything for me this is BETTER than DLC where it almost always feels like their nickel and diming you for shit that should have already been in the game and that probably didn't take very long to put together.

The Call of Duty MW does upset me because the entire community ups and moves, except sometimes they don't. Like Left 4 Dead 2 where it (at least on the XBox) just kinda screwed everything up. The community wasn't quite ready to move onto a new game so they didn't really which made it difficult to find anybody that wasn'a complete tard to play with online in either game at that point. We sould have been WORLDS better of if L4D2 had been a DLC and sold on a disc like they are doing with Street Fighter 4 AE, you can buy it as a disc and it's the same price as the DLC and I imagine they are compatible (online I mean that a guy playing SSF4 with DLC AE can play against someone who purchased the disc SSF4AE) thus not splitting the community a third time. It would be different if the Call of Duty games were primarily single player games with a multiplayer aspect. They aren't Activision could probably make as much or MORE money if they separated the games out and made Modern Warfare the single player as one game take out all of the multiplayer stuff and cram as much story and experience in as possible. Then have a separate Modern Warfare franchise for the multiplayer and charge people as you add in new maps and more stuff. If they wanna keep playing with their friends they're gonna have to shell out however much for the hot new maps.

 

[BytByte]

If you are able to enjoy a game before other people who wait can, why would you feel cheated?

 

[Sean Renaud]

Because some people instead of spending the hundred dollars they are spending would have waited 9 months and paid only forty.

 

[pulse2]

If they just called it MvC4, would you feel cheated?

EDIT: I guess the point was worded poorly. Basically, what I'm trying to say is, the gaming industry does this all the time. So many sequels are put out that add little to nothing to the previous game. And that's basically what UMvC3 is, a sequel of sorts.

I see whatyou mean, but lets take Tekken 6 and Tekken 5, while both of them are pretty similar, they are also their own games entirely, the plots are different, the graphics engine different, the modes different etc, to some that might not be enough and if that's the case, everyone for their own, but at least it takes time before they release, furthermore, there is enough differences for it to be a sequel and not just a reskinned version of the original.

 

[Sinclair Solutions]

I always wait with Capcom's fighting games. Expansions are always just around the corner. Jumped the gun and got Super Street Fighter IV and look! New game!

I think it would be best to just wait for Capcom to turn its attention somewhere else before picking up one of their fighting games.

 

[TooMuchDerp]

I see whatyou mean, but lets take Tekken 6 and Tekken 5, while both of them are pretty similar, they are also their own games entirely, the plots are different, the graphics engine different, the modes different etc, to some that might not be enough and if that's the case, everyone for their own, but at least it takes time before they release, furthermore, there is enough differences for it to be a sequel and not just a reskinned version of the original.

Well, yeah. But, the thing is, is that MvC3 to UMvC3 is adding a decent amount of content. A lot of characters, rebalancing, and even a few new modes if what I'm hearing from friends is to be trusted. From what I've heard, it pretty much completely constitutes a sequel, but they're calling it UMvC3 because, well, who knows? It's Capcom, maybe they're doing it to be 'ironic' for all we know.

BB:CT to BB:CS gave us one new mode, three new characters (seven if you count Lambda and the DLC's, but we didn't know about the DLC's at time of release), and rebalancing (well, also some new art and a story, but it's a fighting game. I like stories, but it's a fighting game) and I saw absolutely no one complain. It was enough for a sequel, but it seems like a lot less than UMvC3. At this point, I think it's just that Capcom's calling it ULTIMATE Marvel vs Capcom 3.

Also, I've never been a fan of Capcom, and I probably never will be. But still.