Capcom Re-Evaluating Company's On-Disc DLC Policy

  • 141 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
#51 Posted by thefncrow (13 posts) -

@sins_of_mosin said:

What is the difference if the first DLC is on the disc or is ready to be downloaded on day 1? Either way you still have to buy it. I tell you if the Assassin's Creed 2 DLC was on the disc and ready to go from day one, I would of bought it. But since it came out too late in my opinion, I never got around to playing that game again.

Well, the AC2 DLC was DLC precisely because the development team realized that they couldn't finish the game on time, and so they ended up cutting those 2 chapters and a few game features (like the ability to replay single missions) so that they could finish it and get a polish run to stomp bugs.

The fact that DLC was an available route just made it an easy way to continue work on those sections of the game post-release so that the content could get into AC2 eventually.

#52 Posted by cannonballBAM (602 posts) -

@adambyrney said:

I cant believe there is an argument about them holding back content thats on the disc. DLC is supposed to come out later to add to the game, if it is already made then it is already part of the shipped game.

No excuses, if the game type cant support it then don't do DLC just to be greedy. People need to stop being sympathetic to corporate strategies/technical issues.... we are the consumers and DLC is starting to infringe on the actual game.

Saying 'don't buy it if you don't like it' is a stupid point because people clearly want the fucking game the way they are accustomed to purchasing it, they don't want content cut for a money grabbing sale later on. It's the same as charging double for Skyrim because they let you access all the content straight away.

Henry Ford said, "If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses".

Innovation is at tricky thing and most of the time it isn't perfect. A large majority of Capcom's DLC isn't crucial to the game as most people would think. The character pack for SFXT is a mistake especially when consumers who just pick up the Vita version will get all those characters where as the console owners, have to pay another $15 after they already spent $60. I think the issue lies in distribution of what would constitute as additional content and what is actual content.

The same could be said for the Asura's Wrath Act 4 DLC but at the low price of $12 for all of it, I would hardly complain seeing as the pay off is worth the time/money.

I honestly think season passes are becoming misappropriated trust between a consumer and publisher.

#53 Posted by StarvingGamer (8281 posts) -

Sucks when stupid people complain loud enough to get what they want to no one's benefit. Idiocracy here we come.

#54 Posted by SamFo (1530 posts) -

@StarvingGamer: im with you, for fighting games on disc DLC actually makes some sense... Dissapointed that everyone just stomps and screams and doesn't understand. One of the main reasons MK was so broken online was due to incompatability with DLC and such. Oh well...

#55 Posted by Sir_Lizardman (121 posts) -

I really don't understand the outrage of on-disc and first day DLC. Stopping day one and on-disk DLC won't give the consumer more content. The only thing Capcom will do is hold back the dlc for 2-month after the game is release and then make it available for download.

All this complaining will do nothing. Either you think the retail version is worth the value or not. That is why there is game reviews.

#56 Posted by Winternet (8021 posts) -

@IndieMax: yeah, that's how I thought it sounded

#57 Posted by nohthink (1223 posts) -

@IndieMax said:

@Winternet said:

@patrickklepek said:

@nohthink said:

I know this has nothing to do with the article but how do you read "Svensson"?

See-ven-sun, I believe.

I don't know much about phonetics, but that doesn't sound right. See? Can't be.

Since Svensson is a swedish name. (or scandinavian) here is how you should read it.

Sven - son.

The "en" in sven is quite like the "en" in the word "end" and the "son" should be pronounced like the word "on" with an S in front of it.

trying to find a youtubevideo where they say it.

for lack of better example. Here is Anders Svensson scoring a goal in soccer. you can listen to the name if you want to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNoC01XRZXo

I watched the video but I couldn't find the part that they say "Svensson" lol Now I know how my white friends feel like when they watch Korean movies :)

#58 Edited by PerfidiousSinn (749 posts) -

The ideal solution, especially for fighting games, would be to just hold the release of the game back until you could put all these characters in the game. Instead of pissing people off with on-disc DLC why not make the game complete the first time? I mean, it makes sense if the "online sync" issues are so huge for this genre.

(Not to mention SFxT being embarrassingly broken in several ways that maybe could be fixed if it weren't rushed, but that's a different story)

The sad fact is that this amazing, simple idea is completely unrealistic, especially for a company like Capcom. They needed to get SFxT out to please their shareholders and get their one big game into whatever quarter they need it to be in. So the DLC practices of Capcom will continue in the future despite what they're saying in their damage control statements.

#59 Posted by ch3burashka (5087 posts) -

A single comment is much too small to express the complicated issue and views on on-disc DLC, but I'm planning a blog post about it... someday. Until then, I'll reiterate my opinion of on-disc DLC - it fucking sucks, and a scam. At its most basic, my issue with on-disc DLC is that, when purchasing, you are not buying the content - you're buying the key. Mixing metaphors or analogies when it comes to physical vs. digital media is bound to bring a shit-ton of criticism, but I honestly feel cheated if I'm not buying the actual content. If it's on the disc you sold me, do I not have a right to it? At what point is the entire disc DLC that I have to pay for because consumers didn't care at the time ("When they came for the DLC, I said nothing, because I wasn't DLC"?).

The topic has been brought up before on the podcast, on Jars, on everything, and one thing that Jeff said stuck with me - using the example of MK9, he recalled how poorly NetherRealm handled the 'compatibility pack' issue, when people couldn't play online because they couldn't see other people's characters (or something along those lines). While it must've sucked at the time, I don't think that just because the situation was handled poorly, that gives them the pass to take the easy route and simply include content on the disc that they elect to keep away from me for a 'small fee'.

While I do resent it, the only real argument I've heard, and a humbling one at that, also came from Jeff, this time from a Jars episode. He said, "It doesn't matter what you think - this is the direction games are heading, and like it or not you have to deal with it". We can bitch day and night, but the man spoke the truth - they will continue experimenting and trying things we may not like because they can, and it's only up to us to vote with our dollar. And it's up to them to interpret it as such rather than yelling at hackers or pirates.

#60 Posted by RichieJohn (526 posts) -

I've never bought any on disc dlc. It needs to stop. If it's ready in time to be on the disc you need to get it (or access to unlock it through gameplay) when you hand over your shiny pound coins.

Some DLC is great but if you're asking for more money from people who already bought your game you'd better make it worth it.

#61 Edited by vinsanityv22 (1064 posts) -

It's nice to see "voting with your dollars" work, actually. You can bet that, if SFxT hit the financial expectations they wanted, they wouldn't have cared to address this at all. "Just keep doin' what you're doin'" would be the only message they hear. But since it didn't, they know they got a problem.

Although personally, the nerd rage from on-disc DLC or even the gem system isn't the reason why SFxT underperformed imo. Probably has more to do with the 19 different versions of the three fighting games (all of which are pretty similar in multiple ways) the company puts out. You really figured they would've learned a thing or two about "Fighter Fatigue" after running Street Fighter into the ground back in the 90's. But at least back then, they still experimented with new franchises like Darkstalkers and Plasma Sword. There's nothing exciting about sequels, what they're all about now. *sigh*

#62 Posted by MordeaniisChaos (5730 posts) -

DLC that starts before a game ships isn't always a bad thing, often it;s after the game is mostly finished and being produced by folks that are mostly finished on the core game and are finished after the game is content locked. This kind of shit though is just them asking for money for things that were created alongside the development of the game and were finished on the same timeline and it's fucking disgusting.

#63 Posted by Ramone (2972 posts) -

@Winternet said:

@patrickklepek said:

@nohthink said:

I know this has nothing to do with the article but how do you read "Svensson"?

See-ven-sun, I believe.

I don't know much about phonetics, but that doesn't sound right. See? Can't be.

Swe-dish-dude

#64 Posted by djgoodnews (17 posts) -

I don't understand this argument that without on disc DLC there would be sync issues. Just because Mortal Kombat screwed this up doesn't mean every developer has to. When new content comes out, every player downloads a mandatory update or they can't play online. I don't have any sync issues in TF2 even though I've never bought any extra content for that game. It all got downloaded onto my machine in some update at some point.

The bigger issue is though that forcing Capcom to stop this practice of on disc DLC won't really solve any problems aside from the whole hackers using locked characters online thing. The devs will still work on the dlc in the same time frame instead of creating more content for the disc at launch, and then when it costs them more to update the game later, they'll just pass those expenses on to you.

I'm not saying I'm happy there is a ton of content sitting on the disc I already bought that I have to pay more to access 7-8 (or more, who knows) months later. I'm really unhappy that I actually paid for it while people who stole the game are already enjoying it, but I can't help but feel like the fault for this particular issue lies more with the platform holders rather than Capcom.

#65 Posted by GirnBlanston (102 posts) -

That's not the only thing they should re-evaluate.

#66 Posted by Atary77 (502 posts) -

@CH3BURASHKA: Amen brother

#67 Posted by Carac (47 posts) -

Translation: "DLC sales are tanking"

#68 Posted by TadThuggish (907 posts) -

I like how the blog post talking about it doubles as an ad for Dragon's Dogma. That company is fucking gross.

#69 Posted by Dark_Lord_Spam (3335 posts) -

You know, Capcom, on-disc DLC isn't exactly my biggest problem with you right now.

#70 Posted by AxleBro (798 posts) -

i can't be the only one who doesn't think this is bullshit. like dude, Asuras wrath was shipped without a real ending. the original is fine but once you see the real one you're like "ohhhhhh... what the fuck capcom"

also gems and the 12 dlc sfxt characters and whatever

#71 Posted by AxleBro (798 posts) -

@Shaanyboi said:

Wait... they're... taking criticism to heart???? WHAAAAAT?!?!?!

@Dagbiker said:

Wait, you mean a company is listening.

don't worry guys, this is just a way for them to say sorry before dragons dogma releases with more than half the content locked on disc as dlc. they didn't actually listen to us.

#72 Posted by nintendoeats (5975 posts) -

That's going to bite all of the complainers in the ass real fast.

#73 Posted by GaspoweR (3064 posts) -

So does this count as an E3 MYSTERY????

#74 Posted by ERoBB (160 posts) -

Good. I kind of wish Dragon's Dogma managed to make it out of the "pre-rethinking" stage though.

#75 Posted by DarkbeatDK (1298 posts) -

The Street Fighter X Tekken debacle have really turned gamers against DLC. I've seen people around the net complain that games have DLC content and who can blame them? Jeff's statements about how DLC is something that companies work on when the game is done, doesn't hold up that well when it's on the disc and/or planned from the very beginning of the development process, like this article describes it. It's just cut contend that are locked away so publishers can inflate the price of a game to 80$ or 90$. Maybe it's just Japanese companies that don't know how to DLC. If you think about it, GTA IV and Mass Effect 2 had fantastic DLC, while Capcom charges for stuff you used to unlock in their games by playing them and Square-Enix charges for the ending to their Final Fantasy games.

#76 Posted by Viking_Funeral (1799 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Awcko

Saying you're planning ahead to stick DLC in there is not exactly the best thing to say. If you're planning additional content from the very beginning, you're literally planning to make some content for the game and keep it locked up to sell it for later. Additional content should be made additionally at a later date. I can understand day 1 dlc because of the cert process and everything, but if it's on the disc, you would have had to have that all ready for disc pressing and cert way back before launch.

Day 1 DLC isn't just magically whipped up during certification. That DLC has to be certified, as well. Devs plan and start developing DLC while core development is ongoing. Capcom is far from the only company that does this, yet they're the most common target for scapegoating.

I'd say BioWare & EA, both separately and together, have been getting plenty of flack for it. Probably more in some circles.

And planning Day 1 DLC early in the development cycle may make sense from a business standpoint, but customers don't care about that. They see it as taking resources from development. That may or may not be true. There are certainly examples of both. But trudging ahead with a practice and trying to reason with customers with "You're wrong! It makes business sense!" only lets a more progressive company come along and find a better solution. Not to mention angers customers.

#77 Posted by MiserableLittlePileOfSecrets (15 posts) -

If we're really being heard, WTF are they doing with Mega Man games?

#78 Posted by tourgen (4512 posts) -

Dragon's Dogma has day 1 DLC? Ahh man come on guys. I want to buy your games but you keep trying to stick it in while I make to hand you the cash. Oh well I'll play some more saints row and some elder scrolls I guess.

#79 Posted by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

Only reason why they're doing this is to avoid further backlash for Dragon's Dogma, which they NEED to be successful this year. In their defense, it is the least egregious fault they've done thus far. Looking at it rationally, they have already admitted to making missions specifically for the purpose of DLC MONTHS ago, and this game isn't even gold yet (Or it is and there's something odd going on with the review builds, I don't know).

Bottomline: Capcom USA is trying DESPERATELY to save face outside of japan, Capcom of Japan DOESN'T GIVE A FUCK because they know Monster Hunter Vita and 3DS will sell 3 million a piece in japan alone, so fuck everything.

Someone at Capcom Japan needs to get fired.

#80 Posted by Foggen (861 posts) -

Hear this:

Never buy the first release of a Capcom game. They are for suckers. If the game gets any traction at all it will be released again with 30% more content at $40 within a year.

#81 Posted by Cretaceous_Bob (513 posts) -

In a groundbreaking victory for the gaming community, Capcom takes all on-disc DLC off the disc, makes you still pay for it, and download it too.

Good job everyone.

#82 Posted by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

@tourgen said:

Dragon's Dogma has day 1 DLC? Ahh man come on guys. I want to buy your games but you keep trying to stick it in while I make to hand you the cash. Oh well I'll play some more saints row and some elder scrolls I guess.

To be fair, the Day 1 DLC isn't that bad. It's a bunch of extra weapons and items which will be rendered useless after an hour of gameplay.

The problem is the DLC which ISN'T Day 1 DLC (outside of japan, because WHAAAAAAAAAAAAT?) as those missions were completed MONTHS ago for the sole purpose of generating more revenue. THAT is the real issue.

And yes, Capcom is starting to realize that people don't give a fuck about Gems and that their DLC plans for SFxT were COMPLETELY botched from the get go, and most everyone in the FGC is like, "man fuck that shit, EVO season, then skullgirls to tide me over until Persona, which will tide me over until Guilty Gear, which we will play for a while, then go back to SSF4:AE when tourney season kicks up again"

#83 Posted by sins_of_mosin (1556 posts) -
@edgefusion said:

@sins_of_mosin: It being ready to download on day 1 or being on the disc are two different things. Developers have been known to wrap up the game and immediately start work on the DLC, by the time the game is through certification and all the other stuff it needs to go through before it can hit shelves the DLC is done and ready to go as well. This is the same situation as with day one patches. If the DLC is already on the disc it means it was completed at the same time as the rest of the game and should therefore be part of the initial purchase price.

Who is to say what is part of the original purchase?  A dev/pub can decide what they sell you and when.  Again, there is no law saying that everything on a disc you buy should be yours at the time of purchase. 
 
If a game came out and the original purchase only allows you to play the story but not the MP.  You are then required to make another purchase to unlock the MP, would people have the same issue?  Again, the dev/pub sets what is bought at the time of purchase because they control their content. 
#84 Edited by mpgeist (612 posts) -

I have stopped purchasing Capcom games because of their crazy DLC schemes. At first I thought it would be difficult, but amazingly life has continued on! I wish they would stop being so greedy though, I wouldnt mind buying their games again.

#85 Posted by Turtlebird95 (2414 posts) -

If Crapcom thinks that this is all they need for people to forgive them, they've got another thing coming.

#86 Posted by Mesoian (1574 posts) -

@sins_of_mosin said:

@edgefusion said:

@sins_of_mosin: It being ready to download on day 1 or being on the disc are two different things. Developers have been known to wrap up the game and immediately start work on the DLC, by the time the game is through certification and all the other stuff it needs to go through before it can hit shelves the DLC is done and ready to go as well. This is the same situation as with day one patches. If the DLC is already on the disc it means it was completed at the same time as the rest of the game and should therefore be part of the initial purchase price.

Who is to say what is part of the original purchase? A dev/pub can decide what they sell you and when. Again, there is no law saying that everything on a disc you buy should be yours at the time of purchase. If a game came out and the original purchase only allows you to play the story but not the MP. You are then required to make another purchase to unlock the MP, would people have the same issue? Again, the dev/pub sets what is bought at the time of purchase because they control their content.

Yes, exactly. They wouldn't buy it. It's all about the value proposition and how much they are taking away from your initial investment. Let's engage a hypothetical.

Let's say RE6 splits itself into two. RE6 story, and RE6 mercenaries which is the online multiplayer. Now for most RE fans, they won't care about the multiplayer, the core story mode is what they're there for. So If Capcom decides to charge an extra 20 bucks for that mode, Low returns will be seen across the board. The bottom line is, you can make the argument that the value of the multiplayer in this situation is not worth the development time placed into it.

Now, conversely, let's look at SFxT. That game as 44 (?) characters avaliable at the jump off. They designed another 12 specifically for DLC and cross promotions of the Vita. They did such a bad job hiding that stuff on the disc that hackers found it, exploited it, and used them online, removing any and all shock/hype value from those characters being included. What resulted is people actively dismissing the Vita version, boycotting the DLC, and a roster of fan favorites probably never being used again because of Capcom's mismanagement. Again, the value proposition vs. the development time.

My point is, often, it makes far more sense to put your all into your final product and reduce what you sell as DLC to cutting room floor material. If you are wasting time developing more things on the gamble that people will want to pay 5-15 dollars more ontop of the initial investment, you're going to run an extremely tricky gambit, one that Capcom lost with SFxT (and Vanilla Marvel).

TL:DR: You can't hide that stuff. People find it, everytime, no exceptions. A dev can choose when and what they sell you, but the public will always know if the hooks for those sales are simplistic or complex. You need to run an effective shell game in order to make it palatable. That means PR working with the dev teams, which is something that capcom is EXCEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDLY poor at. You have to play this game right. I bet you 20 dollars that Skyrim has DLC hooks in it right now. But they are hidden away well enough that no one will care all that much when it comes out. I bet you most of the Saint's Row the 3rd DLC had predev hooks in it, but no one gave a crap there. IT's only when you make a big deal out of your DLC plans that people start to worry. It's all about how you play the sales game, and Capcom keeps reminding us that they have no idea what hte controls are.

#87 Posted by SomeJerk (3261 posts) -

The Asuras Wrath situation can suck my dick.
The reason we actually need on-disc DLC for fighters can also suck my dick.
Capcom's DLC business as a whole can suck everyone's dick, even creatures who don't have a dick.
Dick dick dick.

#88 Posted by Anupsis (295 posts) -

Dragon's Dogma has no multiplayer. Why would the DLC need to be on the disc?

#89 Posted by SpudBug (633 posts) -

People as always cry and complain about the wrong thing.

Now they'll just make sure to remove the parts they want to charge too much for.

I had no problem with the SFxT on disc thing but I also have no desire to pay for more characters, especially not a $20 pack that is all in one and no piecemeal options. Plus that game has not hooked me in very much at all.

#90 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -

@Turtlebird95 said:

If Crapcom thinks that this is all they need for people to forgive them, they've got another thing coming.

What, more angry forum posts? A petition?

I don't necessarily disagree with general sentiment of Capcom and their shitty policies, but I've long forgotten about most of their franchises, except Resident Evil and the occasional off-game, such as Asura's Wrath, and possibly the new Devil May Cry. Capcom to me, has just turned a tad too exploitative for my taste, and repeat offending has left a bad taste in my mouth, so I don't buy any games from them unless I'm really, really into a property.

#91 Edited by TooSweet (388 posts) -

I can't think of the last Capcom game I purchased except for a copy of Asura's Wrath that I got really cheap since it was used. It was a tough decision since I like to support companies if there is a game I want to play and I usually buy it new. But after hearing about the DLC having the real ending I thought it was really messed up on the company's part. I decided if they want my money they can have the DLC portion of it and the local shop can get a used game off their shelf.

#92 Posted by Jetfire (9 posts) -

My concern now is that Capcom will just leave content off their disc now in the interest of selling it as DLC at a later date. It's as if they are creating micro transactions for a $60 retail game. This is unacceptable, and hopefully the consumer speaks with their wallet.

#93 Posted by Veektarius (4865 posts) -

The amount of DLC shenanigans a company can get away with is proportional to the rabidness of its fanbase for more content. Mass Effect? Super shenanigans. Gears of War? Medium shenanigans. Capcom games... well, they're going for Mass Effect levels of shenanigans and finding out that maybe their fanbase isn't quite that rabid. Personally, I'd like it if companies made most DLC at least 3 hours of content, but I'm sure the sales numbers dont' support that model.

#94 Posted by edeo (277 posts) -

I don't care about on-disc DLC. It's purely semantics. We get screwed in much worse ways.

#95 Posted by Solh0und (1779 posts) -

@edeo said:

I don't care about on-disc DLC. It's purely semantics. We get screwed in much worse ways.

Agreed. I personally think people got bent out of shape about the whole thing.

#96 Posted by Doctorchimp (4076 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Awcko

Saying you're planning ahead to stick DLC in there is not exactly the best thing to say. If you're planning additional content from the very beginning, you're literally planning to make some content for the game and keep it locked up to sell it for later. Additional content should be made additionally at a later date. I can understand day 1 dlc because of the cert process and everything, but if it's on the disc, you would have had to have that all ready for disc pressing and cert way back before launch.

Day 1 DLC isn't just magically whipped up during certification. That DLC has to be certified, as well. Devs plan and start developing DLC while core development is ongoing. Capcom is far from the only company that does this, yet they're the most common target for scapegoating.

That being said...

Can we agree that it's pretty awesome people finally fucking voted with their wallets along with their annoying message board comments?

#97 Posted by Telekenesis (6 posts) -

@sins_of_mosin:

They should have to say clearly on the box then what on the disc is being purchased and what is not. Claiming and presenting the item as a complete product purchased with the price displayed is fraudulent when in fact it is not, and how can someone be held liable when they unlock that content as it is not made clear what was purchased for $60 and what was not *before* your purchase.

#98 Posted by LaserLambert (167 posts) -

Ooooo, good way to end an article Patrick, with a quote like that. Solid.

#99 Posted by Korwin (2870 posts) -

@Anupsis said:

Dragon's Dogma has no multiplayer. Why would the DLC need to be on the disc?

Because money, that's it.

#100 Posted by thefncrow (13 posts) -

@Telekenesis said:

@sins_of_mosin:

They should have to say clearly on the box then what on the disc is being purchased and what is not. Claiming and presenting the item as a complete product purchased with the price displayed is fraudulent when in fact it is not, and how can someone be held liable when they unlock that content as it is not made clear what was purchased for $60 and what was not *before* your purchase.

Do you have any examples of a company advertising features on the box that weren't included in the game but were actually a paid DLC purchase? Because unless you have that, I don't exactly see the problem. If the advertising only points to actual content that's in the main game and included with the base game purchase, then who cares what DLC items are additionally included on the disc?

The base game is a complete product. If you don't want to go beyond the base game, that's fine and good and you've got a complete game experience (except of course for the Asura's Wrath nonsense which I completely agree is incredibly gross). But what's the rationale for requiring them to disclose items on the disc that aren't part of the base game experience?

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.