What is a worse release travesty? Street Fighter V vs. The Master Chief Collection

@naughtyottsel: 1 and 4 are my biggest problems.

Anyway, I get what you are saying- we know when this stuff gets patched (for most of it anyway), so the backlash doesn't have to be as big. For MCC, that wasn't the case so it got uglier.

@Zero_epyon: Yep, that's the one

You really think a 2 hour story mode is a basic feature when SF has never had it?

Oh good lord

It doesn't matter what it is, you gauging the importance of it is irrelevant as you're not everybody, the game will be incomplete until June.

This clown, I guess then Halo 5 was incomplete for months...since they added in modes later as time went by.

I think a lot of those things can be fixed. It seems like mostly server stuff. (obama voice)But let me be clear, I still think they should have put those things in before release and not after. It's always concerning when basic features from a previous installment of a game are missing in the next version.

@charizard1605: @lostrib: thank you....didn't know who champs was and if was a YouTube thing or what.

That's why I don't get how people can even compare the two, also how does not having a mode that is entirely new to the franchise = basic feature?

If it was arcade mode then yes, he would be 100% spot on but nope, as usual he's not.

Technically yes, but not in any type of damning capacity, I'm not saying the story for Street Fighter is damning either, but the game is largely incomplete in an unacceptable form currently and until March* (or so they say) that will change, but the game will not be complete until June.

@Zero_epyon: The big thing here, for me, is the game using Capcom Network instead of PSN- that seems to be a shitshow, and I think that will require a full reworking of the backend to be patched out of the game.

Oh good lord that list is god awful.

Capcom deserves to go under....not that I want that, but shit some of those reasons are beyond basic.

But they are both equal disasters, but for different reasons. You can still play SFV where MCC, I hear is still broken or was 6 months after release.

But then SFV seems to be gimped from hell and back.

What a colossal **** up.

Ah well it's already been 5 months since Halo 5 and that's still incomplete so we'll live.

ITT: @nyadc posts about Street Fighter V, a game he's never played, nor ever intends to play, and in the same thread brings up a Halo: Master Chief Collection, an actual broken game that he just happens to love.

But no, this thread is all about finding hypocrisy.

Give us a fucking break, please.

Long story short: the question is wrong.

The release of SFV doesn't seem to be bad....ppl can play it. It just seems that it's Capcom doing more Capcom bullshit.

MCC release was a royal **** up.

There should be an option for "both are bad games"

What? Halo 5 released 3 1/2 months ago, it also got all of its planned remaining content/modes in November/December. (Big Team Battle/ Forge)

The game is done, they're now doing post release content, I'm sure what you're talking about.

I can agree with that.

Not even close, pal.

Aren't a lot of people on here saying they're not comparable since the online on SFV works, but actually it doesn't work, and the single player is very bare bones, and the MCC single player worked fine. So SFV is worse confirmed?

Server issues for a few hours, but it's back up now. MCC's issues weren't related to servers going down, but code issues that were preventing people from joining games among other issues. There were some single player issues as well from what I read, but they weren't as detremental as the mp ones. This didn't last for a few hours. It took about 17 weeks to start seeing some consistency in connectivity and play ability. But issues continued, to the point that they had to cancel a tournament. So when all of this happens to SFV, then we can have this conversation and I'd be with TC on it. Until then, there is no comparison.