@onewithtoenail7 (NOTE: I'm really sorry this response is so long. I'm very long winded because it's not easy for me to convey my points in short sentences. And I like to address every facet of the arguments from my opponents. I would appreciate it if you'd still read all of this, but I understand if you don't bother.)
First of all I'm not a PR spokesman at all. I'm an intelligent 27-year old college student who--unlike several people on this site, it seems--has actually taken an economics class. Not to say that I know everything or that there's nothing legitimate in the outrage over DLC. Of course there's some legitimacy behind it. And let's also be clear that I'm not trying to say people should just go buy games in spite of how they feel about the practice. That's just silly. If you don't wanna buy a game--regardless of whether the reason is cost, business practices, or just being in a bad mood that day--DON'T BUY IT. To pressure others into buying in spite of that would be preventing the free market from doing what it's supposed to do. So are we clear on that? Thanks.
Now let's analyze what you're saying here. First, you've said that I'm treating this like a criminal investigation. Given the enormous amount of rhetoric on this site about how these practices are "criminal" and that companies should be sued in court to accomodate that, is it really all that surprising that I'd treat this LIKE a criminal investigation? Hard as this might be for some people to believe, feeling ripped off is not proof of price gouging. They already tried to get the gasoline companies for that, and guess what? They couldn't find direct instances of the companies actively trying to rip off consumers. I don't honestly know why--and to be fair maybe someone was paid off--but it suggests that the profits aren't nearly as high or significant as rhetoric in the news makes it out to be. (As a side note, did you know that bottled water and apples cost more than gasoline? Makes the price seem smaller, doesn't it?) Plus, your claim that this is "tricking" people into spending extra money is somewhat laughable to me. Yes, there might be some genuine suckers out there, but I'm pretty sure most of us know about the "trick" long before we make the purchase. If you look up the definition of the word "trick," I'm pretty sure this doesn't fit that description. Last I checked, you don't get to blame companies for doing magic tricks that you already know the secrets to. (That's an analogy, just so we're clear.)
You also mention that companies will adapt to the demands of the consumers. I don't recall saying otherwise. I'm quite aware that companies will probably move away from on-disc DLC as consumers continue to get upset about it, and I'm not saying that's a bad thing at all. What I'm saying is that it's kind of hard to move away from a practice that makes you money if your company is having financial troubles, most of which I don't think we're going to hear about in the news. That doesn't necessarily make it okay to continue the practice, but companies have to keep themselves afloat first and foremost. On the surface, it looks like these companies are raking in enough dough to swim in, but I don't hear any thorough factual figures to back this claim up. I'm pretty sure most of the people on here don't run a business, nor do they understand all the costs a company incurs trying to get games developed and onto the market. That's kind of necessary in order to see what "greed" is under these circumstances, wouldn't you say?
Third, as I already stated, a consumer's decision whether to buy something is his/her own choice and depends on the utility s/he gets from it. So whether they donate money to charity doesn't enter the equation, though personally I'd be happy to support them in that effort. Personally, I will admit that I'd probably take that claim at face value either because I'm a sucker or an optimist, but something tells me that most of the gaming community would try to discredit that claim any way they could in order to keep it in line with their story of "businesses are evil and greedy." So that seems like a wash to me and I don't see what it's supposed to prove. I DO see how stupid that kind of judgment is, and I don't think for a second it's what I was suggesting. (If I'm wrong then I apologize and would appreciate you showing me where I said that.) (TBC)
@UniversalCypher I'm not saying I like the practice. I don't. But most of the "evidence" people provide is just rhetoric and vague generalities that don't PROVE anything.
Suppose for instance that it was literally impossible--given our crappy economy, the high cost of development, and the need for companies to stay afloat--for a corporation to continue existing without locking content on the discs or providing extra DLC. Again, I don't like that. I think it's unfair to the consumer. But a company cannot just take losses for the "benefit of the consumer." Profit has to come first. Again, I'm not saying that's the case, but the seeming unwillingness for anybody on these forums to do thorough research into how much profit was made, how much was spent, how much is being put away for a rainy day fund, how much the operating costs are, and how much HAS to be paid back to the shareholders--some of which are actually ORDINARY PEOPLE like you and me--how can we prove it's about "greed"? Or at least about the traditional vision we have of greed? (unnecessarily obtaining extra wealth that is not needed) Making profits in and of itself is not "greed." Greed is something along the lines of charging $1,000 for a cup of water. We all know water costs less than that to make. But do any of us really know how much it costs to develop and market a game?
Also, though you're correct in saying that it probably isn't a "necessity" to scrape gamers for every last cent because they "love to game," I would turn around and argue that it is not a "necessity" to game in the first place. And that's what most people don't seem to understand. The market is designed so that people exchange money for things they find more valuable than the money they're exchanging it for. Nobody forces them to buy these games with locked DLC, and given how anytime an extra costume is locked on the disc the internet bustles with activity reporting it, the vast majority of the buyers likely already KNOW the content is locked on the disc. Yet they choose to purchase the games anyway. What does that say? It says we still value the games more than the money, even WITH the content locked on the disc. If it really bothered us that much, we'd save our money and go to a movie instead, or heck just go outside and play softball. Nothing FORCES us to spend our money on these games, and if we really want to send a message that on-disc DLC isn't okay, the best way to do that is not to purchase in the first place. How many people on these forums complaining have still gone out and bought the game? IDK the answer, but it's probably more than it should be.
Let me reemphasize this because I need to be clear on it: I DON'T LIKE ON-DISC DLC. When DLC in general is being provided, if there's any way to get a Game of the Year Edition, I will wait for that version to come out. But even IF on-disc DLC bothered me so much that I felt the need to come on here and condemn the practice as driven by evil intentions, I like to think I'd still defend it a little, and it's not because I secretly agree with the practice; it's because when an entire mob of people are screaming the exact same thing, somebody has to remind them that the world isn't black and white. Virtually everyone on here--and on this site--tends to have the exact same opinions and the exact same rhetorical outrage. That's not healthy in a society that is supposed to encourage others to think for themselves. In fact, it is generally conducive to shutting people up who don't agree with the majority. There is ALWAYS another side to the story. I'm providing that other side--albeit in a hypothetical manner--because everyone else is just repeating the same ideas.
@dlCHIEF58 Yes, you're correct. I'll openly admit that EA has slipped back into the realm of "greedy publisher" since about mid-2010 and that they didn't directly develop those games. And they DID hold onto some of their older, less consumer-friendly practices like the yearly sports releases and the continuation of NFS which has arguably been dead since Most Wanted. That said, when we look at their release schedule during their prime--which I'd say was between 2000 and 2006--there were so many other franchises they were sequelizing yearly, and most of those franchises are either getting fewer sequels nowadays or are safely dead, with the exception of a few recent reboots in SSX and Medal of Honor.
Also, though I don't mean to say it's an excuse, the point at which EA stopped moonlighting those original IPs and started implementing stuff like "Project $10" was around or shortly after the economy collapsed, so the lack of risks on their part is a LITTLE more forgivable and explainable. I'm guessing that if the economy had continued to grow after 2008, EA would have kept financing these more risky new properties.
Either way, I don't think gamers are very receptive to the attempts companies make to mend the burned bridges, and I find it rather frustrating. But we'll have to wait and see if they're serious first. :)
@sharpshooter188 Well they can't exactly do that with SFxT because one of the unlockable characters is going to be Cole McGrath, and if they just released a patch to make him available to everyone, Sony would probably sue over his inclusion in the 360 version. And by now I'm pretty sure they're counting on the revenue from those DLC characters to meet some financial figures. Not saying I like it; just providing possible reasons why it wouldn't be feasible for them.
@Vodoo Forgive me, but that's an overgeneralized statement. Companies have already gone on record saying that they have to start work on the DLC three to four months before the game is released unless they want to sit around doing nothing. If the company just happens to finish it in time for release, that's not an unfair practice. If a company finished a game with 30 hours of gameplay on it, began work on the DLC and happened to finish 30 additional hours worth of DLC right as the game released, should we demand THAT be free as well? In spite of the enormous costs?
No, I'm not saying that is always or even often the case. (I honestly don't know enough to make an adequate judgment.) It's just not really accurate to generalize the whole practice as unfair without more details.
@GalvatronType_R Forgive me, but aren't you at least happy they're considering not locking content on the disc anymore? Essentially the logical extreme of your position is that DLC is not acceptable at all. I'm not saying that's actually your stance, but what you're suggesting is the extremely cynical view. We didn't know about the locked characters before, and we were happy. Then we found out about them and got angry. Now they're talking about not locking them anymore, and you're conclusion is that they're just going to charge for them anyway and you're still angry?
My apologies if this amounts to a straw man argument, but that's a clear example of a unique phenomenon I've noticed among most gamers known as "unwillingness to forgive." And it's certainly not exclusive to Capcom. Take a long look at EA. It changed itself from a money-grubbing organization to a smarter one in 2008 when it started funding Dead Space, Brutal Legend, Rock Band, and other projects through it's Partners program instead of just perpetrating the same garbage that it had been for years. But nobody ever gave them an ounce of credit for that change. Instead, all we ever hear about is the times when EA is being greedy--which, to be fair, have been more frequent as of late. But by and large, companies NEVER get credit for what they do right in the gaming industry unless they do it with an absolutely impeccable record.
Personally, I'm quite happy they've chosen to take that criticism and reevaluate their stance, and we as gamers should be grateful for that instead of finding a new way to spin it into another way to trick us. It brings to mind thoughts of the wonderful conservative argument about liberal media bias. You find evidence that it's there and it proves their point. Then the website or program apologizes for the blatant partisanship of the statement or writing and that just FURTHER proves their point that the bias is there. Then you show them evidence that DOESN'T demonstrate the bias, and they claim that somehow proves their argument even MORE. Let's just wait and see what happens first, shall we? :)
@D3dr0_0 On disc DLC characters DO in many ways amount to a rip-off--unless there's a really, REALLY good reason why they have to charge for it.
But if you want to know what happened to unlocking this stuff, ask most hardcore fighting fans. The answer is this: they'd protest just as loud if they had to unlock the characters. Virtually nobody I spoke to prior to MvC3's release considered it even a remotely good idea to lock characters in the game. They felt it was unfair to friends coming over to play if the content wasn't already available. I disagreed quite adamantly with them saying that I felt it demonstrated a lack of patience, and one of them responded with, "It's not really a matter of patience. The point of fighting games is to fight; not unlock funzie bull$#!%." And the majority seem to agree with that attitude. In fact, I actually blame a lot of them--hardcore fighting fans--for why the genre can't attract a bigger audience. Virtually anything that would please more casual players--simplified controls, unlockable content, "gems" or other things that alter the game's balance--is something they scream bloody murder over.
@UniversalCypher (cont) To date, nobody has given me hard proof that the reasons for content being locked are completely malevolent. They could be safeguards in case the companies can't turn a profit from the games. Considering that the VAST majority of games don't turn ANY profit--we're talking $20 million costs on average and around 20% of games making any money--I don't see hard evidence that they are doing it out of "greed" rather than out of necessity. If you wanna argue that they should give us the content at a monetary loss then fine, but the whole reason they MAKE the games is to turn a profit, and without that incentive, there would be a LOT less for consumers to enjoy. In spite of what everyone claims, the industry would not thrive if it was driven solely by people who made games for the sake of making them. They want to be paid and more importantly DESERVE to be paid. When someone gives me hard evidence, I'll admit it's about greed. Until then, "innocent until proven guilty."
@UniversalCypher "DLC shouldn't exist in the first place." Has NOTHING good ever come from DLC? Cause that's another absolute you just spouted. The whole point was to have smaller games at a smaller cost released more often. With the exception of "released more often," Valve has stuck by that with Half-Life 2. Is anyone complaining about THEIR DLC? Not really. Yes, you can argue that THEIR DLC is not "on-disc," but I don't see why it is that people aren't willing to actually go get some legitimate evidence that this is "ripping off" the customer. It doesn't amount to a rip-off unless the company starts swimming in money from it. What was the budget for these games and what other projects do the developers need to support with the funds? How much of the content is actually ON the disc? All of it or just part, therefore REQUIRING the download to finish it because there wasn't SPACE on the disc? (TBC)
cachinscythe's comments