It says you have to pay to play online on 360,but others no. Look I know your trying to make the fee for playing games online on 360 look fair,but its just not. Hell thats like saying what capcom just did was right. The contant was on the disk and I had to pay 5 dollars to unlock it. Was it right nope. So I didint pay for the mode. Its like paying extra money for a hard mode.

finalfantasy94

The only reason you think it's not 'fair' is because you thought you were paying for something you weren't.

People have a really difficult time grasping the concept of software licenses, you are not paying for all the code on the disc to do with as you please. For an example, you can download trial software for your PC for free, all the content is sitting there on your hardrive but you still can't use it until you pay for a license to unlock it, that's the way it is. When you download a trial game of XBLA/PSN, you're downloading the full amount of code but you still aren't entitled to play it until you pay to unlock it. The fact the content is on the disc or not is completely irrelevant, being on the disc just saves downloading it.

Online play should be free

finalfantasy94

1. Again, should be free because I don't want to pay for it. Hardly a constructive argument is it?

2. You didn't pay for the right to use the online portion of the game when you purchased it, this is clear on the box I believe. How can you complain if you knew what you were paying for.. you did know this right?

The gaming world at the moment is seemingly full of whiners complaining that X 'Should Be Free' or this is too expensive and should be cheaper.

If you examine the phrase 'Should Be Free' what are they actually trying to say. 'Should be free' from a moral obligation? Well, I can understand education 'should be free' or healthcare 'should be free'. Fine, you can realistically argue those things should be free from a moral perspective but video game services or add-on game content?! I think not.

What they are actually saying if you expand that sentance is, X should be free because I want it. Hardly a compelling argument is it? In fact, it's very childish. Most people get to an age where they realise many things in life are financially out of their reach or simply too expensive to be a sensible purchase given their means and they accept this and stop whining about it.

Porsche 911s should be cheaper because I want one.

The sole purpose of a business is to make profit, if you understand this what is there to whine about? Sure, it's a fair comment to say, I think X should be cheaper because that would actually end up be beneficial for the company in the long run, I think they would make more profit. I think this about the Video Marketplace, I think dropping the price would actually cause a significant increase in customers. Lets be honest though, Microsoft has more than a few highly paid people to set prices for this type of thing and I'm darn sure they know more than I do on the matter so I probably am wrong on that one.

There are several pieces of DLC for example that while I could afford to pay for them, they're just not money well spent to me. I make financial decisions like this every day of my adult life, I don't feel compelled to whinge every time I come across something I would like but either I flat out cannot afford or don't deem good value.

I'm sure pretty much everyone will reach this point in their life but lets hurry it a long a little shall we, for the sake of internet boards all over the world ;)

What you're entitled to when you purchase software

Some people simple do not understand what they are paying for when they buy software so get angry when they don't get what they think they are entitled to.

You ARE entitled to:

• To play the game as indicated on the packaging

You are NOT entitled to:

• Features/content not part of the original game, be they on the disc or not, created after the release or even before. You do not 'own' all the code on the disc, merely a right to use it in it's described form.
• Play online multiplayer for game without the appropriate service. Just because the content for online play is on the disc, you have NOT paid for the right to use it.

If you cannot see how sales benefit the gamer then you're awfully short-sighted.

So each system got different FEATURES?

Why did the TC Lie?

Oh well, I guess this is just another thread in SW bashing the PS3...*notes TC*

Capcom is pretty stupid for not just making the DLC even, instead of console specific modes, I do own both copies, but I honestly don't like playing as much as the first month I got it, it's much slower than other SF games.

SolidTy

I know you're into SF at a non-casual level so I'm quite surprised you don't see why PS3 IV fans are so angry at this choice. To someone who plays the game at this level, voting on videos is a joke and not a feature at all whereas downloading videos is extremely desirable for someone passionate about the game. I'm not surprised people on this board see this as equal 'Exclusive Features'.

Yes this post does have the typical OTT System Wars slant, you know how this place works, no one is here for diplomatic posts.

[QUOTE="speedsix"]

http://www.capcom-unity.com/s-kill/blog/2009/04/16/sfivs_free_championship_mode_update_

PS3 DLC lacks the ability to download replays, a side effect of the PSN structure?

Gimped updates to go with the inferior graphics on the PS3 version :P

hiryu3

It's possible it came down to who paid the bandwidth costs, maybe MS ponyed up the green.

The 360 version will have better AA and a superior average frame rate at minimum.

Voting on videos is a weak attempt to appease PS3 owners for missing the download feature imo. I know which most would rather have.

http://www.capcom-unity.com/s-kill/blog/2009/04/16/sfivs_free_championship_mode_update_

PS3 DLC lacks the ability to download replays, a side effect of the PSN structure?

Gimped updates to go with the inferior graphics on the PS3 version :P

Assassin's Creed