Capcom has come under fire recently for locking content in Street Fighter X Tekken (to be released later as DLC) and in fact, complaints have already been lodged with the Better Business Bureau.

But as reported by CinemaBlend , the publisher just doesn't see any distinction between "downloadable content" and "content locked on the disc." So in other words, they consider the 12 hidden fighters in the aforementioned title to be DLC. Here's the company's official statement on the matter:

"At Capcom, we value our customers and make every effort to resolve customer complaints. We are sorry to hear that [censored] was so disappointed with the Street Fighter x Tekken game (''SFxT''), and would like to respond to his complaints.

While Capcom is sorry that some of its fans are not happy about the chosen method of delivery for the DLC, we believe that this method will provide more flexible and efficient gameplay throughout the game's lifecycle.

There is effectively no distinction between the DLC being ''locked'' behind the disc and available for unlocking at a later date, or being available through a full download at a later date, other than delivery mechanism."

That's bound to get people talking again. But really, what is the operational definition of "downloadable content?" And how much of that content is already locked on the disc to begin with? How much is all new? What should cost money; what should be free? Well, we're not about to get involved in that minefield.

Subscribe
Notify of
94 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
oONewcloudOo
oONewcloudOo
9 years ago

Capcom you are so stupid. Why can't you tell what your doing is wrong.


Last edited by oONewcloudOo on 4/2/2012 11:57:07 AM

daus26
daus26
9 years ago

I don't know if it's so much as stupid or them actually KNOWING they're ripping off their fans. Companies obviously do what's best for them, and when it involves ripping off people without any real consequences from the fans, they'll continue doing so.

Real DLCs should be content that are not yet ready on the day of release of its game. In turn, there is a bit of justification to paying for them because they require post-release effort and time from the employees. In this case, Capcom gets everything done on time, then carefully selects which content will be included for the retail price and which will go for micro-transactions. Financially smart, but ethically wrong.


Last edited by daus26 on 4/2/2012 6:46:15 PM

Ultima
Ultima
9 years ago

*sigh* The thunderous stupidity, whining, and ignorance in this thread is just mind-boggling. I had hoped that psxextreme's readership to be smarter than that, but I guess I was wrong.

First of all, as some have stated, Capcom actually isn't doing anything wrong or illegal here. Not only do you NOT own the entire contents of what comes on a disc, this has *never* been the case. Like it or nor, software has using been the "licensed to use" model regardless of content delivery. FACT: If it weren't for hackers revealing what's on the disc early or if SFxT were a totally digital game (and ALL games in the future will be digital at some point – if you think this is going away due to current backlash, think again), there wouldn't even be a perception problem, which is what this really is.

Second, game production costs have skyrocketed since the PS2 era. Average development cost was something like a 5-fold increase from PS1 to PS2, and from PS2 to current gen it was anywhere from 3 to 6 fold. Current average development costs are estimated to be between US$ 18 and 26 million (http://www.develop-online.net/news/33625/Study-Average-dev-cost-as-high-as-28m). And yet, prices have not only remained stable, they have gone DOWN since the SNES days if you factor in inflation, even if you factor in the reduction in purchasing power. I paid US$80 for SNES SF2 World Warrior and SNES SF2 Turbo, about twice what SFxT's US$60 costs in today's dollars.

So when you factor in massive increases in development costs + game prices not keeping up, game developers were forced to come up with alternate methods of revenue. Hence, the DLC method. It's not as though they're forcing you to buy the extra stuff – like others have said, vote with you wallet. I bought SFIV cause I love SF but didn't buy a single costume because I don't think it was worth it. I did not feel ripped off by not being able to get the costumes though, but that's because I understand how modern game production works.

Finally, in SFxT's specific case, this is really a case of Capcom not bein able to win. "Wah! Why are we getting disc updates for MvC3 and SFIV? These should have been DLC!" players whined. So Capcom did just that with SFxT, except Capcom had to do it when considering the realities of modern game production. As that diagram from Bioware pointed out, DLC isn't something that magically pops up after the game is finished – it's usually developed alongside main game development. It's also budgeted separately. If you want companies to stop using DLC, they won't add extra stuff for free, they'll simply stop adding that extra content. Look for games to be smaller/shorter/more buggy, but not cheaper.

In addition, because of its cross-license nature, the deal between Capcom and Namco is supposedly limited to one game a piece. Thus, Capcom couldn't spread out their development over multiple iterations. They had to get everything in one shot. So from the beginning, they budgeted for the equivalent of a World Warrior and Champion Edition (or a regular edition and a Super edition for those more familiar with SFIV) and managed to get it all done at once. But releasing the entire thing for $60 would result in negligible additional sales for the CE/Super content, so they priced the CE/Super content as DLC.

It's a sad reality, but gamers *aren't paying enough* for games. The best thing would be to stop calling the extra stuff "DLC" and call it what it really is "Premium content", and charge higher prices. Or at the very least, have multiple price points. In SFxT's case, they should have sold a "Premium" edition for US$80 that had all characters unlocked from the beginning alongside the normal $60/38 character version. Sadly, the Vita version – which Sony no doubt paid for – has caused the delay of access to the extra 12 characters, which indeed sucks.

The 6 month wait for the extra characters and the Pair match screw up on Xbox are the only legitimate complaints about SFxT (glitches/infinites/sound issues can all be fixed with patches) – everything else is just ignorant entitlement whining.

enjoi
enjoi
9 years ago

D.L.C. – DownLoadable Content

How are they still in business while so many other good game companies go under?

Serakek
Serakek
9 years ago

Capcom's problem is that they don't see a difference between DLC and locked on disc content. However,their customers feel that if they have bought the disc they should get all the content that is provided on said disc. If there was a possibility of legal action, there would already be a lawsuit, but I'm sure there is something in Capcom's end user agreement that indemnifies them from it. So we have to hope that the BBB will take some sort of action against Capcom, even though its probable that it won't really affect them and they'll keep doing this for every new release.

LegendaryWolfeh
LegendaryWolfeh
9 years ago

Disc-Locked Content. DLC

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

We've all sort of known that lots of DLC is mostly stuff withheld at the start to make more of a profit later on.

This is sort of a more in-your-face and insulting way of confirming that, though…

daus26
daus26
9 years ago

Lol yes. It can't get any more obvious than this.

Ludakriss
Ludakriss
9 years ago

Funny, don't you think?

While anyone who's intelligent enough to break the code on the disc dispursing all the characters will be locked away or at least sued.

Capcom just assumes "business" as usual. I find it amazing that already the PHYSICAL media you're supposed to own – you don't.

Soo…about this digital distribution xDDD people still think it's a good idea, yeah?

Underdog15
Underdog15
9 years ago

@Ludakriss
I looked into the terms to see if what they did is even legal.

Unfortunately, the law works in such a way that it's perfectly legal for them to do it. When you buy the disc, you own a non-transferable license to use the content on the disc that is not restricted. The DLC code to unlock it is the license to use the locked content. So what they are doing is perfectly legal.

it's just a little under-handed, really.

cLoudou
cLoudou
9 years ago

makes me miss the good old days when you actually unlock content by playing the game. This is why I dislike the concept of DLC, when things that were generally unlockables in past gens are now only unlocked by paying.

xenris
xenris
9 years ago

I agree 100% Games are becoming more and more fractionated, because of the DLC model. They can release a game that "appears" complete but after all the DLC gets released you realize that it should have been in the game in the first place.

Capcom locking stuff on the disc is just plain unethical.

Phoenix
Phoenix
9 years ago

Yep, I've been saying this since DLC started this gen, it's 1 of the worst things that could have happend this gen. I dont have a problem paying for content that was created after the launch of the game, and I'm sure others dont either, but when you see content locked on disc, or day 1 dlc, it makes me sick that they get away with this.

In the end, it makes me not buy from that company anymore, and capcom has been on my shit list for a while, since res evil 5.

xenris
xenris
9 years ago

People just want what they paid for. If the content is on the disc, and we paid 70 bucks for it, you should not make us pay later on 10 bucks to unlock it.

Game companies are not respecting the consumers, yet we are the very thing making what they do possible.

Ludakriss
Ludakriss
9 years ago

And you, my firnd, have spoken the unbearable truth of the ENABLER mode. Which too many of gamers possess these days.

Let us, collectively, shut the fu** up, and if chosen not to buy this game – to actually, NOT buy the game. Instead of tweeting about it to the world, makin yourself to be some tech-hero and then still getting it…because apparently, the temptation is too much. xD

Humans. Ain't that a bi*** xD

Ludakriss
Ludakriss
9 years ago

Dear moderator,

I'm sorry. Next time I'll try to filter the language better.

Just get so pumped, you know?

xenris
xenris
9 years ago

I'm not buying dragons dogma for this very reason. Even though I'm really interested in that game. I will wait.

VODKA_wizard
VODKA_wizard
9 years ago

I have to mention Capcom you did a piss poor job on.
dmc hd collection very lazy effod fuzzy pixelated cut scenes.the game actually looks better on the ps2 in standard definition that's how bad it is.
SHAME ON YOU.

Excelsior1
Excelsior1
9 years ago

Capcom continues to be their own worst enemy. This is a bad response that has only made gamers more angry.

Ludakriss
Ludakriss
9 years ago

Right. Angry.

Til the next Street something or Resident something comes out with half the game locked off until you donate your kidneys xDD

If only the gamers kept to their opinion with some dignity.

TheHighlander
TheHighlander
9 years ago

Seems to me that now would be a good time for the 'Industry' to take a stand and declare that what comes on the disc (or with the full game purchase online), is 100% available to the gamer, even if it has to be unlocked through extended play.

DLC must be actually new content that is not on the disc or part of the retail digital download. The only exceptions to this rule I feel would be cheat, or 'time saver' codes, which would allow you to unlock some or all of the content in the game without having to play everything. I know some people like to do that. I don't, I prefer to play to achieve.

Either way, it's about time that this shady practice of including content on the disc that is completely locked until you pay more, ended.

cLoudou
cLoudou
9 years ago

Seems simple enough but I can see capcom withholding content and maybe even removing content for the sake of dlc.

Mr_Sterg
Mr_Sterg
9 years ago

Yea i know. Here's hoping this comment reaches Capcom and other publishers although i'm sure they'd dismiss it. Now its more $$$>quality/ethics

tes37
tes37
9 years ago

Sony could do something about it and I hope they do. The PS4 is supposed to be a little more developer friendly and if that is the case, it would be the right time to put an end to the DLC scam.


Last edited by tes37 on 4/2/2012 3:56:30 PM

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

This is insulting. This is a window into how they view their fans. They think we're all complete morons. I almost never say this but I hope this company goes under and is forced to sell off all their franchises. They deserve nothing less.

PSN French
PSN French
9 years ago

So, you wish for several hundred employees with families to be unemployed? Sounds rational.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

Boofreakinhoo! If these people cared about their jobs they would value the customers who made them a success in the first place. If a company or business takes advantage of their customers and treats them like dirt, they deserve to fail. So spare me your bleeding heart, self righteous outrage.

cLoudou
cLoudou
9 years ago

Sorry but I find it hilarious that people are losing jobs over DLC.

Neo_Aeon666
Neo_Aeon666
9 years ago

Yeah! Losing their jobs is too light a punishment. They need to die for making a fool outta us! (really though if that guy was saying that to my face I would punch him and spit on him… It is a huge lack of respect from their part)

I will not be getting any more capcom games until they reach their final form. They lost me for any first day/month/year buy and I hope they will lose alot more.


Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 4/2/2012 4:51:59 PM

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

It's not only the "DLC". It's their attitude towards the people they depend on for their income. The consumer.

PSN French
PSN French
9 years ago

So, an innocent developer who works his 9 to 5 to support his family, should lose his job because a group of board members decided the DLC should go on the disc to save on download fees? I'm still not getting your logic. And if you are talking about the people responsible for the DLC going on the disc and NOT the developer…. that may be different, but you should probably try to run a multi-national corporation during one of the most destructive economies in global history before you whine about a company making a move to save money. That money will reflect in the price of the DLC. Eventually, gaming is going to be outrageously expensive, because of entitlement freaks like you.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

Innocent? The problem at hand has completely gone over your head. No wonder you can't understand why people are frustrated.

Ludakriss
Ludakriss
9 years ago

@PSN French

Friend. I like you. What you present to the table is the morality or humanity (to an extent) against tough corporate, business decissions.

Usually they contradict as business is rarely associated with "care", you get me?

Why I appreciate the avenue of a comment section is to see exactly what's going on here, right now.

Vending the couped up anger over decissions which seem simple in our eyes. Most of us, like you pointed out, probably don't have a slight clue how to manage corporate level business in what looks like seriously tough economy.

But one thing we do have, is emotion.

I just know that if not for places like this, there'd likely be more murders/suicides for much sillier reasons.

Good gaming to y'all. -_O

Kevin555
Kevin555
9 years ago

They should lose their jobs over DLC that you don't have to buy?

Wow, stay classy champ.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

"stay classy champ"

This coming from you is rich.

gray_eagle
gray_eagle
9 years ago

the good ole days of unlocking content in a game is fading away.

best solution, boycot publishers & devs that try to pull this stunt.

Mr_Sterg
Mr_Sterg
9 years ago

Yes except majority of people will still buy it so makes no difference to publishers. (ex: call of duty)

BikerSaint
BikerSaint
9 years ago

Show Capcom what you think by usuing your wallets… just start buying "USED" for any of their games that you really want.

When their profits suddenly drop, maybe then they'll figure out the "cause & effect" of what they've done, & start to treat their customer-base better.


Last edited by BikerSaint on 4/3/2012 11:58:55 AM

pillz81
pillz81
9 years ago

Capcom has made it easier for me to just buy all their games used or not at all.

PSN French
PSN French
9 years ago

I agree with Capcom. If they intend to charge for the content, why do I care if it's on the disc or not? TRUE gamers would be supportive of these micro charges as we watch the economy tank and developers are having a hard time turning a profit. I guess the entitlement nation has infected gamers. I guess Capcom should have taken it off the disc, because that would have DRASTICALLY changed how we payed for and played the content. Sad how selfish people are, they don't care about the hard working developers who are threatened by the economy everyday!!!

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

Entitlement? So what if some one bought a house and finds there an extra room with a locked door but was forced to pay again to unlock the said room after the original point of sale? Would you accuse them of having an entitled mentality?

Your comment is full of fail.

Shams
Shams
9 years ago

I actually find, to different extents, validity in both points. In Jawknee's case, he has expressed a basic psychological need we all have, that once we have purchased something material, and it is in our hands, than we should have full access to it, and everything contained in it.

I also understand Capcom/PSN French's point. Software and software delivery isn't necessarily analogous to material goods and delivery. Due to software encapsulation, when we pay for software, and software licenses, we NEVER are given full access, with the exception of shareware. We can not copy it, upload it, modify it, share it, as we please, unless stipulated in the agreement. What we pay for is limited access, and the limit is decided upon by the software developer.

Having said that, it then comes down to what the customer and vendor agree upon, and what is marketed. If the content is not downloaded, but unlocked, then it should be called and marketed as just that ("unlockable content"). However, if the customer, for example, knows he is buying a fighting game with an initial roster of 38 characters, and he has playable access to those 38, then it is immaterial what the content of additional 12 characters are called.

Cuetes
Cuetes
9 years ago

How about the hard working consumer? Does he or she not matter?
Before you decide to "true Gamer" it, realize that there are two sides to every story. We as consumers have the right to go against what we believe to be an unfair practice. If it's on the disc I puchased at the store it belongs to me, I should not have to pay extra to get something I bought fair and square. There is no entitlement, only common sense.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

What Shams said. If Capcom believes this is a lagimate business practice, then they should call it what it is, unlockable content, set their price and let consumers decide. But they know people won't go for that so they conflate the two and then play dumb when people point out the fallacy in their practice which shows that they think we're stupid.

PSN French
PSN French
9 years ago

your house analogy doesnt work Jawknee. Because they could have easily payed the fees to Microsoft and Sony to make it DLC and nothing would have changed. If I bought a house with a locked room, then I guess I would be less upset if I was told I had to download the room as opposed to it being included on the "house". Sorry, silly analogy.

Jawknee
Jawknee
9 years ago

Oh it works just fine. You just can't see why this kind of practice is wrong in the first place so it makes sense you can't understand the analogy.

PSN French
PSN French
9 years ago

I guess as I watch some of my favorite developers close their doors, i might be a little cynical toward a gaming community that wants a company to have to pay fees to console manufacturers in order to take content they want to charge for off the disc and make it DLC. I guess what they should do is start charging 70 or 80 dollars for the disc in the first place so people who CARE about extra content can get it for "free" and those of us who couldn't care less about it can help you pay for it. Just like online passes, these practices are keeping games from going up in price. Games in the 80s were 50+ dollars, 30 years later (with an inflation index of

PSN French
PSN French
9 years ago

I guess as I watch some of my favorite developers close their doors, i might be a little cynical toward a gaming community that wants a company to have to pay fees to console manufacturers in order to take content they want to charge for off the disc and make it DLC. I guess what they should do is start charging 70 or 80 dollars for the disc in the first place so people who CARE about extra content can get it for "free" and those of us who couldn't care less about it can help you pay for it. Just like online passes, these practices are keeping games from going up in price. Games in the 80s were 50+ dollars, 30 years later (with inflation AT LEAST quadruple) they are only a few dollars more. but whatever, I guess my economics degree is useless… or, like I said, it could just make me more cynical towards those that expect free crap.


Last edited by PSN French on 4/3/2012 11:42:04 AM

PSN French
PSN French
9 years ago

My stupid computer submitted comment before I was done :/ … Also, I'm not saying the consumer doesn't have a right to speak out against corporation. What my point was (which I always steer away from) is that if you want this stuff for "free" eventually you will get it, in the form of more expensive games. I don't give a rats behind about DLC, I've never played DLC that I thought was fun, and I dont want to have to pay more for games because other gamers think that DLC or this or that "content" should be free for them. Also, I tend to embrace that which is unpopular because 90% of the time it's correct… maybe this is the other 10%.

xenris
xenris
9 years ago

They could make it work. Valve gives away a ton of content for free. So does CD projekt. Its possible to make it work. This locked nonsense is just that. They would sell more copies of their games if people new they were getting everything for 60-70 bucks. Therefore they would make more money. Its their own selfish methods that make people not buy their games.

You talk about the economy being crap so the developers need to nickle and dime us, yet you don't stop to think that it is tough for the consumers as well? If they dropped their prices a tad, and gave us content worth the price we paid, they would get more sales. Steam and Valve prove this year in year out.