@MaxwellGT2000

Good point

@KylieDog

EA isn't good example of how to be a profitable 3rd party developer. Granted I'm not fan of everything Capcom does, on disk DLC and Hilary Swank Dante come to mind, but EA sells way too much software to continually post the quarterly losses that they do.

I really wouldn't blame it on Capcom.  When Microsoft is paying these fees for the Xbox versions (granted they have a LOT more revenue coming in from Xbox Live), why shouldn't Sony pay the fees for the PSN version.  Not only would Capcom get more money for this, but I would wager that Sony is making at least a little money each time even a 3rd party DLC is downloaded off of PSN, wouldn't they?

Edit: As I kind of figured, Sony is making money based on the amount of content downloaded.  Here's the link:

http://www.gamepro.com/article/news/209358/sonys-playstation-network-no-win-situation-for-publishers/

So now my only question is if you have DLC such as this, and it downloads onto everybody's console, and is merely "unlockable," would Capcom have to pay the 16 cents per GB for every single person who owns the game or only the people who (edit) purchase the DLC.

Did these updates occur before or after Sony started charging bandwidth fees?

Well with just updates, I don't really get the big deal.  If you have a 25 mb update that has to download to 3 million consoles and makes all the gamers happier, you have a cost of $12,000 (based off the 16 cents per GB amount I just saw).  Is $12,000 really that much that a publisher won't continue updating a game? 

I'll bring up the case of Bethesda.  Are they really not updating because of the costs associated with doing so?  There are already a couple of their games that I haven't bought because I want nothing to do with just dealing with bugs that shouldn't be that hard to fix.  They wouldn't even have to sell that many more copies to recoup the costs of updating the game.

So by that logic, Microsoft are scamming people because they are charging to play online when the PS3 is free?

didn't capcom have a similar thing with sony awhile ago about trophy stuff and a Monster Hunter thing, i think they're making excuses, seeing as they're the only ones who's complaining.

You get what you pay for. This isn't a hard concept to fathom. Xbox Live cost money because of quirks like this. Many people say they don't see the value, but it's all integrated within Xbox Live, and we don't even realize that little things like this are affected.

Indeed, and to be fair, it's not even that "little". It's a major turn off when considering to purchase those costumes. Showing off/bragging rights is one of the main points of having a special costume.

What's worse, why would I get the new "Ultra" pack (that others cannot see) if I already own the "Super" pack (that is unlocked on disc, all can see regardless of owning it)? Using the Ultra outfit would only show the costume to myself, and my opponent would see a common outfit. Whereas using Super would show it to both of us... This is a huge bother if you don't like your favorite character's original outfit (in my case, Cody, which I have the Super version of, and see no reason to get the new one on PSN).

I wouldn't disagree.  Charging for P2P is shameful, but that's not what the thread's about.  It's about Sony's penny pinching, and Capcom's response.

Capcom, you make awesome games but I still hate you.

I remember a time when alternate costumes were unlocked by playing the game rather than busting out the credit card. Oh well, game companies need to make money somehow i guess, even if it means charging players to unlock features already on the disc.

Anyways, i'm just glad ssfiv wasn't horribly gimped for ps3.