Omega was preorder DLC, at gamestop atleast... so not the same at all retailers, and you couldn't buy it til recently but thats not the point. At launch you could sell it for like 30 dollars on ebay (which I did, and then I just bought some the DLC with that money XD).

I don't think DLC will get fairer prices. Because when you price things you normally price things at what will make the most money for your company, not out of the kindness of their heart.

For instance. Would the people that would buy an omega battle for .99 cents also buy it for 2.99? If 50% of the people would buy it at the higher price they make more profit. So research is done with this by the companies financial people.

It's unfortunate and with many games doing this and some too a ridiculous extent (ME3 cutting out one one of the few new part members, or this)

You can buy used but then but, unless you buy it on ebay, you're supporting gamestop (which existence probably encouraged online passes). You can pirate games, or not play games or just bite the bullet.

I think Capcom is realizing what Epic did and many other publishers have the 60$ price tag is not enough for the publisher to profit enough to make more new products. As developers costs rise they are nickel and dining consumers. I know the DLC was already made but putting it on the disc means the customer bought the game. He bought the disk and that means he owns the content on the disc unless otherwise told. The customers buying the game thought they were getting the full content of the game only to be later told he has to pay extra for the content found on his disc.

Their is a huge difference. If its made available online at a later date for download it is not on the disc that the customer paid for. Capcom was just low they shouldn't have cheaply mislead consumers their decision with RE a while back to make it only one play through.

These cheap ass tactics are simply not tolerable if Capcom needs more.money sell the game for 69.99$ if the game is worth it consumers will pay the extra ten dollars. If Capcom doesn't want to retail slightly higher retail then maybe a change in delivery. Free to play or maybe subscription their are many different methods no excuse for misleading consumers in such a dishonest and cheap fashion!

i'm confused as to what he means by on-disc dlc providing "more flexible and efficient gameplay throughout the game's lifecycle".

what does he mean by that? it's basically his only defense for on-disc dlc.

I remember the day when you unlocked a character by finishing the game...

Anyway, I thought Capcom was one of the few Japanese developers that made the jump into the next generation in 2007. They released Lost Planet and Dead Rising, which were good games, had Lost Planet 2 on the way, as well as Resident Evil 5, Devil May Cry and Street Fighter. It turned out that not only damaged established franchises, they even ruined the sequels for the new ones.

Games we almost forgot like Bionic Commando and Dark Void did not help either.

You're missing the point imo. DLC on disk is a distribution method and that DLC would never have been on the disk or in the game is it wasn't being paid for. Any game being produced has a budget.

It's as simple as that. Think about this from a financial point of view, not where the DLC physically is, why is that even relevent? Games are made to make money and games cost money to make.

In fact, I would happen to disagree with online passes since they really do rely on ripping off a customer and reducing the value of a used game. Take Mass Effect 3, without the online pass it is impossible to get the "good ending" in the single player game. You have to play multiplayer for a few hours to allow the best ending to happen.

Now that is wrong, and abusive. DLC on disk is not abusive since it would never have even been made in the first place for free.

I think though. Some are mad because Capcom isn't even pretending to hide what their doings. Most companies plan DLC before release.

There is no way for the consumer to know whether the DLC was made before release, mostly before, or after. Other than the developers word. 

 I think it's shady either way. But, it's the reality.

If something is on the disc that I purchase, and I can't use it, and have to pay for an already paid stuff, then that's bs. $60 is a pretty huge amount.

When companies like Valve are giving bigger DLC's for free months after release, it just says something about Capcom when they are charging you for something you have already paid for.

I can not see any way of justifying this. Capcom argued its just a different distribution method.

The very word Downloadable Content means Downloadable. If you remove the DL you are left with just content. Content already on the disk which the consumer paid for in full without being for warned he could not access everything he was buying.

It has nothing to do with whether Capcom should be able to make a profit off the content. It is Falcon's choice to purposely mislead the consumer and try selling content to the consumer which the consumer already paid for.

Also yes the consumer paid for that content. Capcom did not tell the consumer that their was content on the disk that he would have to pay extra for.

Legally speaking that is illegal, you need to inform the customer that they are not able to use the whole product they are purchasing.

If I go into a Ferrari dealership and I see the Ferrari and buy it. Drive off the lot to find out my air conditioner which is installed doesn't work till I pay another 100$ even though I was not told prior I was going to have to pay to turn on my AC. That is extortion, I was under the impression that I was buying the Ferrari not part of the Ferrari!

That is simply illegal and misleading. If Capcom wants to sell content already on the disk they need to inform consumers. Meaning a big label on the package that says "Some content must be unlocked for an additional fee". This way the consumer is made aware and not lied too!

Plus the ethics behind holding back content that should be included in the game to sell to customers at a later date, does fall in the grey area ethically speaking. But I wouldn't really say its wrong nor would I say its right it isn't illegal to my knowledge it just isn't necessarily a good business practice.

In the end I am debating contacting the Government of Canada about this. I am pretty sure it is illegal to extort your customers with false advertising and blackmail! The BBB should also crack down hard on Capcom!

Your arguments don't makes sense Joel. You compare it to buying a car but if you bought a car they would tell you exactly what is part of the deal. That's the same thing capcom did. They told everyone that you would get 38 chars and a few extra on ps3. Your argument would only be true if they said you get 38 chars then you get home and only half are playable.

Thechalkblock
i'm confused as to what he means by on-disc dlc providing "more flexible and efficient gameplay throughout the game's lifecycle".

what does he mean by that? it's basically his only defense for on-disc dlc.

What that means is that if you don't buy the extra chars then you can still fight them online. It was their way of preventing the same thing that happened with SF4.

Interesting.  What else did you guys discuss in that Capcom board room meeting?  I mean this isn't Skyrim.  It's a fighting game!  Sure, they have trmendous replay value but is the budget really that big?  UMvC3 has a bigger roster of characters and half of them were licensed from Marvel!  I bet it cost more to get Iron Man, Spider-Man, Thor, Hulk, and Wolverine than it did to add Guy and Cody.  Is that why they advertised those guys (Guy and Cody) in trailers?  To be DLC?  And there was no way these two characters that people have been using since Street Fighhter Alpha 3 (1999, I think) were going to be in this game unless they could charge extra?  -------can't make paragraphs--------As for ME3, I hear (but haven't finished the game) that you can still get the good ending just by being thorough in the main game.  I haven't played it online yet and I have no intention to.   I'll have to look into that one.  If you can't get the good ending in a game that has been exclusively single player because they suddenly want to shoehorn in multi-pplayer, that is wrong, too!-----pretend there's a paragraph here------and yeah.  Games cost money to make.  That's why they cost $59 now instead of $39 in the PS1 days.  Plenty of big games do just fine at this price without ANY DLC.  Why does Capcom go into DLC overdrive?  is it because they have die-hard fans (SF fans are as loyal as they come) that are willing to shell out money for the full experience (ie: controllers, costumes, tweaks, DLC--fuck.  I gotta go to work and I can't edit on my phone.  gotta post this as it is.