LoL, What a slap to the 360 fans, I hope you guys arent planning on taking this from them!
| NiKKoM said: what you people don't know is that it costs tens of thousands of dollars for Capcom for actually delete those files before they went gold and started to press those discs.. |
LMAO
|
kitler53 said: A) lulz B) this is their work, their effort, their property and therefore their right to sell as they see fit. if they want to give it away as some developers do, fine. if they want to charge you for access, that's their right too. i don't know what you do for a job, frankly it doesn't matter. whatever wage you are getting payed is exactly as money grubbing as a company trying to make profit on a product. |
A) I recommend that you grow up. Usage of that mis-spelling of a non-word only serves to emphasise your childishness, especially when used as though it's some sort of argument (as a distinct point).
B) They can do what they want with their product, and the consumer can complain about it as much as they want. If the customer has a certain reasonable expectation, and the company fails to meet that expectation, then it is the company's fault, not the customer's fault. And before you use the predictable response, note the italicised word. The customers expect that the product that they are sold is "complete" as of release, and that they are buying all of it when they buy it. By intentionally locking out some of the functionality purely in order to charge to unlock it later, they are doing nothing more than trying to get more money for the same amount of effort.
And for the record, a person who puts in an honest amount of work for an honest wage isn't money grubbing. And this is not a case of "a company trying to make profit on a product", any more than a mobster using a threat of murder to get money is "a legitimate form of commerce". And before you use the predictable response, note that I'm not equating the two acts, only drawing an analogy with regards to the validity of the phrase. Capcom will be making plenty of profit on that game unless it was grossly mismanaged or unless it is a low quality title (and thus gets too few sales). You want to know how you make more profit on the product? You increase its perceived value to the consumer. What they have instead done is decrease its perceived value for the basic product, and push up the price of the full product. Rather than trying to expand their audience, they're trying to get more money out of their loyal audience. And that's a good way to screw things up.
the 360 version is all messed up anyway, they ever fix that problem where the 360 owners couldnt even play a local match
Aielyn said:
A) I recommend that you grow up. Usage of that mis-spelling of a non-word only serves to emphasise your childishness, especially when used as though it's some sort of argument (as a distinct point). B) They can do what they want with their product, and the consumer can complain about it as much as they want. If the customer has a certain reasonable expectation, and the company fails to meet that expectation, then it is the company's fault, not the customer's fault. And before you use the predictable response, note the italicised word. The customers expect that the product that they are sold is "complete" as of release, and that they are buying all of it when they buy it. By intentionally locking out some of the functionality purely in order to charge to unlock it later, they are doing nothing more than trying to get more money for the same amount of effort. And for the record, a person who puts in an honest amount of work for an honest wage isn't money grubbing. And this is not a case of "a company trying to make profit on a product", any more than a mobster using a threat of murder to get money is "a legitimate form of commerce". And before you use the predictable response, note that I'm not equating the two acts, only drawing an analogy with regards to the validity of the phrase. Capcom will be making plenty of profit on that game unless it was grossly mismanaged or unless it is a low quality title (and thus gets too few sales). You want to know how you make more profit on the product? You increase its perceived value to the consumer. What they have instead done is decrease its perceived value for the basic product, and push up the price of the full product. Rather than trying to expand their audience, they're trying to get more money out of their loyal audience. And that's a good way to screw things up. |
A) lulz
B) 2 years ago i could go to subway and buy a sandwhich for $5. for that $5 i got 6" of bread, meat, cheese, and an assortment of topings such as lettuce, tomatoe, ect. today for an additional charge i can also get an avocado spread...
"By intentionally locking out some of the functionality toppings purely in order to charge to unlock it later, they are doing nothing more than trying to get more money for the same amount of effort."
does that sound stupid? ...that's because it is, much like your argument.
what i hate about your logic is you are making some blanket statment that by virtual of DLC existing that the orginal product is not complete. where is your evidence? is it your arguement that only 50 playable characters an incomplete game? if so i can point you to most any other fighter ever as also being incomplete yet not getting this kind of hate... don't get me wrong, DLC has certainly been abused before. this game, however, isn't one of them.
whatever, be angry if you want to. but at least let me correct you on one thing...capcom isn't locking this to charge you later like you say. it's ps3 exclusive and they are quite clear it will stay ps3 exclusive.
| kitler53 said: B) 2 years ago i could go to subway and buy a sandwhich for $5. for that $5 i got 6" of bread, meat, cheese, and an assortment of topings such as lettuce, tomatoe, ect. today for an additional charge i can also get an avocado spread... "By intentionally locking out some of the functionality toppings purely in order to charge to unlock it later, they are doing nothing more than trying to get more money for the same amount of effort." does that sound stupid? ...that's because it is, much like your argument. what i hate about your logic is you are making some blanket statment that by virtual of DLC existing that the orginal product is not complete. where is your evidence? is it your arguement that only 50 playable characters an incomplete game? if so i can point you to most any other fighter ever as also being incomplete yet not getting this kind of hate... don't get me wrong, DLC has certainly been abused before. this game, however, isn't one of them. whatever, be angry if you want to. but at least let me correct you on one thing...capcom isn't locking this to charge you later like you say. it's ps3 exclusive and they are quite clear it will stay ps3 exclusive. |
You aren't being charged for the design and implementation of avocado spread, you're being charged for the actual avocado spread - that is, the physical manifestation. It costs them more to obtain what they need to make the avocado spread, and that extra cost is passed on to the consumer.
Video games are not the same as subway food. It is not a valid comparison.
The product *as designed by the developers* is not complete, because they designed it specifically with X characters, and you only get Y characters, where Y<X. Putting in little hooks so that they can add future characters is about going beyond the initial design, but that's not what they've done - they've simply blocked access to some characters unless you pay extra money for access to data you already bought.
In case you didn't notice, I'm not angry - I'm explaining the reason why people are upset. I'm not upset. Why not? Because I wasn't planning on buying the game anyway. There are crossovers I'm interested in; Street Fighter crossed with Tekken isn't one of them.
And if you think I was purely talking about Mega Man and Pac-Man, then you haven't actually been reading my arguments, thereby allowing me to conclude that you're more interested in protecting Capcom than understanding the reaction it's getting. I noted the complete locking out of Mega Man and Pac-Man on 360 as just adding insult to injury - they couldn't even take the ten seconds necessary to erase those two characters from the disc image before printing copies of the game.
I actually didnt notice until now, but SF x T wasnt event on EVO this year... i guess it says something...
Aielyn said:
You aren't being charged for the design and implementation of avocado spread, you're being charged for the actual avocado spread - that is, the physical manifestation. It costs them more to obtain what they need to make the avocado spread, and that extra cost is passed on to the consumer. Video games are not the same as subway food. It is not a valid comparison. The product *as designed by the developers* is not complete, because they designed it specifically with X characters, and you only get Y characters, where Yyou already bought. In case you didn't notice, I'm not angry - I'm explaining the reason why people are upset. I'm not upset. Why not? Because I wasn't planning on buying the game anyway. There are crossovers I'm interested in; Street Fighter crossed with Tekken isn't one of them. And if you think I was purely talking about Mega Man and Pac-Man, then you haven't actually been reading my arguments, thereby allowing me to conclude that you're more interested in protecting Capcom than understanding the reaction it's getting. I noted the complete locking out of Mega Man and Pac-Man on 360 as just adding insult to injury - they couldn't even take the ten seconds necessary to erase those two characters from the disc image before printing copies of the game. |
Top: how are you to know Y<X? if DLC as a concept didn't exist how are you to know that these characters would have ever been developed instead of being deemed not needed and not budgeted for? how can you be so sure that the budget didn't only allowed for Y but because of the extra income that DLC provided X could be justified??
Bottom: I work in software (not games) and i can assure you that even small changes like that can be costly. any code change, no matter how small, is required to go through a QA cycle before being released. where i work i'd estimate each QA cycle to be ~$15-$25k. (4 man team x 1 week).
...i couldn't care less about capcom in specific. i care more about software development and ip. i care that standard business practises (like co-currant product development) are deemed acceptable in every industry but mine. i care that people are under some dilusion that avocaodos cost money to create but software magically creates itself without any time/money investment by a team of developers and therefore consumers of the god-given-right to that product free of charge.
| kitler53 said: Top: how are you to know Y<X? if DLC as a concept didn't exist how are you to know that these characters would have ever been developed instead of being deemed not needed and not budgeted for? how can you be so sure that the budget didn't only allowed for Y but because of the extra income that DLC provided X could be justified?? Bottom: I work in software (not games) and i can assure you that even small changes like that can be costly. any code change, no matter how small, is required to go through a QA cycle before being released. where i work i'd estimate each QA cycle to be ~$15-$25k. (4 man team x 1 week).
...i couldn't care less about capcom in specific. i care more about software development and ip. i care that standard business practises (like co-currant product development) are deemed acceptable in every industry but mine. i care that people are under some dilusion that avocaodos cost money to create but software magically creates itself without any time/money investment by a team of developers and therefore consumers of the god-given-right to that product free of charge. |
Top: Are you saying that the game was designed for the immediately-available characters, and then they added the extras on top separately? That's the only way that I would accept your argument, because my point is that the extra characters were almost certainly developed alongside the base ones, and the game balanced including those characters immediately. They will not have spent time checking to make sure that the game is still balanced with only the base characters.
Bottom: The cost to the developer is irrelevant to the perceived value to the consumer. Good business involves increasing the perceived value, and then setting a price to suit that perceived value. Bad business is increasing price purely because you spent more money on the product and want to increase your profit margins. The latter is what Capcom have done.
Other: A bit of ad hominem sneaking in, there. I never said that software is cheap to make. I said that increasing the price of a product in a "hidden" way rather than increasing the perceived value is bad business, and upsets customers. There are two ways to increase revenue for the game - they can increase the price of the game (even if it's a "hidden" cost, in the form of on-disc DLC), or they can make a product that will sell to more people.
You say that you're annoyed about how consumers expect something of people in your industry that they don't expect of other industries. The thing is, bad businesses complain about the consumers' expectations and try to hide things from them, good businesses either meet consumers' expectations or find a way to change those expectations (which is NOT a matter of PR - I'm talking about changing the market itself, not swaying consumer sentiment using arguments).
It's business, and if you want to be in business, you need to learn these sorts of things. Many studios have died because they refused to pay attention to the business side, focusing everything on the creative side.
| Nem said: I actually didnt notice until now, but SF x T wasnt event on EVO this year... i guess it says something... |
??? it was... the lineup for EVO 2012 was:
Face the future.. Gamecenter ID: nikkom_nl (oh no he didn't!!)
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2026 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
