How did I know people would justify this dlc shit

 I got screwed on Dragonball Xenoverse DLC, but this may be even more expensive. I'm tired of all this ripping off. I had no idea Nintendo had become like EA and Capcom. Wow, maybe I shouldn't buy a Wii U. At least not new. They are already overcharging for basically a last gen system without all this DLC.

Wait a minute... you have to buy a power cord on top of the 199 dollar New 3DS too. We have to quit supporting this greed!

It's more expensive but the content, the characters at least, are more meaningful. I love Mario kart but I play smash more. The tracks are great but you play them for a set amount of time and they are not going to draw you as much as you want. Ryu is something I am going back to on Wii u and on 3ds. And Roy is pretty awesome and not a complete clone no more. So it is what it is. I bought the Mario kart dlc and like it for what it is and I have all the character and stage dlc and love it.

DLC is not something going away and if they can charge premium they will. I would say don't buy it if you don't want it but I bought it and many others too. Nintendo has sales on things so if the price is not to your liking want until the sale comes. Boom problem solved. We need to stop complaining about dlc unless it is on disc.

I can tell who plays fighting games and who doesn't. Prices are in line with other fighting games. Ryu is a third party character so, Capcom has to get their cut.

I have my doubts that he came with a price tag, to be honest.

Your objective and rational mind was doubtless working in overdrive.

@Bold: I was making the claim that if you don't buy the DLC, you cannot say you were paying money for the content.  The point was about something being "too expensive."  In most cases, you simply don't buy it.  You don't "need" it.  Also, I know very well how the competitive field of Smash Bros is like, and that while having the entire roster can be "good," a truly competitive player usually sticks with a select few and not pick certain characters because someone else chose another character.  You CAN use the character to see how the character is like (range, knock back, animation, lag, etc.) but it isn't necessary.  Everything about it is not deemed "necessary."  

And no, objectively it isn't.  Your reasoning isn't objective.  The reason the "content" on fighting games is priced higher has to do with the fact that more work goes into making said content.  Like making a new character in a fighting game takes a bunch more resources than making a new character in an RPG.  Objectively, determining if something is expensive or not would be to compare it to other things similar to itself.  Such as other DLC prices from fighting games of similar caliber.  Otherwise it isn't objective.

Producers make paid DLC to make a profit, it has little to do with falling retail prices.  It has way more to do with getting money from those who already bought the game.

No, people expecting the prices of games to drop is NOT why DLC is priced the way it is.  If you had been following game sales as much as I have been now, you would have realized that the first few weeks of sales (which is when the game will still be full price) will, the vast majority of the time, account for much more than 50% of lifetime sales.  Many Nintendo games, however, do NOT follow this trend.  Hence, the stubbornness to lower prices (why do you think even last gen pokemon games stay full priced but plenty of other Nintendo IPs actually drop?)

You still don't get the point.  The pricing of their DLC has NOTHING to do with the price of the game currently, as is the case with most DLC now.  Also, your idea of what games or DLC SHOULD cost is really worthless.  Just playing a game, you would have a hard time figuring out how much money was spent on the game.  The reason games aren't actually like $150,000 a copy is because a lot of people buy them (and are willing to buy them) at a settled lower cost that collectively offsets the costs of development, advertising, manufacturing, etc.  There's really no such thing as "a $70 game for $60."  That's just you projecting what you think it's worth, based off of your experiences.  That's precisely why there's no point in discussing how much you think it's worth.  Nintendo definitely cares about how much people are willing to pay for DLC, and that's actually what explains the pricing model.  It's a combination of how much people are willing to spend, along with how many people they think will buy it to offset costs (and then some).  

You honestly believe that as  long as Nintendo asks politely, it can play with other publisher's toys without any give-back? Maybe Ryu didn't come with a price tag. I'm not going to pretend to know. But I am 99.99 percent certain that Capcom is getting some of that DLC cut.

I've no doubt that Capcom's getting a cut. I also don't think they necessarily had to cut a check to Capcom before putting in once of Capcom's characters into one of their more popular games, since the two companies seem to have an unusual relationship at the moment.

You seem to think it's a foregone conclusion that Nintendo felt it wise or necessary to pay Capcom outright to rent Ryu for Smash. You may be right, since like you I won't pretend to have inside info. I just don't think, in light of circumstances, that that's necssarily true. That's all.

now i wished a season pass.

This look so much like ...... *micro transactions*... Another game that I wont buy... At this rate I feel to drop video games for good.