By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Dead or Alive 6 has a $93 Season Pass

Tagged games:

That is a lot of money for content that is primarily unknown to the consumer at the time of purchase.
Most of the costs seem to be attributed to costumes though, so it feels like an easy skip. But they must be making good money on costumes, so there will probably be plenty of people who pay for this, sadly.

Cerebralbore101 said: 
I hate this trend in fighting games. MK 11 has 18 confirmed characters for the main game plus 6 more for the season pass. So they've basically locked a quarter of the game behind DLC, when these 6 characters could have come out with the base game. It's nothing but content carving. 

If they want me to buy their game on release they need to make sure it is complete on release. If games in other genres did this then 10 hours of content out of a 40 hour game would be locked to a "season pass". 

I don't mind expansions, that's fine. But if your "extra content" is ready to be released six months after launch or earlier, then that reeks of content carving.

Though while it's fully understandable why situations like that are suspicious, there are situations where it is not financially or physically viable for that content to be produced many months after release.
The reason for that is because even when it comes to internal development teams, and especially when talent is contracted from the outside, they can't always just sit around on the same project for months/years after the game has been finished. They have other projects they're supposed to move on to, leaving the remaining team that can stay for an extended time as a skeleton crew of its former self.

The saying 'time is money' is applicable here.
Publishers can invest the DLC budget during the initial game development period, to get that same work done during that time period, while they still have access to all the key designers and artists, etc.

Last edited by Hiku - on 04 March 2019

Around the Network
Mandalore76 said:
Machiavellian said:

Maybe its just me.  I hardly ever look at DLC because I never buy it.  I purchase pretty much all fighting games because its my first love as far as games go but DLC has never been a thing I cared about.  My first and only concern is the main game is complete.  If that is the case it gets my money.  Any other extra stuff I consider fluff and not worth my time unless its priced right.

My gripe is that I always see gamers complain about developer supporting their game and actually charging for extra content believing it should be free.  The content should not be free because the work creating it isn't free.  Price is another thing and each developer has to pick the right sweet spot for sales.  If the price is too high then the community as a whole is at fault for supporting it.  

The problem is that gamers born pre-2000 know that a lot of the things sold and celebrated as "extras" today are things that were part of the actual games years ago.  Unlockable/hidden characters, alternate costumes, etc.  Those were all in game to be unlocked as a reward for playing.  Today, these things are carved out and sold back to the consumer at additional cost.

Show me a pre-2000 fighting game that had 20+ characters and 20+ costumes for each that retailed for what would be the equivalent of 60 dollars today.  You can't.

Also, to say that additional characters -  that in some cases are being added to a game years later - are "carved out" is a bit disingenuous.  Especially when you also consider that player retention - now required based on increased development time - is an issue with the used game market as it is today.

Fact is that game development is more expensive today, things take longer, and in some cases they are selling the games today for less than they did in yesteryear.  I recall the original Killer Instinct on SNES costing $70 which adjusting for inflation is about $118 today.

Is the practice a bit silly?  Sure.  Would you rather them start charging $100 for the base game and not adding DLC?  I sure wouldn't.

Last edited by Neodegenerate - on 04 March 2019

Burning Typhoon said:
Machiavellian said:

If the only thing you can complain about is online lobbies not being there then I would consider that a ding more than being incomplete.  Incomplete would be not having a fully fleshed out character set to play and then charging for the rest via DLC for a full price 60 dollar game.

As for DLC, the company can charge whatever they want for, you vote with your dollars if you believe the price is legit.  There must be someone out there purchasing this stuff for that price or they would never charge it.  I know, I would never purchase it but then again, I barely if ever purchase DLC anyway.  DLC should never be a requirement to enjoy the main game and should always be as it is just more content.  If the DLC is required for continuing or enjoying a game, I do not purchase those products.

Not sure how SF 4 turned out but I did not purchase it until it was complete in my eyes.  I actually enjoyed the seasons for Killer Instinct 

That's not the only thing I can complain about, it's the only thing I chose to mention.  The game has game breaking bugs.  You can fight outside of stage boundaries.  There is no excuse for that.  Bugs happen, but if the game wasn't rushed, that would have been discovered.  Like Yoshimitsu's glitch in Soul Calibur VI.

And yes, the company can charge whatever they want for the DLC. Just like I can call them out for bad consumer business practices, charging more for 60 costumes and 2 characters, than the entire game is worth.  If other companies try this, it's bad.  It's a season pass, mind you.  In 3 months, it's going to be another 93 dollar season pass.

Look at lootboxes, EA, and star wars.  Battlefront 2 is dead.  There will be no battlefront 3.  Yeah, we voted with our wallets.  Now a game is dead.  

So, guys, vote with your wallets.  As if that wasn't what we were going to already do anyway.  Not only am I not buying the DLC, I'm skipping the entire game because of how incompetent this company has been for consumer relations.  And with an acronym like "D.O.A., it can't afford to have something like this happen to it.  This is going to kill the series.  But, at least we voted with our wallets.

A few things here:

1. That bug is only on one map and is being fixed soon from what I have heard. 

2. Dead or Alive 6 has the exact same DLC model as DoA 5, and the DoA 5 expensive and numerous season passes didn't start a trend of other developers copying the model.

3. It's very likely not going to kill the series because DoA 5 had the exact same DLC model and DoA 5 didn't kill the series, it sold more copies than DoA 4 lifetime in fact, plus made a ton of money from the F2P version and the expensive DLC.

4. Battlefront 2 is far from dead. I play it frequently on PS4 and I can find a match in almost any playlist in just a few seconds. On Xbox One right now Battlefront 2 is the 28th most played game ahead of many other multiplayer games such as Halo 5, Gears 4, Battlefield 1, Sea of Thieves, Fallout 76, Halo: MCC, The Elder Scrolls Online, Warframe, World of Tanks, and Dead By Daylight. On top of that, there are already rumors that DICE is working on a Battlefront 3 for Holiday 2020 as a crossgen title.  



Hiku said:

That is a lot of money for content that is primarily unknown to the consumer at the time of purchase.
Most of the costs seem to be attributed to costumes though, so it feels like an easy skip. But they must be making good money on costumes, so there will probably be plenty of people who pay for this, sadly.

Cerebralbore101 said: 
I hate this trend in fighting games. MK 11 has 18 confirmed characters for the main game plus 6 more for the season pass. So they've basically locked a quarter of the game behind DLC, when these 6 characters could have come out with the base game. It's nothing but content carving. 

If they want me to buy their game on release they need to make sure it is complete on release. If games in other genres did this then 10 hours of content out of a 40 hour game would be locked to a "season pass". 

I don't mind expansions, that's fine. But if your "extra content" is ready to be released six months after launch or earlier, then that reeks of content carving.

Though while it's fully understandable why situations like that are suspicious, there are situations where it is not financially or physically viable for that content to be produced many months after release.
The reason for that is because even when it comes to internal development teams, and especially when talent is contracted from the outside, they can't always just sit around on the same project for months/years after the game has been finished. They have other projects they're supposed to move on to, leaving the remaining team that can stay for an extended time as a skeleton crew of its former self.

The saying 'time is money' is applicable here.
Publishers can invest the DLC budget during the initial game development period, to get that same work done during that time period, while they still have access to all the key designers and artists, etc.

That's just poor management though. If somebody is working on a AAA game they shouldn't be a short term contracted employee to begin with. People that went to school for 4 years for game development shouldn't be hired out on a 6 month to yearly contract. They've worked way too hard to have to worry about their next job every six months to a year. 



Cerebralbore101 said:
Hiku said:

That is a lot of money for content that is primarily unknown to the consumer at the time of purchase.
Most of the costs seem to be attributed to costumes though, so it feels like an easy skip. But they must be making good money on costumes, so there will probably be plenty of people who pay for this, sadly.

Though while it's fully understandable why situations like that are suspicious, there are situations where it is not financially or physically viable for that content to be produced many months after release.
The reason for that is because even when it comes to internal development teams, and especially when talent is contracted from the outside, they can't always just sit around on the same project for months/years after the game has been finished. They have other projects they're supposed to move on to, leaving the remaining team that can stay for an extended time as a skeleton crew of its former self.

The saying 'time is money' is applicable here.
Publishers can invest the DLC budget during the initial game development period, to get that same work done during that time period, while they still have access to all the key designers and artists, etc.

That's just poor management though. If somebody is working on a AAA game they shouldn't be a short term contracted employee to begin with. People that went to school for 4 years for game development shouldn't be hired out on a 6 month to yearly contract. They've worked way too hard to have to worry about their next job every six months to a year. 

I don't mean that they're there short term. Games like these are in development for several years before they're ready to be released.
And I wasn't referring to freelancing individuals either. For example, when Capcom develop Street Fighter games, it's generally not Capcom who do the most important work, but Dimps. https://www.dimps.co.jp/top-en.html
And when they are done with Capcom's game, they are contracted by Namco to work on Dragonball Xenoverse. And then they make Sword Art Online, and My Hero Academia, and then Capcom wants them to come back to work on the next Street Fighter, etc.

Street Fighter 4 got it's last DLC character update in 2014. That's over 10 years after development of the game began. Obviously Dimps weren't sitting there for 10 years, or their portfolio of games would not be anywhere near as large as it is. They go back and forth between many different companies and projects. However their schedule likely does not coincide with each of those companies DLC plans. So while you have them on your team, you can invest a bit more money into them and give them more resources and staff to have them create let's say 4 characters more than the original budget covered.
That way when Dimps are off working on another project, you can still release DLC in a timely manner to keep people interested. And likewise, when Namco are done with Dimps, they don't hold them there for a few more years, but let them go so that they can work on Season 2's DLC for Capcom, etc.
There's the possibility of them potentially working on multiple projects at once as well, but the point is that key development members get shuffled around a lot.
And if they can do the DLC while they have them on their schedule by investing more money, it can be better if they do so rather than keep them around for longer than necessary.

And aside from external teams, there are internal teams and key members who would better serve the company by not remaining on the same project years after it ended.
Yoko Taro for example, when Nier: Automata was finished he was most likely put in charge of his next big project which we don't know what it is yet. Nier: Automata had one DLC, and it was ready near launch. That way Yoko could start leading his next project soon after February of 2017, when Nier was released, instead of maybe 6 months down the line.

Last edited by Hiku - on 04 March 2019

Around the Network
Shiken said:

Meanwhile Smash gives us 72 characters out of the box, putting developers like this to shame. Save for a few, fighting games are becoming/have become worse than the FPS map packs and paid skins.

That is not at all a fair comparison.  One character in dead or alive 6 has more unique animations and attacks than 2/3rds of that 72 character roster. 



Burning Typhoon said:
Shiken said:

Meanwhile Smash gives us 72 characters out of the box, putting developers like this to shame. Save for a few, fighting games are becoming/have become worse than the FPS map packs and paid skins.

That is not at all a fair comparison.  One character in dead or alive 6 has more unique animations and attacks than 2/3rds of that 72 character roster. 

Smash also has a 30 plus hour single player mode with a crap ton more interactive stages to fight in.  The comparison is completely fair and again, it puts these devs to shame.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Shiken said:
Burning Typhoon said:

That is not at all a fair comparison.  One character in dead or alive 6 has more unique animations and attacks than 2/3rds of that 72 character roster. 

Smash also has a 30 plus hour single player mode with a crap ton more interactive stages to fight in.  The comparison is completely fair and again, it puts these devs to shame.

I own smash, and I refuse to buy DoA6.  What's your point? I didn't say smash wasn't better, I'm saying the quantity of the fighters has nothing to do with why DoA is bad.  By that logic, Tobal 2 is better than smash because it has 200 characters.  I certainly wouldn't put Smash brothers ahead of Tekken 7.  Your exact words were, "Meanwhile Smash gives us 72 characters out of the box, putting developers like this to shame."  As if to say it was only about character counts.  And, the characters are locked.  They're not paid DLC, but, after coming off Tekken 5: Dark Resurrection, 6, 7, Marvel Vs. Capcom 2 HD, Mortal Kombat X and a few other fighters, having to unlock characters is tedious.  On steam, i've dumped 305 hours into Tekken 7.  I want to play the game, not do silly tasks I wouldn't have done if not for unlocking the character.

I have DoA5, on PS3, PS4 and PC.  The game was good, apart from the exact same DLC model DoA6 is doing.  I got Smash, and the limited amount of attacks in that game is really off-putting.  I put at least 7 hours into that game.  I understand what it is, but it's not a traditional fighter by any means.  I'd probably like it more than smash, but I refuse to support the game like this.  I'll wait for Ultimate and evaluate if it's worth the purchase.



Shiken said:
Burning Typhoon said:

That is not at all a fair comparison.  One character in dead or alive 6 has more unique animations and attacks than 2/3rds of that 72 character roster. 

Smash also has a 30 plus hour single player mode with a crap ton more interactive stages to fight in.  The comparison is completely fair and again, it puts these devs to shame.

Wrong. You obviously have not played Dead or Alive 6. The stages are the most advanced and interactive of any fighting game in history. Smash isn't even 3D.

Second of all, does smash have story cutscenes for every character in the game in addition to the main story? Give Team Ninia a break.



And then theres Smash Ultimate



我是广州人