Capcom Defends Downloadable Fighters for Marvel vs. Capcom 3

[Logan Westbrook]

Capcom Defends Downloadable Fighters for Marvel vs. Capcom 3

DLC is part of gaming now, and nothing that anyone can do is going to change that, says Capcom.

Capcom's Christian Svensson has defended the company's decision to include downloadable characters, like the recently announced [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/105332-Four-New-Fighters-Unveiled-for-Marvel-vs-Capcom-3] Jill Valentine and Shuma-Gorath, in Marvel vs. Capcom 3 [http://www.amazon.com/Marvel-vs-Capcom-Worlds-Xbox-360/dp/B003IE9V28/ref=sr_1_1?s=videogames&ie=UTF8&qid=1290594527&sr=1-1], saying that that DLC can make the difference between a profitable product, and an unprofitable one.

Writing on the Capcom Unity [http://www.capcom-unity.com/ask_capcom/go/thread/view/7371/26272109/DLC_Chars_in_MvC3_This_is_DLC_done_wrong.?pg=8] message boards, Svensson responded to the accusation that having downloadable characters in MvC 3 was "wrong." He said that for better or worse, downloadable content was part of the business model for games now, and with the cost of producing games ever higher, it played a big part in making sure that developers and publishers saw a return on their investment. He added that every gamer had to decide whether DLC was worth the money, and that was true of every game, not just MvC 3.

One thing that Svensson didn't reveal was how much DLC would cost. Responding to a poster who asked how much he could expect to pay for Valentine and Shuma-Gorath if he bought separately from the Special Edition, Svensson said that he didn't know when the pricing would be announced, but reassured the poster - who could get a ten dollar credit for the regular edition, and so was effectively looking at paying $20 more the Special Edition just to get the characters - that it would be cheaper to buy the regular version of the game and then pick up the DLC.

Honestly, I'm not sure why people would be upset about downloadable characters for MvC 3. If the line-up on the disc was small, then I could understand why people might be angry, but there are dozens of fighters to choose from - including several that are brand new to the series - so it's not as if Capcom is short-changing anyone. The potential roster for a game this size is immense, so Capcom will inevitably have to leave a lot of characters out. DLC means that those characters have a chance of appearing further down the road, which seems like it could really only be a good thing.

You could argue that Capcom is purposefully holding popular characters for DLC, but there are plenty of high-profile fighters on the disc, even if your personal favorite is currently missing. You could also make the argument that a downloadable character might be "top-tier" and trounce everyone else, but it's hard to believe that Capcom would be shortsighted as to stick an "I Win" button into the game.


Marvel vs. Capcom 3 comes out for PS3 and Xbox 360 on February 15th.

Source: via Event Hubs [http://www.eventhubs.com/news/2010/nov/23/mvc3-demo-wont-happen-sven-talks-dlc-options/]






Permalink

 

[Knight Templar]

"but it's hard to believe that Capcom would be shortsighted as to stick an "I Win" button into the game."
Your faith exceeds my own.

 

[Something Amyss]

It's still kind of underhanded, standard model or not. "But games cost so much to make, so we have to slap you for extra money" is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Legion]

Honestly, I'm not sure why people would be upset about downloadable characters for MvC 3. If the line-up on the disk was small, then I could understand why people might be angry, but there are dozens of fighters to choose from - including several that are brand new to the series - so it's not as if Capcom is short-changing anyone.

That is the difference between whether or not I think DLC should be released. If there are already a lot of characters available then there is nothing wrong with adding some DLC for a few extras.

What does piss me off are games such as Halo Reach where they released around just 8 maps despite the fact that Halo had 13 maps, Halo 2 had 23 maps as did Halo 3 (taking a few repeats away) that they could have included. Then we discover less than a month on that they intend to make us pay for another 3 via DLC.

Some will then say "make" is a strong word seeing as they are optional, but I guarantee that they will make ranked multilayer off-limits for anyone who doesn't have them, just like Halo 3.

So yeah, people should be less concerned about getting a few extra optional characters.

 

[teh_Canape]

damn...

what happened to the old "beat the game as Chun Li to unlock Cammy" and shit

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

this was inevitable; hell, Blazblue ALREADY has DLC characters. DLC is the perfect way for fighting games to update themselves and not have to resort to constant retail releases

 

[Fluga]

People are getting outraged due to tournaments for this game. Yeah, tournaments.

Also, remember how much the costumes were for SSFIV? Like, eight dollars or something? Characters might cost more, and given about how Svensson essentially dodged the question. I am going to assume they might be 10-15 US dollars for a two character pack.

If so, they might as well have killed this game, which is a shame.

 

[Donald L]

Sadly, I could see this coming. This is why I don't like DLC.

 

[Snotnarok]

I'm honestly not sure how you can defend this. Yes the cost of making games are high I gathered that but typically when you make DLC you make it after the game is out (or finish what wasn't able to be finished in the time allotted). And you do this to KEEP INTEREST with the game, so more people would buy it and people who already have it won't sell it.

See where this business plan works? You make people want to keep it so it doesn't end up being sold as a used game (which capcom sees nothing from) and when the price drops you get more people to buy it and then they see the DLC and figure "hey I only spent 40 bucks, what's an extra 5 for a character right?".

Hell I bought Shadow Broker for ME2 for 10 bucks, it was a hell of a ride and easily playable again when I go through the game. But it was a GIG of content with new areas and what not, not a quick cash grab.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

"but it's hard to believe that Capcom would be shortsighted as to stick an "I Win" button into the game."
Your faith exceeds my own.

I'd agree, but my faith is long gone.

I think the basic idea of only knowing how to recognise/counter certain attacks by paying extra for the DLC would be a prime reason as to why people are upset about it.

Not that most people aren't simply going to choose Ryu/Akuma/Ken and spam fireballs anyway.

Edit: "Defend"/"nothing that anyone can do is going to change that" already suggests they know it's unpopular. You rarely have to defend something worthwhile.

Double Edit: In fact, what they're basically saying here is "Suck it up. Even if it's wrong, we aren't changing it". That's gone from being unpopular to simply flipping the bird.

 

[Adzma]

Lol "less than 20 dollars".
As if even 10 would be "not worth mentioning".

That was my immediate thought. Let's look at it from an Australian's point of view:

Most likely this game will be $109 new, and if we assume that the DLC pack is about $10 or $15 that mean that I would end up spending $119-124 for a single game.

Mega pass.

 

[Logan Westbrook]

Also, remember how much the costumes were for SSFIV? Like, eight dollars or something? Characters might cost more, and given about how Svensson essentially dodged the question. I am going to assume they might be 10-15 US dollars for a two character pack.

Not quite, they were closer to three dollars per five costume pack.

 

[Tales of Golden Sun]

DLC is part of gaming now? Not with Nintendo. Though you can download extra quests with Dragon Quest IX, you don't have to pay for them so it doesn't really count.

 

[teh_Canape]

snip

maybe I didn't got a joke or something like that, but that's Flugan who said that =P

 

[ComicsAreWeird]

in this case, i´m all for DLC. The character roster is already impressive. If you want even more, pay up. in some cases, they´re just milking the consumers...but not this time.

 

[MelasZepheos_v1legacy]

I hate to agree with him, but I do. I might hate DLC, but it really has become this whole part of gaming now. And that really annoys me, because it feels so much like a cop-out way for game designers to dangle carrots in front of us and extort even more money.

My main example would be Bioware, who made probably my favourite game ever in the Mass Effect series. Brilliant game love it completely.

Except that when Mass Effect 2 came out they announced that there would be a code to unlock the Cerberus network, and from there you could download the Normandy mission and Zaeed. On release day. So why in the name of God and all the heavens didn't you just include the Normandy mission and Zaeed in the game as released on the day? I got Mass Effect 2 after the offer of it being free had run out, which meant that on top of buying a full price Mass Effect 2 I then would have had to fork out another £20 to get the full content that was already on the fucking disk.

And I also hate that DLC is becoming the new GotY. I used to enjoy getting GotY editions of games, which would include a little extra content (the Batman Arkham Asylum extra Joker mission). It was something physical, that I could have and would transfer around as long as I had the disk, instead of having to transfer things between hard drives and memory cards. Left 4 Dead GotY edition? Could have been the basic edition, it had none of the DLC.

So like I say, I hate DLC, I think in the most part it's being used for extortion, whatever the developers say, and I think that it diminishes part of the joy I always felt at actually owning the game, with a disk and a box. But I do think it's here to stay, and my whining about it won't change anything.

 

[ark123]

IF the characters are mostly mediocre and completely tangential to the game, fine. If it's Venom, FUCK YOU, CAPCOM

 

[Logan Westbrook]

snip

maybe I didn't got a joke or something like that, but that's Flugan who said that =P

Whoops, my bad. The point is still valid, just pointed at the wrong person.

 

[Slavik_91]

I hate to agree with him, but I do. I might hate DLC, but it really has become this whole part of gaming now. And that really annoys me, because it feels so much like a cop-out way for game designers to dangle carrots in front of us and extort even more money.

My main example would be Bioware, who made probably my favourite game ever in the Mass Effect series. Brilliant game love it completely.

Except that when Mass Effect 2 came out they announced that there would be a code to unlock the Cerberus network, and from there you could download the Normandy mission and Zaeed. On release day. So why in the name of God and all the heavens didn't you just include the Normandy mission and Zaeed in the game as released on the day? I got Mass Effect 2 after the offer of it being free had run out, which meant that on top of buying a full price Mass Effect 2 I then would have had to fork out another £20 to get the full content that was already on the fucking disk.

And I also hate that DLC is becoming the new GotY. I used to enjoy getting GotY editions of games, which would include a little extra content (the Batman Arkham Asylum extra Joker mission). It was something physical, that I could have and would transfer around as long as I had the disk, instead of having to transfer things between hard drives and memory cards. Left 4 Dead GotY edition? Could have been the basic edition, it had none of the DLC.

So like I say, I hate DLC, I think in the most part it's being used for extortion, whatever the developers say, and I think that it diminishes part of the joy I always felt at actually owning the game, with a disk and a box. But I do think it's here to stay, and my whining about it won't change anything.

Well it depends on the company really, most of Valve games get free DLCs, like L4D 1 and 2