BBB lowers Capcom's rating

[CD AGES]

What are you people talking about?

Talking about about Katsuhiro Harada and Namco's "Tekken Project" division!!!

[ZenErik]

What are you people talking about?

Talking about about Katsuhiro Harada and Namco's "Tekken Project" division!!!

And I am referring specifically to this:

Personally, I have a hell of a lot more respect for Namco

No. Just no. Lately I like Namco games a lot more than Capcom, but they are easily outdo Capcom in the DLC department. No contest.

I guess a lot of the members on this forum would see it differently because of a lot of the games I am referring to are Japan only. Or in the case of games like Tales of Graces f most of the DLC does not make it to the US.

[Cronozilla]

Depends on how you look at it. To them, you bought a licensing agreement of software, but you don't necessarily own everything that is on the disc. There have been lots of games with stuff locked on the disc that were just never meant to be played. So it makes it better or any different if they already made the content, didnt put it on the disc and just waited a few weeks or days and released it all as downloadable? Isnt that really the same end result to you as the gamer?

I guess it just drives people nuts that they already stuck it on the disc, but the end result is the same. They choose what they will have as dlc. If there was no dlc, you just wouldnt get those extra characters... They use that promise of future funding to justify the development of what they consider 'additional'. Does this happen 100% of the time? I am sure there have been some shady stuff, but most of the time that is the driving force during the development process.

The fact that they're arguing games are service (when they are legally defined as products, even digital ones) and attaching contracts (license agreements) that are, for most purposes, unenforceable under legal statutes ... is not the issue. (Those are separate things that should be addressed, but aren't)

To argue this behavior is alright just because it's a game and not something else is silly. They want it both ways. They want it to be professional licensed software in an entertainment model ... it's a double standard against the consumer. It removes your own rights. And they're using this thought process to say, "oh it doesn't really matter", when, in fact, it does.

Saying that there is some common end result, therefore, the means do not matter is ludicrous. All's-well-that-ends-well does not apply to consumer rights. Think about the statement, you're saying that it's okay to do something that disproportionately benefits yourself because the end result for the person paying would have been the same anyway (even though, it wouldn't have, because the situation would have been different). The end result is NOT the same. Capcom would NOT have lost some of their business rating if they hadn't done this. People would NOT have refused to purchase the DLC. Etc. It's a different situation, and their actions are not justifiable. So, they're in a potentially tough spot when trying to finance expanding the game from the original parameters: That is not their customer's problem!

The core issue is the way games get funded and the business models being used. To alleviate poor practices, they are attempting to make the consumer make up the difference: this is NOT justifiable.

I will say that the technicality of how they compose themselves absolutely matters. It's the difference between them making an honestly formed product with the goal of continuing to make more for their audience and outright scamming extra money out of people.

And you can't really use the argument of, "there's tons of games with inaccessible content" ... no. This was explicitly put there to be unlocked later with further payment. Again, the intent matters.

They willfully distributed content with the intent on letting people use it later, but forcing them to pay an ADDITIONAL amount. Just because they rationalize it differently, doesn't change the fact that they are, in effect, charging people twice for the same content.

Again. Their inability to find a decent financing model for their products is not an excuse to sacrifice consumer rights.

[Jmustang1968]

Depends on how you look at it. To them, you bought a licensing agreement of software, but you don't necessarily own everything that is on the disc. There have been lots of games with stuff locked on the disc that were just never meant to be played. So it makes it better or any different if they already made the content, didnt put it on the disc and just waited a few weeks or days and released it all as downloadable? Isnt that really the same end result to you as the gamer?

I guess it just drives people nuts that they already stuck it on the disc, but the end result is the same. They choose what they will have as dlc. If there was no dlc, you just wouldnt get those extra characters... They use that promise of future funding to justify the development of what they consider 'additional'. Does this happen 100% of the time? I am sure there have been some shady stuff, but most of the time that is the driving force during the development process.

The fact that they're arguing games are service (when they are legally defined as products, even digital ones) and attaching contracts (license agreements) that are, for most purposes, unenforceable under legal statutes ... is not the issue. (Those are separate things that should be addressed, but aren't)

To argue this behavior is alright just because it's a game and not something else is silly. They want it both ways. They want it to be professional licensed software in an entertainment model ... it's a double standard against the consumer. It removes your own rights. And they're using this thought process to say, "oh it doesn't really matter", when, in fact, it does.

Saying that there is some common end result, therefore, the means do not matter is ludicrous. All's-well-that-ends-well does not apply to consumer rights. Think about the statement, you're saying that it's okay to do something that disproportionately benefits yourself because the end result for the person paying would have been the same anyway (even though, it wouldn't have, because the situation would have been different). The end result is NOT the same. Capcom would NOT have lost some of their business rating if they hadn't done this. People would NOT have refused to purchase the DLC. Etc. It's a different situation, and their actions are not justifiable. So, they're in a potentially tough spot when trying to finance expanding the game from the original parameters: That is not their customer's problem!

The core issue is the way games get funded and the business models being used. To alleviate poor practices, they are attempting to make the consumer make up the difference: this is NOT justifiable.

I will say that the technicality of how they compose themselves absolutely matters. It's the difference between them making an honestly formed product with the goal of continuing to make more for their audience and outright scamming extra money out of people.

And you can't really use the argument of, "there's tons of games with inaccessible content" ... no. This was explicitly put there to be unlocked later with further payment. Again, the intent matters.

They willfully distributed content with the intent on letting people use it later, but forcing them to pay an ADDITIONAL amount. Just because they rationalize it differently, doesn't change the fact that they are, in effect, charging people twice for the same content.

Again. Their inability to find a decent financing model for their products is not an excuse to sacrifice consumer rights.

Then we never get the additional characters and no one even knew they were thinking about adding them in? Is that better for you? I dont love the practice, but rather you download it all on day one or it is on the disc somewhere, it is the same thing. You can break up the differences all you want, but you pay your 5 or $10 and you get the characters. The method of delivery is the only difference. All then they have to do is not put it on the disc and just have you fully download it.

They aren't charging twice for the same content. You buy the game, the disc is just the method of distribution. Most day 1 content or first few weeks of content was already developed at release anyway. So are you double paying for that too? You are focusing too much on what is physically on the disc and not about what it effectively is or means.

[elmagicochrisg]

They should've just made Super Street Fighter X Tekken afterwards. Like they always do...

[Runefaust]

What are you people talking about?

Talking about about Katsuhiro Harada and Namco's "Tekken Project" division!!!

And I am referring specifically to this:

Personally, I have a hell of a lot more respect for Namco

No. Just no. Lately I like Namco games a lot more than Capcom, but they are easily outdo Capcom in the DLC department. No contest.

I guess a lot of the members on this forum would see it differently because of a lot of the games I am referring to are Japan only. Or in the case of games like Tales of Graces f most of the DLC does not make it to the US.

I have zero interest in their JP onry endeavors so I'm completely ignorant to everything that goes on there. But with a quick google search I've been enlightened and see what you're getting at.

[Purkeynator]

To give some perspective on Capcom's new business model:

Marvel vs Capcom 2 had 56 characters, some were unlockable on Dreamcast for $50
Marvel vs Capcom 3 had 36 characters for $60 + 2 characters for $5 each = $70
Ultimate M vs Cap 3 had 48 characters for $40 + 2 characters for $5 each = $50
It looks to me like their biggest fans ended up paying about twice as much over two releases for less content than the original Dreamcast version of MvC2 a decade ago.
Plus don't forget all the bullshit costumes for extra.
Looks like we are headed in the wrong direction. I wish we still had Gamesharks, Codebreakers, and ProAction Replays to unlock all this stuff that's already on the disc you paid good money for...

[Xeogred]

To give some perspective on Capcom's new business model:

Marvel vs Capcom 2 had 56 characters, some were unlockable on Dreamcast for $50
Marvel vs Capcom 3 had 36 characters for $60 + 2 characters for $5 each = $70
Ultimate M vs Cap 3 had 48 characters for $40 + 2 characters for $5 each = $50
It looks to me like their biggest fans ended up paying about twice as much over two releases for less content than the original Dreamcast version of MvC2 a decade ago.
Plus don't forget all the bullshit costumes for extra.
Looks like we are headed in the wrong direction. I wish we still had Gamesharks, Codebreakers, and ProAction Replays to unlock all this stuff that's already on the disc you paid good money for...

lol, nice post.

[CD AGES]

http://shoryuken.com/2012/05/16/street- ... aking-bug/

Fuck you Capcom for releasing this piece of shit game. You get no sympathy from me.

How did this even get through their QA dept??? Yeah, they deserve the lower rating.

[DinnerX]

http://shoryuken.com/2012/05/16/street- ... aking-bug/

Fuck you Capcom for releasing this piece of shit game. You get no sympathy from me.

How did this even get through their QA dept??? Yeah, they deserve the lower rating.