Capcom’s Official Response To On-Disc DLC Concerns

By Ishaan . May 15, 2012 . 9:03am

Capcom have heard fans’ complaints about “on-disc DLC,” unlockable content in their videogames that is stored on the game’s disc at release, but is not accessible until a specific date, upon which the user can pay to unlock it. For instance, Street Fighter X Tekken contains 12 additional characters that won’t be made available for use until later in the year.


There are reasons for on-disc DLC. One of these is to ensure that, when the content is finalized and made accessible, there’s no need for the user to download a large amount of data. Regardless, people don’t seem happy about content that is on the disc being locked, and Capcom have issued a response to these concerns on their forums. Capcom USA’s Christian Svensson writes:


Hey guys,

We’ve been getting several questions, here and elsewhere about the future of on-disc DLC.


We would like to assure you that we have been listening to your comments and as such have begun the process of re-evaluating how such additional game content is delivered in the future. As this process has only just commenced in the past month or so, there will be some titles, where development began some time ago and that are scheduled for release in the coming months, for which we are unable to make changes to the way some of their post release content is delivered.


One such title is Dragon’s Dogma, where the decision to include some additional (but not all planned additional) game content for the game on disc was made at the beginning of the game’s development cycle as at the time this was determined to be the most efficient way of ensuring certain content was made available. Owners of Dragon’s Dogma will be able to further their gameplay experience with the release of additional quests, weapons and other items in the months following the game going on sale.


Dragon’s Dogma’s post-launch content will extend the lifespan of a title that already offers around 30-40 hours of gameplay by following the main story thread, but if a player was to complete all the side quests Dragon’s Dogma ships with, that increases to around 100 hours. Players will also be able to add to the stock of 100s of weapons and 1,000s of customization options to create not only their ideally equipped, but also their most elaborately designed character.


Just wanted people to know in advance the whys, wherefores and where we’re going in the future. You are being heard. Thanks.


Dragon’s Dogma will be released later this month on May 22nd in North America and May 25th in Europe.

Read more stories about & & & & on Siliconera.

  • MrRobbyM


  • Usual Capcom.
    They turned a press media response from concerned and angry customers into free advertising for whoring out their latest game.

    GG Capcom. 

  • GibbRS

    Huh, where’s the rest of the story?

    So Capcom has heard our complaints but in the near future they’re still going to strip out completed content to sell to us later, sounds like a big win for the game industry.

    If somebody from Capcom actually does read what fans say, take some advice, apologize for your behavior by undoing it.  Make the Dragon’s Dogma DLC free and it’ll be like putting Neosporin into the deep puss oozing infected wound you’ve given us with most of your other releases of late.  Well, I don’t have the wound, cause I haven’t bought any of those games, but others might have it.  You can keep your Dragon’s Dogma as well, kthx.

  • Ooh Bee

    “We hear you guys, buy Dragon’s Dogma btw!!!”

  • Well, that’s.. not exactly where the concern lies. Of course people feel ripped off if there’s content already on the disc, but I think when it comes down to it – it’s something else. It’s about whether or not the content should be an in-game bonus or be paid DLC.

    But I guess I can understand that games cost a ton more to make now, and game devs probably want to be paid for making the extra stuff. I guess it’s just that, as a consumer, it’s really easy to be ripped off in this situation.

    I’m a little bit worried and DD now, after they used that as an example.

  • Yesfir

    I am not one to really care much about this sort of thing. I like DLC when it is done right… done right. I feel like this whole response from ‘Capcom’ is a very poor display of their mind-set towards their customers. Although this wouldn’t be the first time Capcom officially pretended to listen to their fans.

    I don’t think of Dragon’s Dogma when I think of Capcom anyway. I think of other games, better games that weren’t full of on-disc DLC.

  • I don’t know what to say about Capcom now but I am concerned about Dragon’s Dogma and how they are gonna do with it…. Words aren’t enough to convince me…

  • “One such title is Dragon’s Dogma, where the decision to include
    some additional (but not all planned additional) game content for the
    game on disc was made at the beginning of the game’s development cycle
    as at the time this was determined to be the most efficient way of
    ensuring certain content was made available.”

    His wording is a bit fuzzy here.  Is he saying that there was unplanned additional content that was created at the beginning of the development cycle and included on the disc?  I thought when something was “unplanned,” well, it typically isn’t done at the beginning of a project.  Some would even call the beginning of a project the planning phase.  Maybe its different for game development.  Maybe they just kind of wing it.

    Still I guess its neccessary to make a statement like this.  This is going to cause a mess anyway so it’s better to air it all out now, rather than having people freaking out shortly after launch.

    EDIT: It was driving me nuts so I read the statement a few more times. I suppose he means that not all of the additional content is going to be on the disc, some will actually be downloadable content. All of it was planned to be additional content no matter what the delivery method. Makes a lot more sense to me now.

  • icecoffemix

    “We won’t carelessly put any additional finished content planned for future milking on the disc ever again guys!”

    That said, I don’t necessary abhor DLC if the original game offer enough value for its price, hopefully their claim about Dragon’s Dogma content is right on the money.

  • kevinposta

    This sounds like “Oh I see, so we just take out the files so you can’t see them now!”

  • Pope The Rev XXVIII

    OK Capcom I forgive you now release an unlock patch for mega man and Pac man on 360 and make all the DLC characters in SFXT free and we’re square. 

  • Anthony Lee

    This doesn’t change anything! On-disc DLC and day 1 true DLC is no different. The method of delivery is not what the issue is (although it stings a teensy more when its actually on disc) but the nature of the beast is developers are selling extra content that was made during the same development time as the main game. DLC is supposed to be an expansion to the main game and an afterthough, not a method of milking customers.

    Buy all means, place the foundation for DLC, but don’t artificially lock extra’s out. This is truly one of the downsides to online delivery of games. Never happened when physical media had to be made to expand upon a game.

    • malek86

      “Never happened when physical media had to be made to expand upon a game.”

      We still had to pay for expansion packs though. In the end, nothing is free.

      Or, in the case of Capcom fighters, we had to re-buy every single version of SF3 Alpha if we wanted the extra stuff that was included in the new version.

      Overall, I think we actually have it better today. On-disc DLC aside, but it’s really only Capcom who does that.

      • andre.fobbe

         Past expansion packs actually had a far better price-performance ratio than DLC does nowadays. In the past, you paid between $20-$40 for an addon that included a whole campaign, additional classes, abilities and characters (Baldur’s Gate – Throne of Bhaal, Diablo 2 – Lord of Destruction, Dragon Age – Awakening, Neverwinter Nights 2 – Mask of the Betrayer and so on).
        Now, you pay $3-10$ for a single costume, a 1-2 hour quest, a single character etc.
        And the quality (especially with regards to quests, see Mass Effect DLC) is far lower.
        This is the exact problem with DLC. And people are too blinded by the shiny content to notice how much more they are suddenly willing to pay to receive far less.

    • Mike Pureka

      No, I’m sorry, you are wrong. You should really make an effort understand how this stuff works. Allow me to explain.

      When a game “goes gold” that means that everything that is going to
      be on the disc is finished.  No more content can go on the disc at that
      point.  BUT the gold copy of the disc doesn’t just magically bud into a
      million copies that are immediately distributed into everyone’s local
      Gamestop.   For console titles in particular, the game then has to go
      get certified, and THEN they can see about the whole “making discs of
      plastic with this data on them” process and shipping them to stores. 
      There can be a month or more between when a game “goes gold” so no more
      content can be put on the disc… and when the game ACTUALLY arrives in

      What does this mean in terms of Day 1 DLC vs On Disc DLC?

      On disc DLC means they were done with it before the game went gold. 
      And yeah, they shouldn’t be selling that seperately – that’s dirty pool
      and making you pay for parts of the game that really are part of the
      ‘finished’ product.

      “Same day” or “Day 1” or “Launch day” DLC means that instead of the
      Dev team for the game sitting on their thumbs between when the game went
      gold and when the game arrived in stores, they instead put in
      additional time and made some REAL NEW CONTENT.  AFTER the time when
      they could no longer have put anything else on the disc, but before the
      disc arrives in your hands.  This is EXTRA work and EXTRA content that,
      had it not been DLC, would never exist.

      DO NOT scold companies for Day 1 DLC.  Day 1 DLC is the result of
      developers spending time that might otherwise have been wasted, or, if
      nothing else, spent working on an entirely different game, to instead,
      bring you some DLC.  You don’t have to buy it if you don’t want it, but
      don’t scold them for making it.

      DO, on the other hand, shun companies like Capcom that insist on
      trying to sell you things that were already done at launch time.

      Easy, yes?

      • Anime10121

         You sir, and me have the EXACT same thoughts on this subject!

      • mirumu

        Totally agree. It’s not the easiest concept to get across, but you have done so, and well.

  • Repede91

    Still don’t see how people can be so pissed when it says “43 characters” on the box and 43 characters are playable at the start for $60. In this case the game was sold as advertised.

    If instead the package advertised 53 characters and then the player who purchased the game finds out 10 of those are only accessible by paying an extra fee is a bad practice. In this scenario the publisher should have mentioned the fee ahead of time. This would also be an acceptable solution.

    In SFxTK`s case we have situation one. I still don`t see where all this anger is coming from.

    • puchinri

      That kind of makes sense, but then again, if there are already more than 43 characters on the game and they tell you only 43 are available, they’ve misled you, right?

      • Repede91

        Look at it like this: the advertised game people payed for only has 43 characters. It would be misleading if Capcom said the game priced at $60 had 53 characters that would be an outright lie.

        • puchinri

          It only has 43 that you don’t pay for? Or 43 in all? Because if there is still 53 on the disc, it wouldn’t be a lie. It would just be them keeping something from someone who bought a complete package and couldn’t access all of it.

          • Repede91

            The game only has 43 characters.

            If on the package it said “53 playable characters” and someone buys the game expecting that much content only to find out they had to pay $20 extra to access what was advertised as being a part of the original purchase would be a huge in slap in the face to the consumer.

            But in this case people get exactly what was advertised as the retail product.

            Don’t take any of this the wrong way, while I like SFxTK quite a bit, there are plenty of reasons to be upset about it. The newly added Rolento’s knife colliding with a fireball to cause the game to crash only adding to the pile of problems to what is otherwise a really fun game.

          • puchinri

            Ah, okay. I mean, if it only has 43, end of story and no more on the disc, that makes sense. If 53 total were planned for later and being developed still after the game is released, that’s no problem either. 

            However, 53 total and ten of those characters are already on the disc and not actually planned for later, just being held for later? I think you’re ripping people off at that point.

          • Repede91

            In the end you get what was positioned as the full game.

            I also think people get worked up because it`s a game and people feel extra passionate about it.

            When you purchase Microsoft Office 2010 you (well most people) don`t feel particularly ripped off that Office home Premium is on the disc also.

    • That’s a good point. It’s exactly as advertised.

      But I can see where the anger comes from. If you look at it bigger picture, it’s about in-game unlockables vs paid DLC. If you bought the disc, doesn’t it mean that you own it? If you own it, aren’t you entitled to everything that’s on disc? Then why are they making you pay for something that’s already on the disc? It makes the consumer feel like their being ripped off.

      There was some discussion in the past where on-disc DLCs were justified because 1) it would cost way too much for the company to send data individually over the network and 2) it would be too inefficient with hard drive space to download stuff when you can just access it on disc. There’s all this extra room on the disc anyway. So really, consumers aren’t being ripped off, but being served the product as efficiently as possible for both ends.

      But like I said, it all boils down to this: Should this have even been a DLC in the first place? Why couldn’t it have been an extra? Are we getting bang for our bucks, or are game companies seriously taking advantage of the DLC situation?

      • Repede91

        SFxTK is comparable to CvS2 out of the box. 43 characters is roughly what CvS2 offered. That game is held in a very high regard, at the time most players were more than satisfied with the amount of content in that game.

    • OverlordZetta

      Exactly. No one was cheated out of anything – they got exactly what they paid for.

  • I thought the point of dlc was that it was extra content devolped post launch. Not stuff they finished before the game went gold that’s locked on disc so they can bleed more cash out of you down the line. Abhorrent business tactics IMO, long term they’ll just lose customers and even their big IPs will begin to suffer.

  • Colin Tosh

    I was going to buy Street Fighter x Tekken but it was too hard to justify given that like 25% of the roster was complete and locked away.

    Sounding as mature as I can here its about time Capcom learned a lesson. They’ve been saying, “oh just lock this away lock that away and lets see how much we can get away with”. I remember at the start of this gen Capcom were much more generous with DLC.

    Its a shame SF X T flopped because it may effect Capcom’s thinking in regards to future fighting game releases but there is only so much your fans can take. Hopefully other companies start following suit to this as well.

    • mirumu

      It’ll be interesting to see what Tekken x Street Fighter’s sales model is, and how the eventual sales will compare with SF x T. There’ll inevitably be other factors at play with that release for sure, but there could be flow on effects for DLC if there’s a large sales disparity in either direction.

  • It is sad to see that the former definition of DLC which was, improving the game with new content post-release has been altered to making more money by just locking stuff that should be free to begin with. 

    • AJ

      It’s not “free”, it costs 60$ or whatever. 

      • Raharu95

        No, the game cost 60$ or whatever, the key to unlock the extra stuff cost more

  • Exand 

    “We are rarely the ultimate decision maker however in the West, Michael Pattison (our Panwestern head of marketing), David Reeves (our European COO) and I have considerable input into product direction and whether a product exists or not. Your voices and desires are often echoed by the three of us in those discussions.”

    “1. We do market and sell all games in North and South America This is our primary function.”

    “3. We do not do localization of games from Japan. That function happens within our localization group in Japan.”

    Regardless of what we (the West) tells Sven, it’s not Sven and Capcom West who make the final decisions, it’s Capcom Japan that does. And when you look at the changes being considered in say SFxT, it wasn’t the complaints from the West that triggered the response from the producer, it was complaints from players in Japan.

    • raymk

      So japan calls all the shots yeah they should fix that little link between japan and U.S.

    • Slight correction. I highly doubt it’s complaints from Japan that is the cause for Capcom’s DLC statement. SFxTK sold a fraction in Japan of what it sold overseas. While Capcom USA/Europe don’t call all the shots, what they do is, they give feedback constantly to Japan constantly, and advise them on certain issues. Whether or not Japan makes use of this feedback is another matter.

  • konsama

    This made me think of them: “hey we won’t put on disc DLC from now on, we just still make the game as small on the disc and make the DLC fully download after”. 

    One thing is sure, i want to get Dragon’s Dogma but i will totally refuse to buy any DLC for it.

  • boundries_san

    …. See the topic…. see DLC. *Quickly go to the kitchen and cook some instant porridge*

    Let the show begin.^^*wear a sunglasses to make it looks cool*

  • Lexaus_the_Alchemist

    … The one reason why I’ve been hesitant to pre-order Dragon’s Dogma decides to rear its ugly head. At least Capcom is beginning to see the error of its way, but how soon they will change and what direction they will change to remains to be seen… I hope other companies are paying attention.

  • OverlordZetta

    All this means is that DLC, the SAME DLC, will just need to be downloaded.

    So nothing has really been accomplished here.

    • neo_firenze

       And it’s actually WORSE, because it’s downright inconvenient for players.  I’m going to have to pay for the DLC in either case, now I also have to use up storage space on my HDD, take the time to download what can be lengthy files, and re-download if I ever want to switch to a different console. 

      The complainers are actually ruining a better alternative.  GIMME ALL THE STUFF FOR NO EXTRA COST is not an option to publishers, period.  You don’t like a fighting game having 40 characters on disc plus 12 characters as locked content you have to pay for?  Well, your other option is to have 40 characters on disc, period.  All 52 on disc with no locked/DLC characters is simply not one of the choices.

      And don’t think Capcom (and other publishers, this isn’t just about Capcom) won’t pass on costs to their consumers.  Sony, for instance, charges publishers something along the lines of $0.16 per GB downloaded.  Publishers will all too happily pass that cost on to customers with a mark-up, so having downloadable content instead of on-disc locked content might actually increase the prices for the exact same content. 

      • malek86

        Yes, on-disc DLC is definitely better than day-1 DLC. The problem is that people feel more like they are being ripped off, because it’s kinda like saying “what do you mean it’s on the disc but I can’t access it?”.

        It just feels that way, however. In practice, on-disc DLC is no worse than day-1 DLC. And actually, like you said, at least it means you don’t have to download extra stuff. So yeah, if I had to choose between on-disc DLC and day-1 DLC, I’d rather go for the former.

        That said, I’m personally not a fan of either method. If a DLC comes later and is obviously made outside of the game’s original budget (it’s easy to understand when that’s the case) then I don’t mind. Otherwise, I don’t like the idea of paying for something that was presumably made during development, because it was probably taken out of the game’s budget to be sold at a higher price.

        • OverlordZetta

          What does it matter when it was made or when it comes out? I really think that’s irreleant. If it adds content, it adds content, and it’s your optinion to buy it.

          Who’s to say those othr companies don’t put aside part of their budget for DLC, but just wait to see what people want? Or just wait period? You can never know.

          • malek86

            I can’t know, but I’m willing to give the benefit of doubt (which seems to be more than most people here). Not so much when the DLC comes out on day 1.

            Also, sometimes it’s easy to see when something wasn’t planned from the start: for example, the Overlord DLC levels are completely different from the rest of the game.

      • I really can’t like your comments enough man; +1 to all of them.

      • OverlordZetta

        Holy hell– Someone with sense on here? Say it isn’t so!

        Pretty much all of this though. I’ve got an old as heck PS3, my connection’s not the best, and naturally my space is lacking. With all the download stuff coming out and the ever increasing library of games, I NEED every megabyte I can get. You’re absolutely right – out of the two necesseties, because that’s what they are, Capcom went for the one that was far more convenient for everyone.

      • “All 52 on disc with no locked/DLC characters is simply not one of the choices.”

        Last gen it would have been a choice and the characters would have been unlockable. This gen publishers are crying like little babies that it’s not possible because they want to gouge us more.

        • OverlordZetta

          “This gen gamers are crying like little babies that it’s not possible because they don’t understand the system.”

          Fixed that for you.

  • badmoogle

    I’ll still get DD on day one (and i’m still very excited for it) but i’ll ignore the existance of any on-disc DLC.

    It’s such a shame Capcom decided to use this lame tactic once more because it will make many people turn away from an otherwise much promising new game.They shouldn’t have done it for a new IP that was going to have a tough launch either way…

    • Christopher Nunes

       I was thinking of getting Dragon’s Dogma since I tried out the demo and liked it, as it reminded me of Monster Hunter. However I dislike having on-disc DLC which locks contents until you paid for them… I’m fine with paying for DLC that’s not on the disc and further expands the game’s already impressive contents.

      Back in the day locked content on the disc were there for you to unlock by completing the game, unlocking some hidden pathways or message, or fighting extra challenges and rewards you with new contents. I loved doing that in old games where you unlock new features and get to try the game all over again in a different way with the new stuff.

      I’m not likely the explanation of this, but I’m glad they came clean with DD but still… not a happy person about.

      My eagerness to buy the game is slowly diminishing. 

      • badmoogle

        I agree and i understand your point but i think that if you like the game you should buy it and just ignore the DLC.If everyone does that Capcom will surely get the message and hopefully will not do it again.
        Our wallets have more power than we sometimes realize. :)

  • SirRichard

    I think you can justify it in some cases; say you’re making an expansion DLC for a game that you’ve planned but know you won’t finish until after the game is out. If it’s pretty big (like, I don’t know, a gigabyte or more? The Missing Link, as an example, was about 2GB) and you have the space, then yeah, put bits of it on the disc to reduce that gigabyte down by a few hundred megabytes. Fair enough, that makes it easier on the consumer.

    But characters in a fighting game are not the entirety of Missing Link, they aren’t so big as to justify putting them on the disc and locking them off. It wasn’t even parts of the characters, people hacked them in and found them fully playable.

    It’s that that makes me think Capcom aren’t being entirely honest in this response; the content they locked off was small enough to fit on the finished game’s disc, and it was completely there and working. It was them slicing off bits of a finished game to sell back later.

    At least they came clean about Dragon’s Dogma, but now I’m concerned about how much DLC they have in wait for that one.

    • OverlordZetta

      Why do they need to be “honest”? Now, before you jump on me for saying that, hold with me for the ret. They’ve done a lot of crap in the past, but that still doesn’t mean people should go and hack their games.

      If these characters were ALWAYS going to be DLC in their plans, or if they ALWAYS planned on having DLC characters, then no, they didn’t “take away some of the full game” – they made th process of downloading and patching in the future that much more convenient. It may not have been the best way to go about it, but you guys (people complaining about this in general) have to realize that in his gaming market, DLC IS part of the process right now.

      It’s going to be there no matter what, whether we like it or not, so getting mad about how they apply the DLC that would be there no matter what is ridiculous.

      • SirRichard

        “so getting mad about how they apply the DLC that would be there no matter what is ridiculous.”

        So let’s say I’m selling a pack of ten bananas. You want this pack of bananas because you like bananas/they look aesthetically pleasing in your fruit bowl, so you buy the bananas. But as you buy them, I take away two or three to sell back to you. Would you go “Oh well, that’s the way the world works! 7 bananas for the price of 10 is the norm!”?

        No, and if you would then you’re not particularly bright, are you?

        DLC is part of the market and the game design process. That does not mean we have to sit there and allow ourselves to be screwed out of money. Without the customers, the business can’t function. Just sitting there and taking it is setting a bad example and encouraging shady business tactics. 

        It is not about the DLC existing, it’s about Capcom’s definition of DLC and how they implement. Getting mad about not getting all of the content on a disc you paid for in full is not ridiculous, and I would like to know what situation you had in life that made that way of thinking seem normal.

        • neo_firenze

           Bad analogy. 

          Capcom didn’t sell 10 bananas and then take any away at the time of purchase.  They told you you get 10 bananas for a certain price, AND that if you buy 10 bananas from them now, they’ll be willing to sell you a few more bananas later for an additional cost.

          • Anime10121

            Nah its more like this, using your banana analogy:

            Capcom sells you 10 bananas and a chest (with more bananas) with a lock on it that you dont know whats inside.  A week later pirates break the chest open and have the original 10 bananas plus the ones in the chest, while you (the one who actually bought the bananas legally) get the bananas half a year later, have to pay MORE for them, and they have gotten rotten (pirates have gotten so good at the DLC that it’s become an unfair advantage by the time legit players get them).

            @raymk: me too I have a strong dislike of them, just keepin a little continuity:P

          • raymk

            OK stop it now I hate bananas :(.

          • OverlordZetta

            Sounds about right.

        • malek86

          The analogy doesn’t really work. Rather, it’s more like you want to get 7 bananas, and Capcom sells you 7 bananas, but does so giving you a cask of 10 bananas, 3 of which are closed in a box and you need a key to unlock it. Even so, you presumably paid for 7 bananas. The concern is really just the fact that you can see those extra bananas, but can’t eat them, so you feel like you’re being ripped off.

          The alternative (day-1 DLC) is simply getting 7 bananas, and eventually buying the other 3. But whether it’s better or not, it’s a matter of principle. Because it’s the exact same thing. It just feels worse, but in practice you’re no better or worse off with either method (they are both annoying, I might add).

          My point is, I agree that day-1 DLC and on-disc DLC are both a sort of scam for consumers, but I don’t see how one is worse than the other. For some reason, people seem to think on-disc DLC is much worse.

          • SirRichard

            Yeah, I am not good with analogies, that one works better.

          • badmoogle

            @malek86″Whether the 7 bananas are being sold for the price of 7 or 10 bananas, that’s not the point I was trying to make.”

            But that’s the base of the issue.If they lower the price of the actual game no one will complain that they cut some content out of it.The problem is that you pay full price for something that is deliberately not complete and therefore is not worthy of its full price.

          • malek86

            @badmoogle:disqus yeees, like I said, I agree with that and I think it’s a scam too.

            But many people seem to be only ticked off when it’s on-disc DLC, while day-1 DLC (which many more companies do, while only Capcom does the on-disc method) is just as bad but for some reason it’s not viewed as so. So the point I was trying to make, is that it’s useless to only chastise Capcom for on-disc DLC, because they are about as bad as everyone else.

          • badmoogle

            malek86 :Ok i agree with that,it’s definitely just as bad.
            Like i said in another post even with post launch dlc you can never be sure if it’s content that was cut from the main game only to be used later or brand new content.Publishers have no ethics,if they’ll have a chance they’ll try to maximize their profit as much as possible and even lie to cunsumers in order to achieve it.

          • badmoogle

            Not really.

            I think his analogy is quite right because the true question it implies  here is: “does the 7 bananas are worth the money you pay for them or does the money you pay for them are worthy of an extra three bananas which you have to pay extra for them?”

          • malek86

            … shiro_youlostme.jpg

            Aaanyway. Whether the 7 bananas are being sold for the price of 7 or 10 bananas, that’s not the point I was trying to make. My point was that getting the 3 extra bananas together with the cask, or getting them separately but still at the same time, makes no difference.

            Like I said, I agree that it’s a scam, but both on-disc and day-1 DLCs are scams. Neither is worse. If people complain about Capcom, they should complain about every single company that sells day-1 DLC (and that’s a lot of companies).

            The only reason on-disc feels worse is because people are used to the idea of the disc containing everything for free once you’ve bought it, but in practice they are the same thing.

        • OverlordZetta

          Except that analogy would only apply if Capcom said that we were having all of those characters and then took them out – they never did. Ever.

          A better analogy might be something like this: You are buying a box of seven bananas for the price of seven bananas. It has a secret compartment with three more bananas in it. You can choose to ignore the bananas, “hack” the box and steal the bananas after buying the box, or just buy the bananas. This was done so that, hey, if people want the option of more bananas, they’re already built into the box of bananas and you don’t need to go pay gas and such (the downloading) to go to the store and get more.
          You never paid for the DLC. You paid for the game Capcom made. It’s not an incomplete game by any means. It didn’t and was never going to include those characters off the bat- regardless of where the data for unlocking them later is.

          • SirRichard

            Yes, you pay for the game, but in this case you’re paying for a game that has content deliberately missing so Capcom can charge you again. You’re paying full price but not getting the full content, meaning you have to pay more than the full price to get the full game. This isn’t a case of characters being created/finished later and being added in; these characters were complete along with the game (as hackers proved).

            It begs the same questions as day one DLC; why isn’t it in the final game? It’s finished, it’s clearly supposed to be part of the game (and it doesn’t matter what Capcom says, the characters being complete on the disc proves it) but it’s been purposefully left out as a means of squeezing more money out past the retail price as quickly as possible. It’s cheating the customer, and that’s where the issue is.

          • OverlordZetta

            I’m… honestly baffled as to how you can possibly believe any of this, much less say it like that. I even debated replying to it, because I can’t tell if I’m replying to a troll or not – but that’s rude, so I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.

            You have a full game at full price. You can have more than a full game if you choose to buy the characters. That’s all there is to it. That is all there has ever been to this game.

            You know how books cost more than other books based on content? We keep pushing crap, and they WILL start coming out with games that have all the content on it – except they’ll have all the DLC costs slapped on top of it and this time we won’t an option.

            All of you ignorant, entitled manchildren need to shut up before things go really, really bad for us.

          • SirRichard

            “All of you ignorant, entitled manchildren need to shut up before things go really, really bad for us.”

            I love that everyone picked up entitled as a buzzword from clueless “journalists”, it gives me a smug sense of self-satisfaction when I get to tell you that you’re using it wrong. You want “self-entitled”, mate. And really, suggesting I’m the troll and then turning around and calling me an ignorant manchild? Only two short paragraphs apart, no less, incredible. I’m beginning to suspect that you’re the troll, mate.

            Fun fact, mate; game prices ARE on the rise, at least over here. I love it when people in, say, America, complain about their game prices because we basically pay twice as much. Things are going bad, and allowing publishers to do whatever they please with DLC will make things far worse than objecting to it will. It’s laughable that you suggest it isn’t worse, I’d love your cheery view of the industry.

            “DLC costs”? Mate, creating a roster but having one part of it marked as “cut out for DLC” doesn’t add any costs to the project, that’s basically what they’ve done here. Argue about licencing or how they never mentioned it all you want, at the end of the day consumers are left angry at having to pay more for something that was previously standard. You like books? This is like crafting a wondrous painting and then cutting out a corner of the canvas here, a neat rectangle there and selling it later. Capcom aren’t the only ones doing this, true, but they’re in the spotlight right now.

            Really, us “ignorant, entitled manchildren” are ruining it for you? Have you ever considered that you’re making it worse for the rest of us by eating this up and not questioning it?

          • OverlordZetta

            Given how ridiculously condescending this post is, either because of name calling or because I ~used a word wrong~ (which, in a few years, will be a moot point as language is constantly evolving anyway), I’m just gonna leave you to it, “mate.”

            Ain’t even mad.

          • SirRichard

            It’ll take more than a few years of people misusing entitled for the defintion to shift, especially with smug pricks like me about.

            I’ll give you that, though. “Mad” is monkeyking up the page there.

      • badmoogle

        On-disc DLC is “part of the market” because we LET it be part of the market.If we gamers stop buying this crap then the publishers will get the message and stop doing it.So in a way both sides are part of the problem.

        Even with post launch DLC,the temptation for a publisher to cut content from the actual game only to sell it on a later date is way too big for a gamer to ignore.

        • OverlordZetta

          That’s a bit besides the point. Either way, with this game RIGHT NOW, no great movements or changes can happen. Yes, we can complain, and in the FUTURE we can get it changed – but face it. Unless we want the base price of games to start going up, developers NEED DLC anyway.

          Regardless, getting back to my point, with this game right now, if it was always going to be DLC – who the hell are gamers to say “well it’s already here so GIMME” when that was supposed to something we were supposed to pay for? That’s like a kid saying to theirr parents since they’re going to get their allowance anyway, why should they do their part? They want the money.

          That just sounds spoiled. Really, it all does. I mean I get it – Capcom has done a LOT of shady crap over the past few years, but this time? I DO think they were trying here.

          • SirRichard

            “Unless we want the base price of games to start going up”

            They are, at least in retailers over here. DLC shenanigans like this happen anyway, funnily enough.

      • I do believe people have a right to be mad about getting sold content that was made WHEN THE GAME WAS FIRST BEING DEVELOPED. And just because they SAY that they “always planned it as dlc”, guess what, THEY CAN LIE. And guess what changes the BS DLC tactics that these companies have been using. People complaining about it and telling the companies “we don’t like this”. So, no I think people should get mad, should be able to get mad, and it’s not ridiculous, just because some of us don’t lie down and accept getting screwed by these companies. There is no justifying selling half a game for full price, and then trying to sell the other half as dlc.

        Then again you seem to have been defending this crap for awhile. Troll.

        • OverlordZetta

          Except they didn’t sell half a game for full price. They sold a full game for full price with the option to buy more for it. You can still enjoy the game as a full game without the DLC. No, really! It’s not that hard! It has all the modes, it’s not glitchy, and you have a HUGE roster of characters! If you have the gall to call it half a game because they’re using DLC, well– You must be lackin some brain cells in there.

          Though heck, I must be too, replying to someone so rude.

          And no, I don’t care about them saying/not saying it – this is common freaking sense. These days, it’s going to be DLC or raising the price of games with how expensive everything is. DLC cost are ALWAYS going to be a factor, right off the bat. If you want to choose not to believe that because “the man” said it, then you just sound ignorant.

          • You’re right they didn’t sell half a game – they sold about 2/3 of one.

          • OverlordZetta

            No, it’s a full game. The DLC is entirely optional and those characters/that amount of characters was never promised.

            Buying the DLC would give you 4/3 of one, if anything.

          •  “No, it’s a full game. The DLC is entirely optional and those characters/that amount of characters was never promised.”

            If DLC is planned from the beginning and locked away on a disc, it’s not a full game.

          • EmpathyPutYrslfInThePlaceOfMe

             It’s not a full game when Capcom themselves has to apologize for all the bugs/glitches/infinites/choppy online play and sound/missing mode on 360 that was advertised.

  • Anime10121

    My stance, Games go gold (mastered, ready for manufacturing process) normally a
    month or two before release, if content is completed after that time
    frame it cant be added to the game while its being manufactured so it is
    released as Day one DLC.  I’m perfectly okay with day one DLC as there is
    justification for it.

    What Capcom is doing is completely different, they have
    basically said that they planned Dragons Dogma’s DLC from the start to be ON THE DISC
    already before its mastered.  Which means they are locking away content
    on a game that you paid for that was completed prior to the mastering
    process and thus should have been included on the actual disc. Oh and
    then they have the nerve to make you wait almost half a year (in the
    case of SFxT) for characters that are already on the disc complete, and
    that pirates have already used.

    • AJ

      That’s the part that bothers me – this is not about DLC, it’s about the development of a game being set up so that the final product is distributed in pieces, but the initial offering is still sold at the 59.95$ price point. Despite being told that DLC is additional content, are expansion packs, or “extra” content, the fact is that this was all designed and sold to you as a single thing, then they sell you the license to it again.

      PC gaming has had “DLC” since forever – it used to be called “expansion packs”, and we had to walk uphill in the snow to download it – and has anyone ever heard of Capcom’s business practices being done in the pre-console era? Seriously, I am actually asking.

    • False, a game doesn’t go “gold” a month or 2 before release, the final deadline or “milestone” however is. A “gold” or master copy isn’t ready until ~3 weeks before shipping to stores.
      After the final milestone the dev starts finalising their “planned” DLC, everything they manage to finish before the gold copy is done CAN be added to the disc even without certification from the console manufacturer.

      It’s important to realise that no matter how hard you believe this content is yours, you have -no- right to it whatsoever; the content is added to the disc as a form of convenience, because not only does it actually cost the devs to host content on PSN/XBL, there are also consumers out there that do -not- have unlimited bandwidth.

      What this boils down to is that no matter how much of the DLC is “planned” from the start, none of it is in your right to use without paying because, shockingly, 99% of all DLC is in fact “planned”; if you don’t plan DLC from the start on a big title, the eventual shipped product will fail to have the infrastructure to even support any downloadable things.
      “Just add the infrastructure later in a patch” you say, well that will take considerable manpower just coding it in and testing it, paying for certification etc..
      That would be akin to asking bethesda to patch in online coop for skyrim; can it be done? Sure, but it’s entirely not worth it .

      So, “Which means they are locking away content
      on a game that you paid for that was completed prior to the mastering
      proces”; while it’s correct that they are locking away content, it’s not content you paid for, even though the disc is physical, the content on it obviously isn’t and is subject to licensing; you in fact paid for the content they were advertising, nothing else.
      Try and comparing it to Windows or any major professional application, you get to install whatever version you want of these, be it home or pro, but you -only- get to use the content your -license key- paid for. This is the exact same.

      Gamers need to stop being so spoiled and entitled all the damn time, these devs are working hard to bring us awesome games, and we love these games -until- a dlc announcement, then it’s all “oh my life, I mean game, is incomplete now”; as long as you realise that you are still getting the product they -advertised- and for which you got -hyped-, the product that was awesome and complete…, then what the -HELL- is the damn problem?

      *LE SIGH*..

      •  You also need a dictionary. Getting upset at being gouged is not entitlement.

        • Thank you for not reading anything other than “entitled” in my entire post; seeing “planned” dlc/locked content as extortion is in fact, the highest form of gamer entitlement and your posting history here makes it abundandly clear how you are just a butthurt individual with a extremely delusional sense of self-entitlement.

          I’d advise you to read my post 2 or 3 more times, or just as many times as your brain needs to comprehend why any form of dlc isn’t your property by default.

          • mirumu

            Your post just looks like a tangent focused on rights and business practices. You aren’t defending Capcom, you’re trying to make those complaining feel bad by justifying the entirety of Capcom’s current business model. If it’s such a superior and well accepted strategy then why exactly did SFxT sales come up 600,000 copies short?

            If gamers don’t buy a game for any reason, including entitlement, if such a thing can be seriously considered, are they in the wrong?

            Also as a software dev myself, and someone who has actually created mods for games in the past, I’d argue some of your assertions about the process are incorrect.

          • It is, I’m indeed not defending anything other than the Industry as a whole, cause this is something every dev has to deal with at the planning stages of projects.

            If they don’t buy it because of aformentioned reason then no, they can do whatever they want. But it -is- wrong to paint a dev, who does the same thing as 99% of all devs, as a horrible evil entity that didn’t develop that 100 hour game for you to enjoy.

            “Also as a software dev myself, and someone who has actually created mods for games in the past, I’d argue some of your assertions about the process are incorrect.”

            Well as a game dev/3d artist/game designer myself, and someone who has actually worked on several games in the past and present, I’d argue that my assertions about the process are correct ;].

          • mirumu

            Are 99% of all devs doing this? With the planning I’m sure they are, but Capcom look to be taking it a lot further than just planning. At best it seems they’re leaving their last minute fine tuning until later. That’s assuming the download isn’t simply an unlock code. Even Bioware who take a lot of heat for their DLC claim the bulk of the work happens after the game is complete.

            Given your experience I expect you know how easy it can be to add content after the fact. It’s often more a matter of not limiting yourself rather than explicitly supporting it.

          • Well that statistic is a bit generous, but it is what I’ve experienced mostly.

            But you kinda have to see it as Budget A and B; budget A is what gets advertised and sold in stores, budget B is everything else. 
            It doesn’t really matter when budget B gets used to make DLC, but it actually streamlines the entire project if DLC can start during development.
            At the end of project a bunch of artists will not have a lot of work to do anymore, so instead of just having them endlessly tweaking and testing little things you get them to work on more content and a lot of this content will be either finished or near finished before a master copy gets pressed.

            And yes it is very easy to add content after the fact if you haven’t limited yourself during development, but there are some things you -need- to support in order for future dlc to work.
            SR3’s engine for example has a set amount of memory that the engine can use, when you add more items this memory gets full and because they either didn’t think too far ahead or had other technical issues, a lot of items from the mission based dlc’s can not be used outside of said content.
            The latest 2 DLC have to in fact load up completely different instances of the world so the added items have the memory space to work, as soon as you finish the dlc and go back to freeroam those items are inaccessable again.

            So yeah not planning out things in detail beforehand can lead to shooting yourself in the foot like this.

        • badmoogle

           As much as i don’t agree with his opinions,attacking him for his grammar is a bit unfair.:/  Not everyone’s first language is English anyway…and even if he made some mistakes i think he made his points quite clear.

      • “*LE SIGH*..”

        Figures that such a poorly reasoned post would end with a Reddit joke

      • SirRichard

        “Gamers need to stop being so spoiled and entitled”

        It’s SELF-ENTITLED, for the love of Christ. If you’re going to dismiss people with a haughty “Oh you’re a selfish child“, at least do it right.

        Using Bethesda as an example for patching not being efficient is hilarious, incidentally, because guess what they did to set up Skyrim for the Dawnguard expansion? Added the infrastructure in with a routine patch (which is how people discovered it early)! The same Bethesda who had no infrastructure for their expansions in Oblivion and Fallout 3, funnily enough, and they released Shivering Isles and Broken Steel/Point Lookout as DLCs (and discs) anyway. Discs to cover the people with bad bandwidth, DLCs for people with good. For whatever you have to say about their games’ quality, Bethesda at least get DLC (mostly, horse armour aside) right.

        And really, you’re asking what people’s problem is with being squeezed for money during these economic climes? Really? Licencing doesn’t really matter to the consumer at the end of the day, they just want value for their money. Locking off content like this decreases the value of what they paid for, regardless of how the reality of licencing comes into it. Getting the bang for your bucks is not a hard concept, mate, and shenanigans like this really deflate that bang.

        “Le” sigh indeed.

        • Thank you for pointing out my grammar mistake, though it does nothing to refute anything else in the post.
          Whether I used Bethesda or any other company wouldn’t matter, I just used popular game #24523 for convenience.

          And if you seriously, honestly believe that they “added a framework for dlc” in a patch for skyrim you are completely delusional; the gamebryo engine has supported expansions since before 2001, that’s before morrowind even, and yes the creation engine skyrim uses is just an upgraded gamebryo.
          No programmer in his right mind would rip out frameworks out of the code like that.

          And really cry more about economic climes…oh you probably meant “climates”, anyway these “economic climates” hit the devs just as hard, or do you think that with the demands current (spoiled and self-entitled) gamers have it’s any easier to make games? Shockingly making polygons (the thing everything you see in games are made of) is just as hard, if not harder, nowadays compared to 10 years ago.
          Better graphics = more triangles, more triangles = more work; it’s a very linear increase.
          Then programming all the “fancy” effects everyone wants, oh and ofcourse an orchestra for music, paying for hosting on xbl/psn, etc..

          But no ofcourse, you as a consumer have every right to get everything for free from a company that actually needs money to survive; only because you have a bit less money now and refuse to just save up for all the extra perks in life you feel you require.

          Cry more about “economic climates”, and when you are done I hope you realise that is not an argument at all.

          If locking away content feels like it’s devaluating what you paid for then…well that’s your problem really, since you

          You.Still.Get.What.You.Paid.For (and what was promised to you).

          • SirRichard

            While I’m pointing out grammar mistakes, remember your paragraphs and stop abusing periods. Slow down while you’re posting, there’s no rush, this is a mess of a post.

            In fact I’m not entirely sure what you’re trying to get at here, mate. You say I’m completely delusional, but not a few weeks ago gaming sites lit up at the inclusion of early bits of Dawnguard in a Skyrim patch. I’m sorry your example was wrong?

            No, I meant “climes”, because that’s how we say things here. And “cry more”, eh? I see someone never has to worry about money.

            You’re also pretty presumptuous; nowhere has anyone suggested that they want everything for free (except for that one guy who got banned for openly talking about pirating stuff), all I’m seeing here is a privileged nut getting upset at people wanting their money’s worth (unsurprising, really, the “le” suggests a Redditor). I’m not getting what I paid for if I buy a game and parts of it are locked off until I pay more, this is not a hard concept to grasp.

          • Please stop calling me mate, for I am not.

            And yes you are delusional, because “early bits” of a dlc showing up in a patch doesn’t indicate the addition of a framework, it in fact shows that the framework was already in place; many games do this all the time and to use another popular game #2342 as example, Volition patched in entries and “early bits” of dlc each time one of their mission based dlc’s was nearing release.

            Yes cry more. Pretty presumptous to assume I never have to worry about money just because I’m a realist. I work freelance and thus -always- have to worry about money, but being the normal, capable person that I am, I tend to make budgets and save up wherever I can; if I can’t buy a game right now or day 1 on release, I’ll wait till I can.
            Cry more.

            You are getting what you paid for because it’s what was advertised to you; to use capcom as an example, they never advertised the DLC characters and thus everyone who wanted the game -shouldn’t care- about DLC that comes after their purchase.
            I don’t see how it’s a hard concept to grasp that you decided to buy a product based on it’s advertising and -promised- specs, or in other words, -getting what you paid for-.

            That someone hacks their disc to see what’s on it should not in any way affect this since:

            “you decided to buy a product based on it’s advertising and -promised- specs.”

            Any DLC is simply not yours, it’s not yours 6 months after they decide to release it or right now when it’s on the disc for convenience

            p.s. I don’t even know what Redditor is, nice of you to be even more presumptous.

          • SirRichard

            Good to see that you cleaned that up and are posting normally again, at least. And I’ll call you what I want, mate.

            Couldn’t you just say Saints Row 3? You should’ve went with them as an example in the first place, mate, they’re a better one. Though maybe I’m reading your post wrong, there (though it’s also pretty late); how is that not laying the framework for the DLC?

            Judging by how you keep saying “cry more”, I don’t think you do. If your other post is anything to go by, you work freelance in the games industry, which pays considerably better than what most people get, though I’m sure you’d love to tell me otherwise.

            Normally, people wouldn’t care about DLC that comes after their purchase, except that it turns out the DLC they’re downloading isn’t DLC at all but stuff already on the disc. It’s the on-disc element; if they cut them off the disc entirely, Capcom wouldn’t be getting singled out for this because everyone else gets complained at for that. Leaving it on the disc is basically leaving it in as part of the full game, and locking that out and charging for it leaves a bad taste in the consumer’s mouth. Capcom’s refusal to advertise that doesn’t change things, if anything it just reinforces the consumer’s feeling of being cheated. Maybe “convenience” is good for a smaller publisher, but Capcom are thriving and are one of the more prominent names in the industry, why would they need to worry about that?

            P.S. Glad to see that you learned ‘presumptuous’ from this, at least there’s that.

          • If you feel you need to patronise me when making an argument then go ahead, as long as you realise I’m not actually your mate.

            As I said earlier, it’s rather an indication that there is a framework in place; without the framework dlc, or any add on content for that matter, would not be supported as the engine wouldn’t even detect it as such.
            A framework for add-on content is as deeply rooted in the engine as a framework for multiplayer gaming; patching in something like that later is a -nightmare-.
            Thus if the dev doesn’t plan for such a framework to be in place from the start, it most probably will not get added post release.

            And yes the industry pays nicely…if I manage to get an assignment, and no assigment will last you for 6 months. I’ve managed to survive a dry spell like that because I realise the risks of my profession and, again, save money wherever I can. I currently only have ~40 euros to spend but thankfully I’ll get paid next week and I can finally get some stuff I had on the back burner and Diablo 3 ;].

            Well leaving it in is a convenience for everyone no matter how you look at it, even if they are thriving, every business tries to maximise profits as best as they can, cause you know, it pleases the shareholders A.K.A. their bosses.
            We’ll just have to agree to disagree here since it’s apparant that nothing I will say will convince you otherwise ;]

  • Nitraion

    Lol I’m generating meme just for this article

  • As long as the DLC is stuff that’s not really all that important to the main game, and content made specifically to increase the lifetime of a game, I’m fine with it. We’re already getting free stuff with the game as is, and anything we get later can just be bought.

    But if I find out the game has the “DLC” on the disk. . .

  • neo_firenze

    So, you know that the entitlement rage from the anti on-disc DLC crowd only pushes publishers to want to expedite the process of going download-only, right?

    If your complaint is “code is on the disc that mean I deserve to use it for no extra cost”, then you truly don’t understand how software is licensed in the world today.  Doesn’t matter, publishers will eliminate the physical media option soon enough, and complaints like the SFxT ragestorm are only going to accelerate the process.

    • You can make all the excuses you want and can insult people who are anti on disc dlc as much as you like but the fact of the matter is capcom sold THE ENDING TO THE GAME FOR EXTRA MONEY AND SOLD ONLY HALF A GAME FOR FULL PRICE WHILE TRYING TO CHARGE MORE MONEY FOR THE OTHER HALF (Asura’s Wrath and Operation Raccoon City). People have the right to be mad and should be. Last I checked when you anger your customers and lose money because they stop buying your products, you don’t go download only because they forced you to, you change your ways to appease the majority of your customers so you can start selling your products again and making profit. Or you go out of business. 

      •  That method normally works out, customers complain about something you did, so you change it up to their liking and hope that they’ll add on to your profits again. This method normally works out just fine, but only if its an all or nothing deal. Capcom is not at that point yet. They still have tons of customers who have money and are willing to pay. Those people most likely have no problem with it since, well, they have money, its not a problem for them.

        To me personally, Capcom seems to only be focusing on them. Sure, they also are keeping an eye on people who aren’t buying their stuff. And are acknowledging those people and their complaints. But while this may be true, it seems they aren’t really listening. Acknowledging something is knowing that its there, and admitting that you understand that its there. Listening is understanding something in itself and in general. Capcom, sadly, is only acknowledging. To me, Capcom seems to have their wires crossed o.o

        But then again…This is business. Customers matter, and sales matter, but the only thing that truly matters in the end is green.

        • Guest

          But its not a money issue with SFXT

          They make you wait 6 months to play the characters you wanna play that are on the disc while obnoxiously having the same game on the Vita 6 months later for less money with all characters unlocked. $40 less. So you are penalized both time and not just money wise.

          They add ‘pay to win’ game breaking cheap assist gems that ruin online play.

          That has nothing to do with lack of money on a consumers part.

      • SirRichard

        There’s no point in arguing with him, man, he’s too busy living in terror of the digital bogeyman to argue against terrible treatment of customers.

    • Code

      Pretty much o~o; There’s a pretty large gap of understanding behind this whole on-disc DLC ragestorm, which has just endlessly disappointed me T3T; Fact is in this instance it’s a way more beneficial way to handle content for a fighting game (if the content is already prepared any ways), you were going to pay for the content regardless of how it was delivered to you and whenever it was finished, that’s how game planning/finical planning for games work. I’ve already explained out all the reasons a hundred times on here so I’m just not getting into that again, so don’t bother replying to me about SFxT opo; 

      What crossed my mind today is how people flip over this matter; but something like Diablo 3 requiring a constant internet connection to even play the game “offline”, it’s getting next to no flack by comparison. Always Online-DRM to even play your games is something that is a world more dangerous to the consumer’s rights o~o; I get there may not be much cross over between fighting fans and people interested in D3 (I don’t like Blizzard games myself, but a lot of friends play`em) but it really strikes me as really skewed priorities here.

      • neo_firenze

         Yeah… I bought Diablo III and couldn’t play SINGLE PLAYER, couldn’t even create my character last night between midnight and 3am because the servers were down from all the stress.  Say what you will about SFxT’s DLC strategy, but I could play the game with everything they told me I’d get the day I brought that home.

        Yet people don’t go crazy on Blizzard, but any time Capcom is mentioned the anti-DLC crowd comes out of the woodwork.

        • Luna Kazemaru

           You both are doing what capcom is doing pointing the fingers at someone else lol. People HAVE been complaining about D3 why are you expecting to see it on here that mostly puts out Japanese gaming news? Its always easy to say ohh ohh they always go after capcom but not X dev then you all clearly don’t look around enough on the net. They wouldn’t get so much flak if they just own up to their god damn screw ups for once then blaming it on someone else and pointing fingers.

          • Code

            Believe me, I’ve already made my several posts talking squarely about Capcom, and don’t get me wrong I think Capcom’s been making some rotten moves on it’s audience’s good faith. But I was less, pointing fingers and more following up about Neo_Firenze topic of how this impacts gaming as a whole. Which I feel DRM-online only games is a related topic, as well as something far more dangerous.

            For every person out there arguing Capcom’s SFxT DLC is terrible, there is something a thousand times worse out there oAo;;

      • SirTeffy

        Except that Capcom also had the option of creating TOTALLY NEW CHARACTERS that are distributed via mandatory patches and include the 12 that are disc-locked in the standard release, something most companies do with regularity (including new DLC with standard gamefix patches, as BlazBlue and Soul Calibur V did) and NOT alienate their fanbase or treat them like morons, while alienating their paying customers with paywall content pirates can already freely use and enjoy.

        Additionally the game included TWO alternate costumes, locked behind paywalls, while the base game included NO additional outfits and only TWO default color pallets, while most other fighting games, INCLUDING MARVEL VS. CAPCOM 3, include a baseline of FOUR, while most sit comfortably at 6-10.

        Fact is, Capcom had plenty of methods available to them to not screw over the consumer, and CHOSE TO IGNORE ALL OTHER OPTIONS. Were you aware Dragon’s Dogma even INCLUDES INGAME ADVERTISEMENTS ASKING YOU TO PAY THEM TO UNLOCK THE DLC ON-DISC?

      • mirumu

        Some of us are consistent. I decided months ago not to buy Diablo III because of the constant internet connection thing and lack of LAN support. Prior to that I was really looking forward to the game, and was going to pre-order, but today I’m happily ignoring it’s existence. Two friends of mine say they aren’t buying it for exactly the same reasons.

        I know you said to not bother replying about SFxT, but I think looking at it from the perspective of content delivery is only addressing one aspect of the issue. In this case we are talking about DLC that existed right from the planning stages and was developed alongside the game. It’s one thing to think “Hey, we could add this later.” and then work on that stuff once the game goes gold. Actually developing the content at the same time as the game however means they aren’t releasing as good or as complete a game as they could be. It’s taking time of developers, modelers and artists that could otherwise have been used to make the game better. Sure, it may appear to be good business to use DLC the way they are, but they can’t then turn around and whine about sales when we decide to spend our money elsewhere.

        Whether it’s on the disc or not, this way of handling DLC is precisely the kind of thing people were scared would happen back when the idea of DLC was first suggested.

        • Code

          See if everyone approached this topic level headed and understanding, I’d have no problem with this argument >w<; I agree 100% with making a game as complete as they could be, being a completely valid point. But I think 95% of people aren't making this argument, most are flipping out because it's on disc

          As if games have never had on-disc DLC before; this is identical to how Capcom’s been doing DLC such as costumes since SSF4, and many companies have handled DLC in an identical manor. The notion people are flipping out solely because of how the content is delivered is what rubs me the wrong way about this whole thing o~o; Especially when the alternative method is more expensive, less effective. It’s why I’m generally trying to avoid getting into tangles every time I turn around on the subject oAo;;

    •  Paying full price for a game, then balking at being expected to shell out MORE money for content that was cut from the disc is not entitlement.

      You, sir, need a dictionary.

      • OverlordZetta

        Good thing that that’s not what happened then.

    • Guest

       Lessee….pay $80 for SFXT to have all the characters and wait 6 months to use the remaining 12 that are on disc.

      Or pay $40 for SFXT on Vita to have all the characters from the start in the game.

      That seems fair.. -_-

      Aso PC version in U.S. is DD only

  • RedShadoww

    After the crap they pulled with SFxT, I decided to never buy a capcom game until a better version comes out a year or so later. After reading this, I decided to never buy a capcom game again.

    • badmoogle

      I think a better solution would be to never buy DLC again. :)

      • RedShadoww

        I never buy DLC anyway. And I’m hoping the gaming community wakes up and realizes that they’re being taken advantage of with day 1 and on disc dlc. DLC should be something made way after the game is released. 

        • raymk

          People have woken up but the problem is people don’t care if people have money to do what they want to.  If people woke up we wouldn’t be gaming in the recession period and instead be focusing on things that matter.

      •  I buy DLC. Capcom’s content is DUK (Downloadable Unlock Key).

    • Guest


      this is the fifth time this has happened this gen via Capcom

      Followed by:
      Dragons Dogma

  • Nicolas Vasquez

    this is the same as any dlc that is scheduled before the game even launches, capcom is just saving money on file hosting, and that excuse od prolonging lifespan is just stupid, specially with a game like skyrim wich launched a few months ago, with this DLC boom in bloom, DLC should be what in the past was called expansion packs, not what was called bonus material.

  • ResidentMetroid

    Just don’t mess up Resident Evil 6, Capcom and I’ll be happy. Please! Just don’t come out with a JillxClaire scenario and then sell it at a high price,(stranger) and then it just turns out to be on disc.

  • eilegz

    now if people stop supporting online passes games, day 1 dlc and more of bad trends that its a cancer of this industry it would make them reconsider on how they do business.

    i did my part, not buying dlc that its locked on disc, not buying game at day one, buy games only on discount,  wait for goty version of the game, avoid day 1 dlc game…. Maybe im part of the minority but i vote with my wallet.

    • badmoogle

      I agree.Doing any of these practises shouldn’t be considered as “part of a bigger cause”.Even if i was the only one not buying on-disc dlc i couldn’t care less.And i will continue to do what i think is right regardless if i belong in a minority or not.I think the whole concept of boycotting something is wrong.

      However i don’t think buying a game at day one is a bad thing (that is if you can afford it).Especially when you want to support small publishers or new IPs that you approve (like DD for me).

    • epy

      I am right with you bro. I have my huge backlog to tackle anyways.

    • Umar Kiiroi Senkō

      Totally agree with you. for as long as we support it, they will keep doing it. I’m glad you’re making that stand. I have been doing the same as well and with the recent diablo 3, online single player debacle, it further intensified my stance

  • Don’t lock any content on disc in Resident Evil 6 and you can have my money Capcom! if you do, i’m sure there are other games out there worthy of my money!

  • Luna Kazemaru

    LOL..that is all.

  • Seeing how someone is gifting this to me, that isn’t going to stop from playing, but this really needs to stop. They’re only shooting themselves in the foot at this point. I think they should start by reestablishing their relationship with their fans first instead of screwing them over.

  • YamiWhoo

    This doesn’t sound like a “We’re listening guys!” to me. This sounds like they’re admitting they did something their customers don’t like but then are turning around and asking why they’re upset.


    Sorry, Capcom :P I’m not convinced you actually care at all, haha!

    • SirRichard

      I’ve heard one worrying comment from a reviewer (from Destructoid, granted, not the best source for it) in regards to the DLC in Dragon’s Dogma in their version of this article. In fact:

      “Dragon’s Dogma is going to be perhaps the prime example of everything Capcom’s done wrong with DLC. I can’t say much until the review, but let’s just say glorified pop-up ads for downloadable content were already in place when I tried a pre-release copy.”
      (Last paragraph of this here:

      Not the most encouraging of pre-review statements, that.

      • mirumu

        I hadn’t seen much mention of DLC for Dragon’s Dogma until today, and hoped things like SFxT were just an experiment. If Capcom’s statements and these rumors you mention are anything to go by however then that would be the end of my interest in the game.

  • This is just Capcom’s damage control going into overdrive before the game comes out. If they cared about their customers they wouldn’t have done it in the first place.

  • Handsome Luigi ♢

    Capcom, Capcom, Caapcom, everytime you try to take your foot our of the quicksand of hate you seem to sink further. What will you do Capcom? What. Will. You. Do?

  • Niermyico

    I haven’t bought Asura’s Wrath yet, but that will the only game I’m planning on getting from Capcom just because it was developed by CyberConnect2. I wont buy the DLC.

    Isn’t this when GameStop comes in, when you buy the game used, so that publishing company doesn’t get profit? I forget how that works.

    • XiaomuArisu

       Well I buyed The last chapter dlc of Asuras wrath,its worth it if you like Asura and cost just 7$
      I say just because other games offer for the same price worthless things.The last chapter seems to be made after the main game was completed.The game didnt sell well so instead of a sequel we get a dlc.

      Long story short:Its a rare case of good dlc.

      • Niermyico

        I saw the Ryu/Akuma Episodes. It’s looks epic as hell. I might reconsider on that. lol

  • Asura

    I was on the fence about Dragon’s Dogma, the demo wasn’t that much fun either sadly, and now this announcement confirms that I will never put another thought toward Dragon’s Dogma from this day forward.

    As for the people “debating” Day One and On-disc DLC, here’s the thing. BOTH ARE COMPLETELY ATROCIOUS AND SHOULD NOT EXIST. 

    • mirumu

      I wouldn’t say I’m “for” day one DLC, but if the developers are going to be sitting idle anyway then I see no harm in them creating some extra content. I would prefer something a bit more substantial down the line though.

    • OverlordZetta

      Keep using that argument and we might as well say current gen video games shouldn’t exist, because devs will be too effing poor to make them.

      • Guest


        Guess Pokemon shouldn’t sell then since they haven’t gone the way of charging people to download Pokemon instead of capturing them

      • Asura

         You do see how stupid your comment is, right? If not, hahahahaha.

  • As an aside, if those prices for the LE of Biohazard 6 are real, then Capcom has really gone off its rocker. 

  • I understand that you are paying for a game to play but that doesn’t mean you are entitled to the content inside the disc. You are pretty much paying for the content the publisher want you to play and that does not include the content you don’t see in-game (i.e. the remaining character of SxT). If you buy a game thats advertise something like, “x amount of character is available for you to play now” then you get those amount of characters. If they decide to add in more character later on then they will make those character available as soon as they are ready. What they advertised before the DLC is still…valid(?). So what you bought is a complete game. A game that does what the back of the packet tells you.

    In Capcom case, those character are completed from the start but for some reason they decided to hold it off till the Vita version comes out. If that’s true anyway. I understand if the content is incomplete and they just put it inside the disc so it shave off some download time but it’s a complete data and they kept that from the consumer. I’m sure it wouldn’t make much difference if they were to tell us before someone hacked it but I guess it would calm down a couple of people and avoid them accusing Capcom of lying or such. Then again, it isn’t really lying but keeping a secret from us which isn’t the same unless you ask them and they lie.

    I’m not making any sense am I? It’s 2:28am and I can’t sleep because I have a week early viva tomorrow which I’m not prepared for so I’m pretty much thinking too much.


    EDIT: I’m leaving this whole DLC issue, it’s really confusing because of people’s issues with SE and Capcom ways of handling content.

  • Covnam

    I like how their community response to their customers concerns turns into a sales pitch… -_-

  • My my my…..


    I am walking away from this people. I am going to start buying games with full content. Splitting games in pieces is getting  very annoying. Good bye Capcom

  • Guest

     The customer is always right?

  • Umar Kiiroi Senkō

    you can say its the evolution of modern day gaming and you can say we’re nostalgic fools. call us whiners, call us all sorts of names. give us excuses and justify the reasons for your actions. but it is clear, that the statement made by capcom is nothing more than preemptive damage control for DD, because they know how upset gamers are with on disc locked DLC. No one is fooled by this and no one really believes you care until the day you prove it. these sort of things just ends up alienating customers

  • Go2hell66

    yea sure capcom say they’ve heard the fans but have they actually learned anything, can’t help but feel capcom will just find another way to milk fans of there money.

    guess we’ll have to wait and see

  • xxx128

    Do not feed them money for stuff that should have been part of the original product in the first place. Dont be stupid.

  • Göran Isacson

    I liked the part where he didn’t say what alternatives were being discussed, and then segued into a sales pitch of a game that has the practices which people are complaining about. Slick moves there.

  • Nozomi

    Snort. Nice try, Capcom. Nice try.

  • FB

    the only mistake they made was getting caught. All they needed to do was to include the code for selecting and playing as the DLC characters alongside the actual DLC, rather than leaving it on the disc for hackers to enable themselves.

  • The on disc Dragon’s Dogma DLC so far, has made complete sense to use. You can give equipment to other player’s pawns (party members) and if some of that equipment is from the DLC, they can still get it and use it because the data for it is on their disc despite them not having purchased the DLC. That wouldn’t have been possible otherwise and could have caused a lot of lost items that went to nothing.

    As far as complaining about the price of DLC, let’s face it, it takes a lot more man power to create one of these games compared to say, a nintendo 64 game. Those games cost nearly as much on release as Xbox 360 games do. Then you have factors like inflation and everything. Sure you can argue it takes less to physically manufacture each game, but that doesn’t apply to DLC does it? it’s all content, and good content is expensive to make. They NEED to have some way of making more off their games without increasing the base price so they can compete with other products.

    Also a lot of DLC is created and developed during and after a games release so developers can use some of the feedback to effect the content.(not that they always do, but games made solely on the whims of fans tend to lack artistic value and style anyways because they’re just trying to please everyone. Not every idea is a good one, but almost all seem good to the one who comes up with it.)

    You should all stop whining about how you have to pay more to get more and be happy you have the choice to instead of waiting an extra year to buy a game at $100+ Capcom is a business, of course they want your money, they’re doing this for a living, I doubt any of you put in volunteer hours at your job, nor would you if it was even legal. Game developers often do this in a way, as they’re constantly thinking about ideas and possibilities. You know the Dragon Language used in Skyrim? One of their workers made it at home over the weekend. If you’ve been part of any kind of project you likely know what I mean here.

    Yes this is preemptive defense for Dragon’s Dogma, and I don’t really think their trying to fool anybody. It’s too late to go back on what’s made without a large profit loss and they plainly stated such so they can’t show the difference until later titles. This was posted SEVEN days before release, the game discs for DD were already made, they’re telling you they will change to please you, and all you do is ask the impossible.

Video game stories from other sites on the web. These links leave Siliconera.

Siliconera Tests
Siliconera Videos