DLC Is “New Form Of Something That Has Existed All Along” Says Capcom’s Ono

By Ishaan . February 4, 2014 . 11:00am

In an internally-conducted interview at Capcom, Corporate Officer and Deputy Head of Consumer Games Development Yoshinori Ono discusses the company’s stance on the development and release of downloadable content.


“DLC is essentially a form of paid service that enables users to continuously get the most out of their games,” Ono says, following a brief discussion about deep down, Capcom’s free-to-play game on PS4.


“In the past we didn’t offer DLC, but instead sold sequels or updates as packaged versions. With a game like Street Fighter, we ended up releasing new packaged updates about three times a year.”


“Reflecting back now, that sounds like a lot of updates for a packaged title, but basically that’s the idea behind DLC,” Ono continues. “I don’t think the emergence of DLC was something that came about suddenly, it’s just merely become easier to distribute additional elements and content on the computer system level. Basically, we’re seeing the new form of something that has existed all along.”


Ono goes on to talk about how Capcom develop DLC—whether it’s created during the development of the game or post-release.


“There are some things we develop at the same time, and there’s other stuff we create after the release of the full title,” says Ono. “The best thing to do is monitor trends in the days immediately following a game’s release, and then put out DLC which reflects these trends within a month.”


“Problems occur when something we develop completely from scratch fails to match what people need. That’s the advantage of DLC. It gives us an opportunity to monitor trends before we make a decision.”

Read more stories about & & on Siliconera.

  • Haganeren

    Well yes… If it’s AFTER the release of the full title !

  • Tarkovsky

    Just as he says, it’s not a new concept at all. There used to expansions for games all the time. While I’m generally not a fan of DLC(I prefer my discs XD), I can’t deny that they do help keep players engaged in games. Recent DLC that I really enjoyed are AA5’s and Muramasa’s.

    • icecoffemix

      Yes, expansion pack has been around for a long time, however back then it’s a significant upgrade that add many hours to the game and produced after the game went gold. Now it’s mostly nickle and dime planned even before the game hit the drawing board.

      There’s a difference.

      • Kaihedgie

        Not really. Think: if expansion packs are being released in the same year as the original release, it’s very probable that the expansion pack is being developed right after the release of the original or even beforehand

        • Yause

          Correct. What would happen was that while the original team finished off the game, contractors were hired to start on expansion content.

          • Kaihedgie

            And planning was well under way. What they were going to put in, what they were going to change, etc.

      • Yause

        Throughout the 90s, most expansion packs were quite lame with regard to both quality and quantity of content (usually outsourced or delegated to external contractors). It was always about squeezing more money from fans with minimum expenditure.

        I dislike the DLC model because long-term archival is a problem. However, quality tends to be a bit better than what we used to get.

      • Tarkovsky

        I apologize for the late reply. Been really busy recently. So my question is how do you know that expansions back then weren’t planned before either? Take Diablo 2 LoD and Starcraft Broodwar as examples of that. The original games were clearly not resolved which was why there were expansions. There are many DLCs produced near the end of or after a game’s production. Eg, Dark Souls and Dragon’s Dogma. It’s how you look at it really.

        • icecoffemix

          On-Disc DLC, if you think that’s a one time phenomena then I have nothing to say.

          I’m not saying that it’s bad that the expansion pack is planned before release but if the game itself is already full of content with the DLC adding significantly then player won’t complain.

          And Dark Arisen is not a DLC, go say that to my friend who paid full price for both and he’d probably punch you in the face.

          • Tarkovsky

            I never said I was a fan of on disc DLC(I hate it) but that’s few and far between now. And my bad, I meant expansion for Dragon’s Dogma but you get my point. I paid full price for both as well and I don’t regret it one bit.

          • icecoffemix

            Again if you think just because it’s not on-disc anymore because they got caught of it, mean that the DLC is not planned before the game begin, especially for company like Capcom, then you’re very naive.

            I’m sure there are genuine one like Dark Souls but I wouldn’t bet on Capcom.

            Good for you, not so much for my friend. He’s now very wary of any Capcom game.

          • Tarkovsky

            Wait, so why is it bad that DLC is planned before hand when you are okay with expansions that are planned before hand? In modern game development, artists are always the first to finish up their work, which gives them time to work on additional content while programmers continue with existing ones. If game devs want to pump out DLC after a game’s release then good for them. I’m honestly indifferent to DLC for costumes, skins or weapons because they are superficial and don’t add anything to the game. But hey, just offering another point of view. You don’t have to agree with me.

          • icecoffemix

            Never said it’s bad (read my posts again please), I’m only saying that there are still a lot of those planned DLC this day, you citing DD DA (which wasn’t even a DLC) and DS (which wasn’t planned to have DLC from the start) doesn’t really mean anything.

            I too am indifferent with shit DLC like skin and costume (even though they were ingame UNLOCKABLE back then) but I hope you’re not OK with ending DLC like Asura’s Wrath or FFXIII-2.

          • Tarkovsky

            Because my point is that not all DLC is bad and that they are just smaller chunks of what expansions used to be. DD DA was mistake on my part, though you can’t deny that it was developed after DD’s release. Weapons, costumes and maps aside imo DLCs are just smaller chunks of expansions. WIth regards to Asura’s Wrath and FFXIII-2, yes I do agree with you to a certain extent that those are pretty bad. However, as I’ve mentioned, those are few and far between now. Not to say that they won’t be any more of those but most DLC I’ve purchased are pretty awesome. My opinion is that you can’t let a couple of bad DLCs spoil your image of all DLCs.

          • icecoffemix

            I did say this :

            I’m not saying that it’s bad that the expansion pack is planned before release but if the game itself is already full of content with the DLC adding significantly then player won’t complain.

            Far and between eh, looks like we play different kind of game. Japanese developers LOVE to exploit their DLC, Forza has $50 season pass so you can buy cars (not even given to you right away)+ microtransaction hell, Dudebro games has map packs with final price probably more than the game itself, Fighting game extra character DLC, extra quest left and right which only last 30 min-1 hour with half assed production values, etc, etc.

            The point of contention was never that “DLC is inherently bad”, but the system is different now that it’s very easy to abuse (and is), yet even those seems like it’s not enough and now they’re trying to rope you with F2P game and microtransactions. But as you say, you don’t have to agree with me either.

          • Tarkovsky

            “but if the game itself is already full of content with the DLC adding
            significantly then player won’t complain.” I’m sorry but there will always be people who WILL complain regardless of how much content there
            is in the original game. Also, “packed with content” is an extremely subjective term. I found MGR to be extremely “packed with content”(put in over 50 hours) and found no need to purchase the additional DLCs that came weeks after the game’s release.

            “The point of contention was never that “DLC is inherently bad”, but the system is different now that it’s very easy to abuse”
            You really are not looking at this issue at a neutral perspective. Yes there are bad DLCs but there are as many good ones as there are bad ones. Would you have bought every single iteration of SFII, SFIII and SF Alpha back then when DLC was not possible? Fighting games are always bound to have new characters to mix things up in the competitive scene. Without DLC, you’d have to purchase USFIV all over again just to stay competitive. Just as how the internet can easily be abused for pirating and all kinds of illiegal and questionable activities, does this mean that it should be shut down? DLC can be both used for good and bad but ultimately it’s your choice if you don’t want to purchase them. Nobody’s forcing you to pay for DLC.

            “now they’re trying to rope you with F2P game and microtransactions.” Are you forced to pay for micro transactions? If not, then don’t pay it. It’s that simple. I spend plenty of hours on games like Dota 2, Tekken Revolution and DoA 5 Ultimate without spending a single dime. And I welcome more f2p games. Saves me the money that way.

            Oh well at least we agree to disagree.

          • icecoffemix

            You’re arguing semantic and you can easily distill valid complain with unreasonable one, if there are far more valid one then something is probably wrong. Not to mention I believe that it actually directly affected sales as demonstrated by some games proportional sales to complain.

            Good job citing the well known milking system prevalent on fighting game that still continue today, can you cite another beside them? Nobody said I’m being forced to pay for DLC or that it has to be shut down, the system is easily abused mean it can also be used rightly, quit the straw man.

            Again quite the “force” strawman, they don’t but if you follow Forza 5 debacle, you’ll know that developers are starting to shove the MT down their customers throat with game balance being affected, features being removed and “pls pay” prompt on every occassion. This caused quite an uproar and thankfully quickly remedied because of it, however the damage has been done and the game’s sales certainly reflected that for better or worse.

            Yes there are games that has done F2P game quite right (like Dota 2) but there are also many bad examples and we have to be aware of them lest you want another Dungeon Keeper level of shit.

  • Quan Chi

    I’m sure that’s why they’re struggling. I guess that’s why the whole game industry is struggling right now. When there was no dlc (before ps3 xbox era) games sold just fine. Now everybody is struggling. Seems legit :/
    That’s what happens when you nickel and dime ppl. They either don’t buy it or don’t have enough money to buy new games because they wasted money on the previous game…..

    • 60hz

      are they struggling? Is EVERYBODY struggling?

    • Minos

      Most of the AAA industry is struggling.

      DLC, incomplete games, microtransactions, 5 hours cinematic games, “Hallway” FPSs, phone games, etc, are nothing but ways to “Hide” this.

      • icecoffemix

        Does every game have to be AAA 1000 man team 10 years development time or loloutsource though?

        • Yause

          It’s hard to say. There’s a widening gap between winners and losers, so the AAA market has turned into a “winner takes all” kind of game.

          Alternatively, there are low risk indie games, although they don’t appeal to large publicly traded publishers too much (still, most release a few indie-like titles via digital channels).

          The middle ground productions (bear in mind that PS2 games like Jak and Daxter or Devil May Cry already cost well over $10 million, and PS3/X360 requirements are significantly higher from the getgo) have been hurt the most because they’re instantly overlooked by the masses who flock to the more extravagant winners. In some sense, these are even riskier because the odds of turning a profit are low, while there’s almost no hope of becoming one of the champions.

          • icecoffemix

            I suppose it’s a gamble either way and there’s just no sure answer. I’m glad that there are niche developer like Falcom who can survive off making non-AAA quality game.

          • Yause

            Yep. Also, I think indie games will gradually become more elaborate, thus filling part of the void.

          • rekka_zan

            In Falcom we trust. Maybe we can call a game on Falcom’s level “AA quality”? (while calling good indie games “A quality”) lol

            It’s quite funny how most of the games I enjoy lately are those AA quality games… games that don’t (seemingly) cost millions of dollars to make but have that sense of completeness in them. Like Ys series, or Trine series… those games make me feel like I’m living in the 90s/00s.

          • icecoffemix

            Can’t say it better. I feel old now though. :P

      • Quan Chi

        exactly. that’s exactly what I was thinking.

    • Shippoyasha

      To be fair, money was easier to come by for game companies, buyers had more disposable income and games were cheaper to make.

      The sad fact is that some companies really need stuff like DLC to help recoup beastly development costs.

    • Kaihedgie

      PS2 Japanese games and Dreamcast had DLC

      • Quan Chi

        Never owned any PS2 games that had dlc. And I have 70 physical games for PS2 :P I only had 10 games for dreamcast and neither had dlc.
        Care to elaborate? Or are you just trying to pass off 1 or 2 obscure games that nobody really knows about? The only thing I can think of that remotely fits is player’s choice, etc. type games where they would fix a few bugs, not tell anybody about it, and rerelease the disc with a different package.

        • Kaihedgie

          Repeatin’ myself is a bit tedious now :T

          Gundam Encounters in Space for the PS2 comes to mind. Remember those AU units that were advertised on the back of the box? Yeah, those were actual paid DLC units you had to buy in the original Japanese version. You may want to take a look at the original Japanese versions of PS2 games you have, especially the Dreamcast. Both consoles have full online capabilities but the Dreamcast especially had a fully functional web browser.

          The Tails Chao in Sonic Adventure 2 also counts since you can only obtain it through online gameplay from another game.

          • icecoffemix

            Because all those games, the whole two of them, define the whole generation.

          • Kaihedgie

            Didn’t say they did, just saying that it’s been happening before everyone made it cool to whine about them. Whether or not they’re popular or obscure has no bearing on the fact that it was still a thing before the HD generation

          • icecoffemix

            You’re a caricature at this point.

          • Zero_Destiny

            @Kaihedgie:disqus @icecoffemix Okay, you two. You’re at each other’s necks all over this page. Just drop it and move on.

  • Altin

    [Insert On-Disc DLC joke here]

    Whoops, accidently deleted my comment below. Just so you know, the pizza analogy is from me.

    • 60hz

      Dev makes game, makes DLC, releases game, puts DLC on a server – everyone is happy. puts DLC on disc – everyone screams foul… and yet there is no difference in the actual DLC… drum roll!

      EDIT: Let me be clear: THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE IN THE DLC… there is only a difference in the PERCEIVED VALUE of WHEN they made it… So the question is, WHY – when the data is exactly the same – does it matter WHEN and HOW the data is delivered???

      • GH56734

        DLC: does it mean “additional content”?
        Or … content that was ready alongside the game all along but stripped from the game and put behind a pay wall?

        • Quan Chi

          “additional content” was made along side the game unless that content was released 8 months to a year after the game was first released :P
          If companies tell you otherwise, they are lying and are just trying to keep you paying over 100 bucks for one game.

        • 60hz

          problem is you can’t tell when the dlc was made, just when it was released… thus my point, if it’s on the disc or in the server, it’s still the same 1’s and 0’s… why does it matter WHEN it was made… but let me be clear, it does seem to matter, even to me, but my question really is… why should it???

      • so do you work for capcom or

      • Guest

        Let me try to rephrase your statement:
        “Order Pizza, restaurant makes Pizza, sends it to you, notice that a quarter of the Pizza is missing, but there is a note on the package saying “Please pay additional 5 bucks in order to obtain the missing piece of pizza.”, it’s DLC so it doesn’t matter whether it is included or distributed later via servers!


        • Altin

          Accidently deleted this comment, sorry.

        • 60hz

          yep, that was my point: “there is no difference in the actual DLC”… and yet people are willing to pay for it if it’s on the server rather than on-disc… as if the data is somehow different…

        • Ty Austin

          The pizza analogy doesn’t quite work with video games. If you were told you would receive a full pizza, but then received a portion of it, that’s false advertising.

          Take the example of SFxT, as it came out, we knew exactly what to expect. We knew what characters were included, we bought the game and received what was advertised. Your pizza analogy would work if Capcom had advertised that SFxT came with X amount of characters, but then we put the game in and notice we only have Y characters (which wasn’t the case.)

      • GGear0323

        regarding your question: there isn’t. the argument that most DLC is content cut from a game to sell back to us is not only unproven, in most cases, it is probably false. the only time i complain about DLC is when the content of that DLC is important enough to the original game that it probably should have been given to everyone, no matter when that DLC is released (Day 1 or Month 3, doesn’t matter).

  • konsama

    Yes the concept is not new, but there was a difference between buying an expanded version of a game (G versions of MH), or an expansion (Fallout extra episodes) and buying stuff that was already included in the game itself to grab more money for a mere 150 Kb key that unlcoks the content.

    Using capcom as example, there’s a reason why people don’t complain as much about SF or MH expanded versions, while people threw RE6 and TxSF out of the window.

    In my case i won’t think it twice to buy something that will increase the play time of game and prolong it all it’s possible, but that adds value and not just limit my game to later sell it or give erroneous advertising like batman arkham catwoman part and all the lightning stuff in XIII-2.

    There’s nothing wrong about DLC, but is wrong the way they are managing it NOW.

    • Quan Chi

      It makes physical copies worthless. It promotes digital distribution. DD = Loss of old titles on new generations because of licensing. Not to mention it sets you up to be hacked and stolen from because all of your info is on a server. If you say, buy an old console to play old games, I’m going to say that the hardware was upgraded for a reason. If BC PS3s have a 100% death rate over a small amount of time, in which they do, why would I buy one? If cartridge batteries die in your old nintendo games and save data will be lost, why would I buy one? If I want to waste money, why wouldn’t I give it to a bum on the street instead of getting something I know is not going to last? You say DLC helps games, but it makes no impact. The game will be dead in the water because everyone exploits it in videos and move on. There are still alot of ppl today that don’t know about all of the dlc to sleeping dogs, MK9 was dead before it started, and have you heard anybody talk of the need for speed remake? All those games had dlc and barely anyone plays them online today and they aren’t that old….

    • Shippoyasha

      I can somewhat sympathize with fighting games having multiple iterations because the creation of character assets and balancing it takes years to pull off right. SFxT also had some assets within the disc but it may have made sense for them to continually balance and tweak characters until it was perfect.

      I do agree that locking game content in the disc as a ploy shouldn’t be done. Many games have ‘get this scenario if you preorder’ for example. Stuff like RE6 didn’t need some major balancing and fine tuning like a fighting game character does.

  • NimbusStev

    Yeah sure, the advent of DLC really prevented them releasing Street Fighter 4, Super Street Fighter 4, Super Street Fighter 4 Arcade Edition, and Ultra Street Fighter 4.

    There is never a reason to buy a Capcom fighting game on release day. I learned that lesson the hard way.

    • mikanko

      Unless you want to actually uh, play those games.

      Both AE and Ultra are sold as dlc upgrades as well, so not really sure what your point is.

      If you’re no more than a casual fan who doesn’t care about the updates and changes why would you want to own more than Vanilla SF4? I don’t mean that in a negative way at all. It’s just that the updates are meant for people who want them, and don’t mind paying for them. Those system changes and new characters keep them interested in a game they’re constantly playing. Capcom wouldn’t be able to produce them if people weren’t buying and playing them in the first place.

      • BlueTree

        Those system changes, and the players actually latching on to an update do, in a way, prove Ono’s point that DLC can extend the life of a game. Although I also propose that it can be the death of one vision of a game and the birth of something else. There’s just a lot isn’t fully comprehended, and people in this sense don’t want to feel marginalized or excluded based on their own values, even if they don’t fully understand those either.

    • icecoffemix

      Or Dark Arisen.

      But hey! Eternal Ferrystone guys!

      (DD is a good game nonetheless, business model is still shady)

      • Judgephoenix

        Yea Dark Arisen made me sick too my stomach because for once I thought Capcom was done with a game. They could have easily added it as a DLC expansion. I would have paid for it. I mean yea I got to play the game for what it was then they release DA and I was little annoyed. Luckily PSN+ offered it. Nonetheless very shady.

        • icecoffemix

          Yeah, got a friend who got burned by this too (and thus got very wary of Capcom in general, he also know about Asura’s Wrath which make things worse).

          If they just released it as DLC alongside the fullgame (for people who didn’t buy the original), it would solve the issue and actually make this article a bit more valid.

    • MasterScrub

      The Street Fighter 4 updates are one of the rare examples of Capcom actually doing DLC CORRECTLY. I mean, really, SFIV came out in what, 2008? Waiting 6 YEARS to play a game because of 1 disc expansion and 2 DLC updates? At that rate you might as well not even bother.

    • Pinwheel

      If you aren’t interested in playing them until the final version is out, you probably aren’t the target audience. The reason that series keeps getting new versions is because the FGC has a huge demand for updates to games, especially Street Fighter. There’s multiple versions because people keep asking for me, so they delivered.

  • Laer_HeiSeiRyuu

    Good that you guys left out the part where he mentions that DLC is something your supposed to have and its not supposed to be something that adds expansion and value to the game. *shudders*
    That would have gotten way too much hell

    • konsama

      Wow that would actually change the context a lot. :S

      • Laer_HeiSeiRyuu

        Yeah this article would have gone to shit quickly.

        Hell in the comments lol.
        But it just confirms that Capcom understands nothing. But hey free MH dlc is good for monitoring trends too!

  • Christian Wright

    what he said makes no sense. you can add elements to a game to add value and replayability. if a studio honestly cant find a way to do that without having to charge then there’s an obviously lack of imagination and creativity

    • konsama

      You said it yourself, how they moved from games where you could unlcok tons of stuff, like the PS1 spiderman games, to just give you like 2-3 costumes at most, and sell you the other 20. That takes the cahllenge and fun to unlock stuff, makes everything dull and quick cahs grabbers.

  • The Watcher

    I don’t like paying full price for a game and having disk locked content that you attempt to sell to me. That’s not even right. I will gladly wait an hour to download DLC rather than unlock it with some unlock code I have to pay for.

  • Minos
    • GH56734

      Someone needs to do one about microtransactions.
      Greed and Creativity don’t bode well.

      • Altin

        Dunno how you would use it on a picture like this. Maybe something like:
        “Building a house:
        Please pay X Dollars to put additional bricks on your unfinished building!” or something like that.

      • icecoffemix

        Someone on gaf made the updated version during Forza debacle

    • Zer0faith

      Not to mention EA, arguably the biggest offender of them all.


        SE too. they admited that they removed content of XIII-2 to sell it as DLC -_-

    • VenerableSage

      There needs to be an updated image of this that mentions unlockable content too.

    • subsamuel01

      Can’t get any more accurate than this.

  • DarkLight

    “DLC kiled the unlockable” is the first thing that came to my mind when I read the title XD

    • revenent hell

      Same here

    • Ric Vazquez


  • Nanaki

    That last quote made it seem that DLC is their air bag of sorts should their merchandise completely crash. I would rather they spend more time on making the experience in full rather than trust that they can fix what might not be worth putting out in the first place. Costumes and knick-knacks are one thing, but entire story elements that require the buyer to purchase more doesn’t remind me of the past.

    • icecoffemix

      Maybe Asura’s Wrath is qualified to be a “past” according to Capcom.

      • Kaihedgie

        Why does everyone forget exactly why that true last chapter was DLC in the first place?

        • icecoffemix

          Yes exactly, they ran out of space! It’s not like they charge you extra for the ending you monster me!

          Oh wait.

          • Kaihedgie

            The last chapter became DLC because they wanted to give the customers closure. The game was indeed suppose to end on a cliff hanger and the last chapter was suppose to be an entirely new game altogether.

          • Anewme…Again

            Yeah right…
            I would bet the real reason is that they had intended to leave the game on a cliff hanger and they were already developing the sequel, but when they saw how bad the sales was, they decided to just release what they had done of the sequel as DLC…

          • Judgephoenix

            I enjoyed the concept Asura and was great for a new IP but $60 for a couple of hours is just asking for too much.

          • GGear0323

            you just repeated what Kaihadgie said.

  • icecoffemix

    Didn’t know that on-disc DLC exist since time immemorial in void, my bad Capcom!

  • Kaihedgie

    I’ve been sayin’ this like forever :T

    People seem to think it’s a new thing with the previous and current gen. But really, DLC is “Older Than They Think”. Some of the more…negative detractors have gone to the point of claiming that DLC has entirely replaced the concept of “in-game unlockable” when that’s not true at all. I see it as a way for devs to include content that they could not do the first time around when considering deadlines, kinda like what Sakurai was considering with the new Smash Bros.

    • British_Otaku

      Depends on your example.

      If it is something that it is a 64KB/2 block download, easily located and usable on the disc by a random hacker, an incremental addition to the game and/or avaliable on Day One. It is replacing the concept of an in-game unlockable more or less but for profit.

      The DLC above can be more tolerable when it is free, but still
      it is content which instead of being available with a bit of work or an
      cheat code/password requires an online connection, an account (perhaps
      many) and then the download file to remain available.

      I can’t think of many examples of cases where it isn’t any of those things short of Elder Scrolls DLC.

      You can probably guess that I prefer finished products above all else, so I would rather wait for Sakurai to finish (mostly) or accept something incomplete (rarely) than see the potential of overcharging or deliberately playing mind games for cash and exploiting the consumer. With Nintendo’s current account system, I would have to download those extras every time I go to some other house and perhaps pay as well.

      An outright sequel especially if paced separately is much less offensive.

      • Kaihedgie

        Have you been to the Cutting Room Floor wiki? This kinda goes into the question of your “complete/incomplete” comment.

        • British_Otaku

          I have on a few occasions, I don’t know what you are implying with that question but I still hold that even a incomplete work with pieces hanging around can seem nicer than one that feels like it is charging for content that it shouldn’t.

          If that makes sense.

          • Kaihedgie

            All of that content that was hidden away and unused in your older games could have easily been DLC today, is what I’m saying. A good deal of games didn’t get an updated re-release, so all of that nice content was eternally doomed to be inaccessible.

          • BlueTree

            I think that’s a notion that does swing both ways, but shows that we shouldn’t be seeing this as a “yes or no” issue, the type of DLC is what we should be evaluating. Whether something is elegantly applied or exploitative. It won’t always mean the basis of the attempt, such as a title update, is bad… sometimes it just means the developer didn’t produce quality work. No need to say “paper” is a horrible thing because someone wrote something awful on it.

          • Kaihedgie

            I know what you mean, but it’s still something to consider. I find myself thinking “what could have been” if Sega hadn’t rushed the Sonic Adventure games: then we’d all be enjoying Super Sonic outside of the final boss battle. It’s a bit irritating because they actually went and updated and re-released the games when they went third party and still didn’t resolve that issue

          • BlueTree

            Sometimes the creators involved in those games separate from the parent company. It’s a case where we should probably do our best to discern a corporate decision for money and an artistic/creative endeavor as two different things.

            We have Tactics Ogre: The Wheel of Fate because the creators were given the go ahead to realize ideas they had well after the original Tactics Ogre was released. While we don’t know what spawned the re-release of those Sonic games… it’s clear that “As is” was good enough for Sega. Perhaps “Could have been” is stretching some other type of yearning entirely.

          • Kaihedgie

            Unfortunately, I cannot stop myself from thinking as is. It was very clear Super Sonic and Super Shadow were going to be unlockable characters as evidenced by this: http://tcrf.net/images/f/f6/Sa2b2pbattlemode.png

            Not to mention the fact it was specifically outlined how you were going to unlock those two.. If it was indeed “As Is”, then they would have removed this from the Gamecube disk, but it was still left in there.

            Sonic Adventure DX was also suppose to allow you to play as Super Sonic, but someone made a last minute change and replaced him with Metal Sonic.

          • BlueTree

            I don’t deny that they were there, but more so that Sega just wasn’t enabling creators to do what they needed to do in that sense. It was Sega’s before the actual people who needed to do the work, I guess is how I see it. In a lot of ways, I see that as a real barrier to certain types of creative output, but I feel you.

      • BlueTree

        DLC doesn’t have to exist in a continuum of “It’s either good or bad”, that’s a false dichotomy/dilemma. I think developers often have ideas that they’re not sure can be fully realized during development, and there are many outlets available for revision that they now have access to… a full update of a title might seem unsavory to some, but it’s clear that people in the past have been willing to, in some way, invest in a game as a platform.

        I think certain things can be handled in such a way that people will be very hostile in their reaction, but I think playing a game once and having the opportunity to see it change because of player input being considered means there’s greater potential in refinement.

        This notion of DLC as simply a medium for content that you “should have gotten in the first place” shows a fundamental misunderstanding regarding what it takes to create something. Write something, compose something, express something creatively and hand it off to someone, observe the process… you’ll see that it’s not just about coming in later and making some arbitrary change when it’s something you’re invested in.

        We have documented changes that show developers have been divided over even the most seemingly minute of changes, which have led to the creation of new genres and sub-genres.

        I think the most disturbing thing, which isn’t really disturbing at all, is that people think that content is somehow “Figured out” right now. That’s simply not the case, times have changed and so have the options that are at the disposal of creators.

        That being said, worrying about something like Pricing rather than the content itself is I guess reciprocal for a pure profit motive, but that in itself raises more important questions than “How much should it cost?” or “Is it good or bad?” Stasis, whole understanding, is never concerned with those things alone.

  • XiaomuArisu

    If DLC is done correctly then its good. Muramasa DLCs are a good example.
    But disc locked content is not cool Capcom

    • icecoffemix

      Substantial content that actually require effort to make is not profitable, so nope. Nickle and dime’s where it at!

      • XiaomuArisu

        In Vanillaware i trust and some others too!

        • Ric Vazquez


  • Arrei

    He describes the ideal of DLC, the replacement to expansion packs… but the gaming community quickly learned that certain developers and/or publishers were far too greedy to let that ideal be realized.

  • revenent hell

    DLC doesn’t extend a game it just enables companies to sell of a game in smaller pieces and to gouge the consumer for more money out of a game.

    I wouldn’t mind the idea of DLC if it was actually used as people claim its supposed to but it goes in the to far wrong areas mostly from my experience and what I have seen with it…

    Personally I just wish most DLC was redundant stuff not really needed in the game such as aesthetic, costumes and such stuff that don’t change anything other than looks or point pack type things. As long as the game wasn’t created with the idea behind it to sell these points.

    Characters, anything story related and endings and such I think should be in the game to begin with if they are playing a part in the game world… If these things where always free I wouldn’t complain but they aren’t always and I think if developers really gave a shit a bout a games playability months down the road they would give them out for free but that’s not what DLC has been about for a lot of companies and it just seems to me like its become an easier method of “getting more for less”…

    I do grasp the theory of DLC, I really do but in most cases if all is bought for a game it can end up costing more than the game is worth and I have even seen it almost double what a game costs, which is ridiculous and most of it is just to “unlock” things within the game earlier, which to me isn’t to bad because it is selective and not mandatory to buy but most of these things hardly make the game playable for “longer periods of time” in my view.

  • My friends and I were just having this convo, but pertaining to patches. There have definitely been some great advancements in how companies can get games to us and upgrade/fix them, but the problem comes down to how it’s abused.

    But, it also tends to be certain companies consistently abusing things, and those that aren’t are showing he genuinely good uses.

  • Gustavo

    What about UMvC 3, DR2: Off the Record and DD: Dark Arisen? Go lie somewhere else, Crapcom.

  • icecoffemix

    You know what, seeing the overwhelmingly negative reaction of this I
    wonder how many fans/potential fans they turned away because of
    their DLC business practice and other blowout issue like dmc.

    I always thought it’s probably just a vocal minority and dismissed it but so did MS during DRM debacle until they actually see the preorder number… I guess there’s no way to know this without proper survey but I have a feeling it’s not as insignificant as I thought it was…

    • Judgephoenix

      Well its just silly like SF and UMvC. Now look at Namco hell they are making a Campaign for you try their games for free Tekken and SC. Those two games are not replacing the series they are just trying to get new comers to play any new SC and Tekken games in the near future. Capcom needs to adopt this.

      • icecoffemix

        Their MH F2P/MT model is reportedly pretty horrible (on top of paid sub for G!) so I don’t have much hope in this regard.

    • It shows that there really are a lot of people who don’t just have wallets, but also have brains. We should be grateful of MS for only one reason: that they caused many gamers to be like actual consumers.

      • icecoffemix

        Why should we be grateful of MS lol?

        I cited MS because they also underestimated Internet sentiment regarding their stupid maneuver and waived it as just vocal minority, that turned out to be not only whollly false as they’re forced to reverse the policy just by seeing preorder number but it also still affect them until after launch (losing market share on their strongest territories).

        I wonder just how many fans Capcom is actually losing…

  • Demeanor

    I kinda sorta call BS.
    I just hope in the long run the natural course of things will right all wrongs regarding dlc (no one buying 5$ alternate costumes -> stop with this practice; many people buying awesome deals like the Dark Arisen expansion for Dogma -> continue with this practice).

  • Hector Velar

    Ono needs to leave Capcom like the rest of the good developers did and stop being used as a doll. Ono please read Atlas Shrugged and leave Capcom to sink like as Titanic did.

  • Mugiwara

    Yeah, because why make a game full of secrets and unlockables if you can sell these?

    • Quan Chi

      Game and interest longevity. If the game stays popular, more ppl will keep buying. Gained profit.
      Constantly sellling dlc, game is released wide open. Interest is lost almost immediately after everything is exploited. Lost profit.

  • Brandonmkii

    I agree with him, I suppose. But people will never be happy, ever. I’ll enjoy my hobby in solitude, perhaps.

  • TobeGrendizer92

    Personally, I’d rather pay for fifteen dollars to add a couple of characters, stages, and balance patches to a game than fifty dollars for a physical copy of the same thing. Besides, most “on-disc DLC” is merely a small amount of data, just enough to make the process easier, because there wasn’t enough time to put in in fully. Of course, flagrant rip-offs are still all too common, but it’s a big improvement over the previous state of affairs.

  • k.b.a.

    first square-enix now capcom. i swear the board are abusing these devs as bulletshields while making them say ridiculous things

  • Yan Zhao

    Ono just described real DLC, done well.

    Which is fine and dandy, except the majority of corporates, Capcom included, abused DLC for the past half decade by purposely leaving things out of the full game.

    So, no, nice try Ono.

  • Shady Shariest

    Yupo. Would prefer hearing DLC-talk from companies that do the good kinda ones… Like Gearbox.

  • xxx128

    Easy solution: do NOT pay money for DLC and it will go away quick. Dont be stupid.


    And yet you guys release a new version 9 months after the original release, and the new version is full of DLC. or hide contented of the game to sell a archive of 400kb-5mb to unlock it. go fuck yourself Ono.
    The different is that until the 6th geration games got a ton of contents and when the expansion pack or new version got released the game got a FUCK TON of contents, now the normal extra content is locked or removed from the game for the sake of cash grab.

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

Siliconera Tests
Siliconera Videos