DLC Has Always Existed In Other Forms, Capcom Says

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

DLC Has Always Existed In Other Forms, Capcom Says

deep down screenshot 2

Yoshinori Ono discussed Capcom's stance on DLC and compares it to packaged updates.

It's increasingly common for video games to now receive updates and additional content through downloadable content. Yoshinori Ono, Capcom's corporate officer and deputy head of consumer games development, argued in an internally-conducted interview at Capcom that DLC is something the industry has always been doing - it was just called something different.

"DLC is essentially a form of paid service that enables users to continuously get the most out of their games," Ono said. "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."

Capcom develops DLC both as the title comes together and after the release of a game, depending on the game and current trends. When DLC is to be released after the title has launched, the company monitors trends immediately following the game's release within the first few days in order to put out DLC within the month to reflect those trends.

The company believes DLC offers an advantage in giving consumers what they want. "Problems occur when something we develop completely from scratch fails to match what people need," Ono said. He went on to say that DLC gives Capcom the chance to monitor trends before making a decision on what to develop for the consumer.

"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," Ono said. "Basically we're seeing the new form of something that has existed all along."

Source: Capcom via Siliconera

Permalink

So did they hide Street Fighter 2 Champion Edition in my Street Fighter 2 cart and then charge me to unlock it?

If so, I'm going to flip some tables.

Yeeeeeeah...

Someone should tell Capcom they it was only them who did that shit while other publishers released actual add ons that not rarely had nearly the same amount of content as the main game, and not on-disc skins and characters you have to unlock for cold, hard cash.

Yes, that's true - it existed previously as something more substantial, consumer-friendly and valuable. Is Ono blaming the advance of technology for his company's greedy business practices? Just because it's possible to screw your loyal customers, doesn't mean you should.

Except I would get an Expansion pack for a 50 Dollar game for 20-30 dollars which would for example say Diablo 2, include two new classes, new weapons an entirely new zone, new weapons and armor, Runes, Crafted Items, Runeswords, Ethereal items, A stash, increased resolution. For... 30 dollars.

Now, lets look at some DLC for recent games, lets go with Dead Space 3,

Bot Capacity Upgrade $4.99
Bot Personality Pack $4.99
First Contact Pack Free
Marauder Pack $4.99
Sharpshooter Pack $4.99
Tundra Recon Pack $4.99
Witness the Truth Pack $4.99
Bot Accelerator $4.99
Epic Weapon & Resource Pack $2.99
Online Pass $9.99
Ultra Weapon & Resource Pack $1.99
Resource Pack $0.99

and I'll grant EA one of those is free. But in total, 41 dollars if you buy everyone once. And that gets you some resources to craft in game weapons, some weapons and more resources, an accelerated bot (Which gives you resources), Witness the Truth is Exclusive DLC armor, Recon is armor, Sharpshooter is Armor and a weapon, Bot Personality Pack adds a voice to the bot that collects resources, and bot capacity is it can store more before coming back to you.

As well as another DLC 10 dollars that expands the story.

In total 51 Dollars. For Armors, weapons, resources and a short addon. Now I have some faith that if Diablo 2's Expansion pack was released in 2013 it would be a bit more expensive, maybe 5 to 10 dollars due to the value of the dollar going down. But Even so it is 10 dollars cheaper, for more. And while I will agree that DLC CAN be good. In that it splits apart the things and you can pick and choose. If you want all of it, you are more than often paying for more than you would get in an expansion pack.

Yes. In the bygone days it was called an "Expansion Pack" and usually contained almost as much content as the original game itself. Nowadays you charge up to $10 for a character skin or costume. I don't see how that even remotely compares.
Also if you're referring to how you released Street Fighter 2 10 times with only minor changes, then I'd like to remind you that you were the only one who did that.

Well yes, except that expansion packs were much bigger and added equal amount of new content. Closest thing I have seen recently is Dragonborn, and LotSB added enough to justify 8 euros.

Well...Pokemon did do that thing where you had to buy both games to get all of them. He's not 100% wrong. Still douchey though.

...I don't like this form of it. D:

Gimme back actual expansion packs!

In other news, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

I'm assuming that in the picture accompanying this the dragon is Capcom and the soldier is consumers?

I remember getting the expansions to Dawn of War. Maybe they were technically DLC but they did add completely new races and storylines for like 15 quid. So maybe Capcom, DLC isn't the problem. The fact that you're horribly exploitative and will charge ridiculous amounts for shitty little scraps of content is probably more the problem.

Of course capcom would see no difference between the concept of "sequel" and "DLC".
They are among the first who ran the once promising concept of DLC into the ground so I don't think they are in any position to "educate" anyone about it.

The DLC they are talking about is the kind of DLC ONLY THEY DID, and we hated it then too. congrats Capcom on selling us street fighter 2 10+ times with only slightly different content, swapping color pallets on Ken's belt was totally worth that 50 dollar "upgrade". All this article proves is that Capcom have always been crooked.

My favorite part was when he said sequels.... o god I laughed so hard..... I'd show them other games so that they would understand what the word actually meant, but they would think I was trolling them.

If DLC has replaced constantly "updating" your game, why are you still doing that?

Street Fighter 4
Super Street Fighter 4
Super Street Fighter 4: Arcade Edition
Ultra Street Fighter 4
Super Street Fighter 4: 3D Edition

Well Capcom, it has always sort of existed.

However, it used to be called Expansion Packs and they kicked ass rather than siphoning money for minor features.

That is how you do extra content for an already released game.

A billion little pieces of crap is not.

I have no problem with DLC. I DO have a problem with how modern DLC is usually a 2 hour gameplay addon that costs the same as 30 hour expansion packs used to. I'd rather have DLC come out less regularly in order for the devs to have time to actually give us something substantial.

I'm a big Star Wars fan and have played The Force Unleashed a billion times (still possibly my favorite 360 game) but I refuse to buy the 3 DLC levels because I'd have to pay double what I originally bought the game for.

The only modern devs that still know how to do this right IMO is Firaxis, with Civ5 and XCOM. The games are hefty, the addon to the game is substantial, with new everything, making the games a new experience each time. Everyone else just charges for 1 forgettable side-mission or map, or bacon shaped machine guns.

Barbas:
Yes, that's true - it existed previously as something more substantial, consumer-friendly and valuable. Is Ono blaming the advance of technology for his company's greedy business practices? Just because it's possible to screw your loyal customers, doesn't mean you should.

Sadly the advance of technology has brought in greedy business practices.

We have systems prevalent throughout gaming culture made specifically to immediately strip cash from people who thought it was a good idea at the time. Especially on mobile gaming, which is currently degenerating into a mess of paid-for ingame currencies and pay-to-progress games. Even Steam carries games that are nothing more than a minimal effort cash grab released through their Early Access program.

Not saying Ono is completely right, but the worst we had to put up with 15 years ago was an expansion pack released only months after its original game. Today, we have 5 skin packs.

Ehhhmmm... In the past those small packages were called patches or updates and those were free.
Paid ones came as expansions and were massive. I was used to seeing an add-on with about half the length of the original game.

DLC isn't either of those.

Now let me be nostalgic about the days when I played Hordes Of The Underdark expansion pack for Neverwinter Nights.

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:
Well Capcom, it has always sort of existed.

However, it used to be called Expansion Packs and they kicked ass rather than siphoning money for minor features.

That is how you do extra content for an already released game.

A billion little pieces of crap is not.

I find it funny how people keep bringing up Blizzard's Expansion Packs as the common example of expansion packs, like they were the norm instead of anomalies. Its like defending DLC by only focusing on Minerva's Den, Ballad of Gay Tony and Undead Nightmare...

Also, people forget that those packs costed almost as much as the full game. I am sure if I buy 40$ worth of little pieces of crap, I would have enough crap to compare it with The Sims: House Party...

We used to get these things called "expansions" and these other things called "sequels". Now we have to pay $1.99 for some alternate costumes and $4.99 for a 12 new weapons. That kind of stuff is borderline predatory.
I don't mind when Skyrim gets something like Dragonborn for $19.99, as it is essentially an expansion sold as DLC. I don't mind Rock Band/Guitar Hero selling extra tracks.

hermes200:

Sir Thomas Sean Connery:
Well Capcom, it has always sort of existed.

However, it used to be called Expansion Packs and they kicked ass rather than siphoning money for minor features.

That is how you do extra content for an already released game.

A billion little pieces of crap is not.

I find it funny how people keep bringing up Blizzard's Expansion Packs as the common example of expansion packs, like they were the norm instead of anomalies. Its like defending DLC by only focusing on Minerva's Den, Ballad of Gay Tony and Undead Nightmare...

Also, people forget that those packs costed almost as much as the full game. I am sure if I buy 40$ worth of little pieces of crap, I would have enough crap to compare it with The Sims: House Party...

But they had the content of a full game.

And the Sims is an awful example. Detracting from something with the worst possible examples isn't any better than defending it with the best.

Well disk-lock content has existed for a while. Nintendo has been doing it since 1995, with pokemon Red/Blue.

erttheking:
Well...Pokemon did do that thing where you had to buy both games to get all of them. He's not 100% wrong. Still douchey though.

Technically with Poke'mon you just needed a friend that had the other one and a link cable. Heck, now you don't even need either one. You can trade with anybody anywhere with a decent connection.

As for what capcom says: No.

Let's make a quick comparison to a modern expansion pack DLC and capcom's DLC.

Skyrim: New shape to take, new shouts, new powers, new environments, and a good 5 to 10 hours of more gameplay with the Dawnguard pack. 20 bucks new.

Now let's compare it to Street Fighter x Tekken: 13 bucks for clothes that do nothing to the gameplay, then 20 dollars more for characters that Vita players get for free.

Edit:

Sequels are also not DLC. Sequels tend to offer new mechanics, new stories, new environments, and new characters. DLC in capcom's case is at most a new character SKIN, and occasionally characters that were locked on the disc already.

Dear Sir,

Expansion != extortion.

That is all.
:|

Yeah, 20 or 30 bucks got you 6 entire new games on your Wolfenstein 3d purchase back in 1989. I'm doubting the 3 new skins of Blake and an alternate machine gun you'd get for that nowadays is really the same.

Expansion packs have always been a bit hit and miss though. There's been a few that were very close to some of the poorer DLC nowadays.

Oh Capcom, nice try at dodging the real problem.
The major complaint about DLC isn't its existence, it's the Value (Cost : Content ratio) of said DLC.

You offer less complete games compared to what you used to for the same cost, so the consumer Value has fallen. It's simple price gouging, and nothing more.

Once upon a time, I bought Hordes of the Underdark for NWN and got a complete game experience that eclipsed the original campaign in every way. That was something worth buying. Nowadays, for the same amount of money I bought HotU for, I get a new skin for a character.

hermes200:
I find it funny how people keep bringing up Blizzard's Expansion Packs as the common example of expansion packs, like they were the norm instead of anomalies. Its like defending DLC by only focusing on Minerva's Den, Ballad of Gay Tony and Undead Nightmare...

There are plenty of good examples, let's see what I can name without asking Google:

- Operation Flashpoint: Resistance
- Baldur's Gate: Tales of the Sword Coast
- Baldur's Gate II: Throne of Bhaal
- Neverwinter Nights: Shadows of Undrentide
- Neverwinter Nights: Hordes of the Underdark
- Neverwinter Nights II: Mask of the Betrayer
- Sacred: Underworld

I could name a lot more, but you get the idea.

It was around 2010 when add ons went pretty much extinct and micro DLC rose, and it's kinda shocking some people already forgot how things used to be...

Yeah, we've had expansions just has long as we've had video games, heck, we've actually had expansions longer than video games (ie, TTRPG supplements).

Now, you see, what people don't like about DLC these days, is that most of them are... well, complete shit. Let's take an example of one of capcom's DLC. 4 for a bunch of skins (I honestly neither know nor care how many skins). That's about a third of the cost of the full game. Now, however many textures are added in this "expansion", well... usually a full game will have several thousand textures in them. For some reason, I highly doubt this "expansion" adds that many textures, so... you have a mark-up of actual-effort to pay-out of around 1000x relative to the original release... and that's assuming this isn't just content cut from the original, which is a worrying trend we're seeing in a lot of DLC these days.

Capcom: People don't dislike the idea of DLC, they dislike your idea of DLC.

(Also, when you remove the context, "skin-pack" sounds like a euphemism for condoms. Thought I'd just throw that out there.)

Oh so because somethings been around for long, that makes it not a shitty thing to do...

They do know piracy has been around since VHS tapes right? So I guess we can start stealing their DLC's now.

Here is how games used to be Capcom:

image

It's really sad how low the gaming industry has fallen due to greed.

This is why I differentiate between DLC and microtransaction. Microtransaction are those little items in game that nickle and dime you to death, but don't really add on much more than a single item or new skin. DLC, on the other hand, is closer to the equivalent of expansion packs, it's just easier to release them so there are more crap DLC, but probably roughly the same amount of good ones as there were good expansion packs.

I think previous posters have hit the nail pretty fucking roundly on the head. 'DLC' used to be sizable chunks of worthwhile content that significantly extends the game's life, although sequels in some franchises or genres were samey, mostly they were new fucking games. Currently, DLC is mostly shallow, doesn't add to the game meaningfully, is overpriced, comes in the form of preorder bonuses, content cut for time, exclusive editions and other ways that are basically just to make the customer less able to evaluate value for money and to feel like they don't have the full experience. The fact that Capcom seems to think it's all the same goes a long way to explaining some of their decisions even back when other people were trying to do the ethical thing and sell a good product.

Yeah Capcom pulled that shit with Street Fighter 2 and a few other games.[1] Other companies were never able to get away with it. In retrospect we probably shouldn't have let it slide for Capcom either. This is one of the reasons it's a bad idea to buy a game the year it comes out, just wait and get the GOTY edition for less than half the price.

[1] Like when they released 3 versions of the original Resident Evil. The first one having removed auto-targeting for the North American release, which was REALLY cheap since half the time you can't see what you're shooting at in that game thanks to "cinematic" camera angles. I think the final release just changed the musical score and added rumble feedback.

Cecilo:
snip

To be fair though, Diablo II is what 14 years old now? Adjust for inflation and the Dead Space 3 example is a little more reasonable. Still more than 30 dollars, but not extreme.

OT: Tell me again Capcom how it's my fault for being older (18), stupider (did rather well in year 12), uninformed (I have the internet...), western (Australia is in the Asian-Pacific region(though yeah we are more western in culture)) and all in all just not getting IT (I get it, I just don't like it) and that's why your games are failing, because of me, not you.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here