That counts current ones, prices have gone down AND Mewtwo is actually available as DLC by itself now (for a good 2 years after launch it was tied behind buying 2 copies of the game though). As for the "there absolutely is", the game was a MASS HIT, selling incredibly well and only had an average budget, if anything, there was even less reason to charge so much for DLC when other smaller games give free characters/maps/etc.! DLC are asked by the FANS, as in FANATICS of the series, where do you think the word comes from?
It's just sheep, it's like saying Apple is justified in charging triple the price for the devices it craps out every other month because idiot sheep want them and will pay for them. If you so much as look at the playerbase for Smash games alone (leaderboards and whatnot), you'll see that the moment DLCs became an actual thing many long-time players just quit the series or are still playing the older ones (Brawl/Melee currently have a consistently LARGER recurrent playerbase than 4 had at it's peak once DLCs became big for it).
I bought the characters in both the EUR and US games. I can't speak much for Mewtwo as I got it in preorder, but the other prices were the same as they are now.
Yes, the game sold incredibly well, and the demand was high for DLC. There is no moral reason to not charge for it. They don't have to do it. They also don't have to provide free DLC (even though, as a reminder, they did for Ultimate).
It's just not how companies make money. People don't go the extra mile for free. They can, but there's almost always a reason for it (if anything just for PR). It's not the world we live in.
I'm not exactly sure why players always want to believe that should be any different for their industry.
Also, just some facts:
- DLC is not the reason why people stick to Melee. The gameplay is the reason.
- Ultimate is most successful fighting game of all time, and DLC were announced prior to game release.
I have no problem being called a fan of Smash or fanatic or whatever. I don't see how that's a problem. It makes me happy to see reveals, it made me incredibly happy to see Banjo, it makes me incredibly happy to see the game composer, and old devs reaching back to the fans after all these years, and that's something well worth spending a few extra bucks on.
And I'll help you more with your moral judgement, I could be spending $1000 (provided the current quality remains) on that game that I would still consider it worth it. People spend bigger amounts on cars, mini train, FIFA cards or whatever because it makes them happy years after years. I'm not here to judge them.
As for your "options", how about... use the BILLIONS they made to offer a more complete experience at no added cost? If you are gonna be selling DLC, you can't possibly justify selling the game full price at 60€. For a DECADE games offered downloadable content in the form of extra maps/characters/missions COMPLETELY FREE and many still do (prime example being Monster Hunter like I mentioned in a past post, completely free DLC up to two years after launch with constant support, from 2004 all the way to today), you can't tell me Nintendo can't afford to make SOME free DLC (just try to compare the number of free DLC in pretty much all Ninty games to the paid ones). Games are cheaper than ever to make and sell for 50% higher price than they used to, if anything, the budget/earnings ratio for big games after 2012 has been absurdly earnings-leaning.
I would agree if the game wasn't complete, like it's the case with many games today.
But again, the experience was already complete. The game was complete. It could be finished from 0 to 100% without spending anything.
For example: You didn't know Cloud was gonna be a thing when 4 was release. You still bought it without that knowledge.
While you can complain about pricing, you cannot be claiming that the game didn't meet the original specifications retroactively.
Games are not cheaper than ever to make, large games can reach movie-like budget with hundreds of people working on them.
The same price has been in place for decades now. Season pass and DLC are there because of that. I'm not sure why you're saying otherwise.
And I mean you (maybe) saw it at the game awards. The games that sell the most are all game that get millions in micro-transactions. FIFA I believe is EA's most successful title, people pay a LOT of money for digital stats and a player photo, after base game.
Games like Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty, Battlefront etc ship out as a full price game with a whole micro-transaction system already in place, whether people are asking for it or not.
Compared to all that in modern days, Smash asking for $25 for the amount of content provided by the fighter pass... I mean... don't you have other fish to fry?
-Whether people are asking for it or not- is what should count here when judging DLC. Not how much they cost.
@
Veho:
@
FAST6191:
@
Psionic Roshambo:
