Street Fighter x Tekken Hackers Face Bans

[Just Another Gamer]

If the content is on the disc, it's basically just a cheat IMHO. Like a an Action Replay code, which unlocks items in RPGs which didn't make it into the final version, but are present on the cartridge.

So its wrong to cheat to unlock something that the company wants to you pay extra for when its already on the disc?

Thats not wrong thats fighting back against a stupid business model that only rips off the gamers who buy the game.

 

[Lumstar]

No. The issue here is it grants an initially unfair advantage online. Hackers get a head start in practicing how to play these characters well.

 

[prowler]

Thanks to Capcom, pirates won't have to worry if DLC works or not!

 

[FAST6191]

If the content is on the disc, it's basically just a cheat IMHO. Like a an Action Replay code, which unlocks items in RPGs which didn't make it into the final version, but are present on the cartridge.

So its wrong to cheat to unlock something that the company wants to you pay extra for when its already on the disc?

Thats not wrong thats fighting back against a stupid business model that only rips off the gamers who buy the game.

Although I hate to oversimplify it (the following are examples of actual licensing where games operate on a slightly different principle it seems- it is what underpins the whole second hand games "debate") and it might not be the case here MS have long shipped versions of windows that you could break the licensing agreement of with a few hacks here and there (mainly looking at the corporate stuff but in the consumer world you can more or less hack in a version of media center to an install that was never supposed to have it and windows 7 in theory has it all there from the start), there is the whole hackintosh thing and further back in history (although at this point software licensing was only just starting to be a thing) there was actual locked out hardware that quite literally flicking a few switches on the front of a box would double or more the speed with examples of court cases being brought against several parties that dared to flout those agreements and more.

I can not say I entirely agree with the model and down the pub the ones that cooked this up would probably gain the title greedy cnut and although I like experimentation with pricing structures (I would urge this not be the avenue that is pursued right now mind) a clear cut case of right and wrong this is not.


"No. The issue here is it grants an initially unfair advantage online. Hackers get a head start in practicing how to play these characters well."

I do not know why but every time I hear variations on that argument and ones in the related subject of "competitive"/"professional" gaming and the peculiarities there I crack an amused smile that takes ages to fade.

 

[Just Another Gamer]

If the content is on the disc, it's basically just a cheat IMHO. Like a an Action Replay code, which unlocks items in RPGs which didn't make it into the final version, but are present on the cartridge.

So its wrong to cheat to unlock something that the company wants to you pay extra for when its already on the disc?

Thats not wrong thats fighting back against a stupid business model that only rips off the gamers who buy the game.

Although I hate to oversimplify it (the following are examples of actual licensing where games operate on a slightly different principle it seems- it is what underpins the whole second hand games "debate") and it might not be the case here MS have long shipped versions of windows that you could break the licensing agreement of with a few hacks here and there (mainly looking at the corporate stuff but in the consumer world you can more or less hack in a version of media center to an install that was never supposed to have it and windows 7 in theory has it all there from the start), there is the whole hackintosh thing and further back in history (although at this point software licensing was only just starting to be a thing) there was actual locked out hardware that quite literally flicking a few switches on the front of a box would double or more the speed with examples of court cases being brought against several parties that dared to flout those agreements and more.

I can not say I entirely agree with the model and down the pub the ones that cooked this up would probably gain the title greedy cnut and although I like experimentation with pricing structures (I would urge this not be the avenue that is pursued right now mind) a clear cut case of right and wrong this is not.

I tried hard to get all that and I did to some degree but that doesn't change the situation.

At one side you have Capcom and MS who wants you to pay for something that should've already been available to you the second you bought the disc because well the content is already on the disc and on the other hand you got the consumers who don't want to pay extra for a shit DLC model that unlocks part of the disc and who solved this situation? the hackers who found a way to access the content without needing to pay extra and this becomes the result because of greed.

Its just my opinion but the hackers and cheaters who found a way to bypass the need to pay extra for content already on the disc are the ones in the right and Capcom and MS shouldn't have pushed this to much to begin with.

 

[Lumstar]

If the content is on the disc, it's basically just a cheat IMHO. Like a an Action Replay code, which unlocks items in RPGs which didn't make it into the final version, but are present on the cartridge.

So its wrong to cheat to unlock something that the company wants to you pay extra for when its already on the disc?

Thats not wrong thats fighting back against a stupid business model that only rips off the gamers who buy the game.

Although I hate to oversimplify it (the following are examples of actual licensing where games operate on a slightly different principle it seems- it is what underpins the whole second hand games "debate") and it might not be the case here MS have long shipped versions of windows that you could break the licensing agreement of with a few hacks here and there (mainly looking at the corporate stuff but in the consumer world you can more or less hack in a version of media center to an install that was never supposed to have it and windows 7 in theory has it all there from the start), there is the whole hackintosh thing and further back in history (although at this point software licensing was only just starting to be a thing) there was actual locked out hardware that quite literally flicking a few switches on the front of a box would double or more the speed with examples of court cases being brought against several parties that dared to flout those agreements and more.

I can not say I entirely agree with the model and down the pub the ones that cooked this up would probably gain the title greedy cnut and although I like experimentation with pricing structures (I would urge this not be the avenue that is pursued right now mind) a clear cut case of right and wrong this is not.


"No. The issue here is it grants an initially unfair advantage online. Hackers get a head start in practicing how to play these characters well."

I do not know why but every time I hear variations on that argument and ones in the related subject of "competitive"/"professional" gaming and the peculiarities there I crack an amused smile that takes ages to fade.

This fiasco is just more interesting from a gameplay perspective. Regardless of any moral questions raised, neither debate outcome changes the fact users are receiving less game content than they could have.

 

[Roman_42]

If the content is on the disc, it's basically just a cheat IMHO. Like a an Action Replay code, which unlocks items in RPGs which didn't make it into the final version, but are present on the cartridge.

So its wrong to cheat to unlock something that the company wants to you pay extra for when its already on the disc?

That's absolutely not what I wanted to say. Basically I wanted to explain why Capcom should go and fuck themself.

 

[Zarcon]

Now under US laws regarding this, you payed for the disc. You are free to do whatever you want. Anything on that copy belongs to you,

Actually, if I recall right, when you buy the game you only buy a license to use the data that they allow you to use on the disc. You don't actually own anything.
Well, you own the physical disc, but not the data on the disc.

I still don't really see the big deal with the whole on disc DLC business.

It's on the disc, we have a right to own it!
Capcom was always intending to sell the content as DLC, If they held it back and made it a forced download later/new disc release no one would know and this whole thing wouldn't even be an issue.

But Capcom shouldn't be cutting content for DLC!
SFxT is the most content filled first release of a fighting game that Capcom has ever released even without the DLC. For all intents and purposes SFxT feels like a complete game. It doesn't feel like content was cut out. For a Capcom fighter it's the most fleshed out game they've ever made really. You literally would not know content was "cut out" if it wasn't on the disc in the first place.

DLC stands for DownLoadable Content!
So you'd rather they held it back so you wouldn't know about it and forced you to download it instead? What does the definition of the term do to affect other DLC? How much DLC out there do you really think was made post-release as opposed to during development or even finished before release? Just because it isn't day one DLC doesn't mean it wasn't finished before then. If Capcom intended the on disc DLC to be sold months later, how many other companies do you think do the same but keep the content (mostly) off the disc?

The only difference between on disc DLC and DLC you actually have to download is the ability to access the content early and the knowledge that it already exists.

It does kind of surprise me the difference between reactions of different groups though. A few recent BioWare games felt like they obviously had content cut out and even had data of "future" DLC already on the disc and yet this got people excited.

 

[Lumstar]

Yeah the whole point of "DRM" measures is they're digital. I've never heard of game companies who place restrictions of alternative uses for the physical disc. But who knows. Perhaps we should demand the right to simulate Duck Hunt by using SFxT discs as clay pigeons!

 

[Just Another Gamer]

If the content is on the disc, it's basically just a cheat IMHO. Like a an Action Replay code, which unlocks items in RPGs which didn't make it into the final version, but are present on the cartridge.

So its wrong to cheat to unlock something that the company wants to you pay extra for when its already on the disc?

That's absolutely not what I wanted to say. Basically I wanted to explain why Capcom should go and fuck themself.

Sorry and if its that you wanted to say then I agree.

 

[Rydian]

Now under US laws regarding this, you payed for the disc. You are free to do whatever you want. Anything on that copy belongs to you,

Actually, if I recall right, when you buy the game you only buy a license to use the data that they allow you to use on the disc. You don't actually own anything.
Well, you own the physical disc, but not the data on the disc.

Private use rights should still exist.

I still don't really see the big deal with the whole on disc DLC business.

You don't mind being charged $20 for data that's already in the game you bought?

It does kind of surprise me the difference between reactions of different groups though. A few recent BioWare games felt like they obviously had content cut out and even had data of "future" DLC already on the disc and yet this got people excited.

I've always seen people complain. This is a blatent rip-off.

 

[Zarcon]

You don't mind being charged $20 for data that's already in the game you bought?

Well, like I said, it being on the disc already doesn't really change anything.
Given that the DLC was planned to be sold either way, why does it being on a disc matter?
Would it have been better if they kept it off the disc and sold it later that way?
If they did we wouldn't even know about it since this game has the most content out of any first release Capcom has ever made.
You couldn't honestly go "Well obviously they cut out content from this game since it has more than any other Capcom fighter ever." if they just held back the content and we never found out about it already being complete.

What's the difference between on disc DLC and off disc DLC to a person who buys the game after the DLC is released? For online-centric games like this at least.
You're buying an unlock key either way since the DLC is mandatory for online play (to play against owners of the DLC) and you'd have to download it all when you go online. You're just unable to access it until you buy it.
Should I be mad that I'm forced to download all the DLC just to play online and yet be unable to access what is now on my hard drive?

I'm not defending Capcom, I'm just saying we're only mad because we know for sure this content was already finished. Maybe. Doesn't look like the characters are balanced right yet.
If they just held back the content we'd have never known.
But then you have to ask yourself how many other companies do the same thing but just hold back the content?
You wouldn't know so you can't get mad. (Unless the game obviously feels like it's missing content anyway.)
They can say all they want that additional DLC was made post release, but all you have is their word.

That's why I really couldn't care less. As a consumer, all I need to care about is "Do I want to pay them a bit more for this?".
If I like the game then maybe that's a yes.
If I REALLY like the game then maybe that's a yes, even if all the content is already there.
In the end it's just a glorified donation system. We all know most DLC isn't worth their price.

 

[nosferathoo]

You don't mind being charged $20 for data that's already in the game you bought?

Well, like I said, it being on the disc already doesn't really change anything.
Given that the DLC was planned to be sold either way, why does it being on a disc matter?

The difference is that they don't have to keep download data on their servers, they don't have to pay for server nor the hacktons of terabytes bandwidth it will produce to send it to every single client. YOU paid for it because it's already on the disc, now you will pay extra to unlock it. So no, that's not downloadable content. That's the difference.

 

[FAST6191]

I know I already went and I am more or less restating my position but for the sake of being slightly more direct http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/help/videos/upgrade-to-another-edition-of-windows-7-by-using-windows-anytime-upgrade - the data is probably already my hard drive and if not then my install media. Do I get to bitch at MS for such a move for reasons other than them making things a bit confusing or perhaps a bit greedy or conversely am I in the right if I buy a copy of Starter and hack it all the way up to Ultimate?

As for the DLC as downloadable thing (although that seemed to somewhat tongue in cheek)- such things were called addon packs years before DLC became a term.

Regarding their not having to waste bandwidth first ignoring any peering agreements your point?- as was likely part of your argument you pay for the IP with the price hopefully set to allow for some profit to be made on top of the distribution and manufacturing expenses.

 

[Rydian]

As nosferathoo stated, one of the main complaints is that normally the charge for DLC is justified because it's additional development work after the game is made, and also they have bandwidth and storage costs and all that to recoup. With on-disc DLC, the content was already done by the time the game's going to be out so you're not paying for after-release development, and and bandwidth usage and such is limited to activation, which is miniscule at best.

I, among many others, feel that the charge is unneccessary because it's not something done for technical or time reasons, it's something done purely to force another purchase if we want all the game content. It's NOT the same as other DLC items where we're actually paying for additional development work after release because this was not development done after release, in fact it's distributed with it.

I know I already went and I am more or less restating my position but for the sake of being slightly more direct http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/help/videos/upgrade-to-another-edition-of-windows-7-by-using-windows-anytime-upgrade - the data is probably already my hard drive and if not then my install media. Do I get to bitch at MS for such a move for reasons other than them making things a bit confusing or perhaps a bit greedy or conversely am I in the right if I buy a copy of Starter and hack it all the way up to Ultimate?

One difference there is the use of the higher products. The higher editions of Windows are generally reserved for business or development, not entertainment value. The average user has little to no use for features in the more advanced editions of Windows, so they've been held back with a purpose. Saving on resource usage (drive space, background processing, free RAM) is an added bonus.

However in this case it can be assumed that players want the full roster and there's no downside to it.

 

[FAST6191]

It appears we have reached the difference of opinion stage of the debate

Additional work..... I am not sold on that as an argument- if nothing else I look to some of the films and TV shows that get various cuts for different markets and more broadly as their IP and so their choice (distribution contracts/restrictions* not withstanding) in how they slice it up but perhaps more importantly/interestingly how does this factor into in engine sequels (see most of gaming this last decade or so) or indeed episodes (possibly the "conventional" episodes but I also want to bring up the episodic fable and maybe alan wake)

*I am sure we have all seen some of MS' more interesting policies vis a vis title updates and DLC.

"it's something done purely to force another purchase if we want all the game content" is probably at which I reply "so?" but to qualify that what is inherently special about the current model of one disc, one game and that is that? Do not get me wrong I like the model but if people (purchasers and otherwise) are not willing to accept scaled back projects (games "costing more" than might ensure a profit as a result of increased resources for larger content?- do I need to get the chapter entitled basic maths behind business in the big book of business out?) or a raise in store prices (see things costing ??.99 for an example of one of things- price psychology and what have you). On the potentially slightly strawmanish side of things where does preorder/collectors edition content fit into this (many of which eventually wind up as paid DLC)?

"However in this case it can be assumed that players want the full roster and there's no downside to it. "
I truly want to avoid saying "it is just a game" and indeed fully intend if for no other reason than I fail to see how in this case it could any less valid than another arena but who is to say it was not the full roster that shipped with (as in accessible to the stock executable) and the others were extra. Also going for the glib remake I have to say palette swap.

Back to my windows analogy- I do have issues with analogies when discussing IP matters as IP is a fairly fluid matter but as for "[mainly for] business or development"- I would have possibly agreed back on XP (MCE aside) and there always the alternatives option (VNC in place of remote desktop and such) which counts for a bit but http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/14422-compare-windows-7-editions.html lists several things that really are of interest to home users (DVD player and network printing- it has got big in the home these last few years) and several more than although certainly not essential still cause a raised eyebrow (mainly some of the media stuff in light of what current TVs and devices do).

 

[Zarcon]

The difference is that they don't have to keep download data on their servers, they don't have to pay for server nor the hacktons of terabytes bandwidth it will produce to send it to every single client.

As nosferathoo stated, one of the main complaints is that normally the charge for DLC is justified because it's additional development work after the game is made, and also they have bandwidth and storage costs and all that to recoup.

And we're already seeing the result of them not having to pay for bandwidth. Capcom normally charges $5 per DLC character. It might not quite be a discount of completely free like you wanted, but it's a discount nonetheless.

As for being justified since it's normally post development work, that's what they tell you at least.
If Capcom kept this DLC off disc and said it was made after the game was complete you wouldn't know any better.
A lot of companies have admitted to having separate teams working on DLC at the same time as the game's development.
It might sound all conspiracy-like, but there's probably a ton of DLC that has been finished before or at the same time as the game is finished and just held back to be sold later.
Most companies just have decent PR teams that can see the problem with including DLC on disc or releasing it day 1.
And Capcom has a pretty terrible PR team.

 

[Rydian]

I'm not saying that if info about DLC is held back it's not wrong...

 

[nosferathoo]

@[member='Zarcon']: you justify one shady corporate practice with another. We are loosing the main point here - somebody is CHEATING and we try to blame consumers because they take on it.
read on

 

[Just Another Gamer]

@[member='Zarcon']: you justify one shady corporate practice with another. We are loosing the main point here - somebody is CHEATING and we try to blame consumers because they take on it.
read on

Somebody is cheating to unlock something that is already included on the disc but Capcom wants you to pay extra for so I don't see a reason why some people are complaining.

Capcom made a shit decision and a shit business model and somehow they expect us the consumer to pay for it and be happy, well frankly I hope there will be a public cheat or something to unlock the characters for free.