How Open to DLC Characters Would You Be?


#1

This is something that has been kicked around a bit since KOFXII came out, but it’s relevant to all fighters.

There are some serious rumbles on the inside of the gaming industry that downloadable characters will become standard within the next few years. And really…that’s pretty fucking huge.

There are a few examples of downloadable characters in fighting games…but not many.

  1. UFC 2009, while not really a fighting game, has some Gamestop-exclusive fighters available, and could very well get some more fighters added between now and its next installment.

  2. The Naruto fighting games on the Xbox 360 had them.

  3. Soul Calibur IV made you purchase the Star Wars characters opposite your console.

And these have all yielded a spectrum of responses, from “cool” to “no biggy” to “fuck that shit”. But here we are now, with the likelihood of this being the case increasing. But what if it becomes the industry standard? What to do then?

Personally, I’d like to see them limited exclusively to rebalances of the games (ie, SF2 New Warriors-type stuff). But what if they come out for free? Would everyone be against them then? For a long-ass time, a lot of hate was generated from the thought of straying from arcade perfection, but that has largely gone out the window. Anyway…thoughts?


#2

I think I would feel the same way I feel about all DLC. If it is genuinely new content, meaning that they worked on and completed this content after the initial game was released, then I have no problem paying for it (they shouldn’t work for free right?). If it’s something thats already on the disk, or was finished and ‘held back’ so that they can charge extra for it, then it’s pretty poor form I think.

When it comes to fighters though, it gets a bit more complicated since having some characters available to some players and not available to others can affect the balance or make an uneven playing field. You could have said the same thing about Expansion packs for RTS games, but they only let you play against someone else who had the same content. If you do that with multiple character releases however, then the userbase gets too divided up (Eg, if you have character X, but not character Y, can you play against someone with both of them, or with just character Y?).

Overall, I think it’s something that could be a great addition to fighting games (could replace the former trend of ‘updated’ releases), but it needs to be handled properly.


#3

I think with KOF12 specifically it wouldn’t hurt at all since some people are disappointed with the roster. I’d like anyone to be added to IV…cuz im bored of that game.

As long as the character isn’t unplayable because of how shitty they are then I’m happy. No stupid gimmicky bs like star wars characters like in SCIV, though.


#4

Totally for them.


#5

Indeed, I think we can all agree that dividing up the community based on who they own would be a bad idea.

The way it was done in Naruto was that (iirc), when the characters became available, a patch was released that installed all the new characters. That way, you could play against them, but you still had to purchase them to unlock them.

That’s good, in some ways, because it opens up the ability to at least get experience vs. the new characters.


#6

wich is what i said in one of the forums on the kof section, in fact i belive that all the games do this, every time that they add a new content to the game you need to download a patch, killzone2, cod5, burnout paradise do this (to name a few) even when you have not bought the DLC, so its obvious that the fighting games would do this too


#7

That can be solved with the same way SF4 did it man. When I didn’t have Gouken unlocked, and the other guy did, Gouken was just blacked out on my screen. It’s not really a big deal. Now if it was something like MVC2, then that would suck.

Otherwise, release the characters in packs if you’re going to have multiples of them.


#8

Multiple updates via DLC would be a superb idea because

  1. I don’t see them abandoning XII’s style after putting in all this effort and $$$ (the oldschool fans will stick too 98 and 2002 anyways so they still need to appeal to the new blood)
  2. It’s highly unlikely that people will shell out another $60 for simple upgrade, especially after what XII did…
  3. It’ll still cost money but there are no time constraints or a release date to meet so they can take they’re time…

I think this is just what SNKP needs, it’s a Win-Win imo :tup:


#9

I’m fine with DLC characters as long as they do it in a way that you don’t have to buy them to be able to fight other people using them online.


#10

It can help keeps game fresh while you wait for the next sequel/revision. I’m totally for good DLC for fighters.


#11

I should have been more clear, I wasn’t talking about the visual/technical side of things (I understand that it’s possible to have a character selectible by one player and not the other online as Hecatom pointed out), it was more the idea of having a ‘fair’ playing field between the two players.

Even if the new DLC characters could hypothetically be perfectly balanced against the rest of the cast, the fact that one player has the choice of more characters than another player means that one could be seen to have an advantage.

Unlike the secret characters in SFIV, which anyone can unlock, having to pay for new characters might push it a bit. I personally wouldn’t be too worried about another player having more characters than me, especially if I can still play against them online to learn to fight them, but I know that some people might have an issue with it.

It’s different to something like getting new maps in a shooting game, since you only play on the ones you own, and everyone in that map has the exact same options and tools available to them. If they added in new guns/armour that was only available on DLC, and could be used in any match (against people who cannot access it), it might become unfair though. Hopefully I’m making sense, it’s kinda hard to explain since it’s a fairly new idea to fighters :sweat:


#12

This actually teeters a bit close to the old arcade perfect vs. imperfect debates. One of the many arguments used was that the extra characters ultimately gave an unfair advantage to console players.

But at least in high-level play at this years Evo, and at least in SFIV, it didn’t prove to be insurmountable for arcade players.


#13

I’m all for it. Anything to keep a fighter feeling fresh until the sequel comes out.

It’s 2009. Couldn’t arcade machines get ethernet ports to download new updates or get discs to update so everyone can stay up to date?

As a Tekken fan I can’t complain too much. They usually update it a shitload in arcade and even DR was released on console eventually. And they give enough console exclusives . But I could really care less about Tekken Force. Then again, the game already has 40 characters.

But if you’re a SF fan I can see how one could be pissed off.


#14

I am fine with it, as long as it’s handled appropriately. If they toss say, Alex in SFIV with a DLC, they better work hard to balance him out and make him appropriate to the rest of the game.

Sure, some people will call for bans since it doesn’t follow the “Arcade” style, but most people these days on SRK take the time and really test characters out to see if they are truly broke or not, though I always prefer hard copy updates (Which Capcom loves).


#15

So hard to come up with an opinion on this one. If SF4 had a DLC character I would almost certainly buy it, and I probably wouldn’t feel ripped off, because it’s clear they just added that character way after the game came out to put a new character in.

In most other situations I would be really pissed off, though. I hate DLC, it is the worst thing to come in this gen. In fact they should just update SF4 with a big patch or a new version.


#16

i am kind of ok with the idea on a few conditions.

i dont think charcaters should be available seperate or 1 at a time.

if the added a bunch at once and then it was like a version 1 or a version 2
(so people could play online still)
also that way they should make the original version a selectable option.

also the price would have to be acceptable.
sf4 charged me 17 for 1 extra costume per character.
how much would they expect for new characters!


#17

They either need to be perfectly balenced or free if it happens.

Would hate to have to spend real money on a virtual arms race because a dev decides to make all the dlc characters stronger or something and by the same token a bottom tier weakling wouldn’t be worth the money.


#18

In regards to KoF XII, I’m much more open to the idea of a revision with more characters coming next year unless they release a set of new characters in packs rather than individually. That’s just pushing it a bit if you ask me. While on this subject of DLC, wouldn’t mind if any fighter got DLC in the way of different arenas.


#19

I’m fine with microtransactions and such like the alternate costumes and such in SF4, but it’s bullshit to charge full price for a game that you plan to bring more out for within a year. I mean, if you bought the costumes bundled it was like $10, and if you didn’t it was $20 I think. That’s $80 for a single game! Then what if they brought out T. Hawk and Dee Jay at 5 bucks each, you’re nearing $100 for one game. Bungie keeps releasing new map packs for Halo, and you can’t play half the match types if you don’t have all the new maps!

Honestly I’m really a fan of microtransactions, and I think the Korean MMOs that don’t charge subscription fees but make up for it in smaller purchasable items are on to something good. But they don’t charge $60 for their software.

tl;dr If Capcom/Bungie/other companies want to charge for crucial additions to gameplay, they should lower the launch price of their games. If they’re free, awesome.


#20

I’m for them as long as they are balanced and free