Topic: Fantasy life

So they did indeed get the full version though. I have to agree more with Canis on this one because those exact games came to mind when I seen this.

So current owners of the original game were able to do the extra content?

I think so, but it cost extra

I don't really care if something is anti-consumer or not anymore. I will still use my criteria to judge it: is the game itself worth $40? If so, what's the big deal for charging extra for optional content? Is that not worth the price they ask for? If this game is worth it, then charging extra is a good business decision.

Theres no need for offense at all it would be unfair to Japanese players because im pretty sure were getting the better deal, minus the longer wait

I never said it was a free update. I'm saying you could buy it and have everything the previous games did, without playing the original. Just like Monster Hunter Ultimate. Just like For the Sequel. So it's just us getting screwed over.

Ok I see what you mean but how are we being jiped?

Of course not. I would rather pay $50 for a full game with no additional fees if it meant getting everything the Japanese got for the same price (The packaged version of Link was $50 in Yen).

How are we getting screwed over when EVERYONE had to pay for the content?

Okay, it was $50. So if the DLC was $10 (thus making the total $50), would that be fair? What would the difference really be in this case?

I agree WHATS THE DIFFERENCE?!

Heck, I can make the argument that this is pro-consumer. Think about it.

The Japanese "Link" version is $50 with all the content. The western version with online is only $40, with some extra content being charged extra. If consumers liked the game, then they can pay more for that extra content. That way the game itself is not $50 if the consumers didn't like it

It's similar to how Mario Golf was only $30 and it had day 1 DLC.

The difference is it's $50 anyways, so why bother taking out the content that was already there?

Honestly, this is exactly I mean EXACTLY what everyone was afraid would happen with DLC. I'm not gonna stand for it. It's my money, I'm not gonna waste it if all it'll do is throw fuel on a wildfire.

Because of the situation I listed above?

Honestly, this is exactly I mean EXACTLY what everyone was afraid would happen with DLC. I'm not gonna stand for it. It's my money, I'm not gonna waste it if all it'll do is throw fuel on a wildfire.

But it's $50 regardless. What is exactly the big deal other than personal tastes? Why not think about my last post?

Is it REALLY unethical to charge less for a game then allow customers to choose to pay more for the rest? Is this really what Capcom does, or do they charge full price and THEN charge extra for cut content? I hear it's the latter.

The reason this is in the grey area is because the original game without DLC costs less than the whole game.

We are forgetting the fact that most games in Japan sell for the same price. They've been getting charged the 50$ equivalent for quite a while now.

Customers always had the choice to pay less. It's called waiting for a sale. Now they're just making sure even those people don't get a break. Personally, I don't like the idea of spending money on a "starter pack", and that's clearly where this industry is headed.

I definitely need to look for a new hobby. At the rate we're going, it's gonna really suck to be a gamer in just a few years...

I would agree with you if that were the case, but here its not: The Link version ( plus the new area and story) were created SEPARATELY from the game after its initial release.

I really don't see the logic here. You argue that having a $50 full retail package is better than a $40 + $10 package. Logically, what's the difference? And please don't devolve this into a "but what if" argument.

Why not just see how everyone likes the game? I'd be happy to tell you if I think this game is worth the $40

The option to buy the games separate content will be available at any given moment so it won't make much a difference anyway. I'm looking forward to Fighting all those monsters, Animal Crossing having weapons was sooo taunting me XD.

I think the problem is we were lead to believe we would get the complete version. The way this is landing I would rather they released the original version a year ago instead of the long wait. Why make a complete version then pull content out to charge more for it. Feels like the screw to me.

But its not that bad, were still getting most of the online feature, so the small buy on doesn't make much a difference it simply one area, though buying the game a year ago would of been SOO nice. :3

Is the package worth $40 regardless of its completion? Is having a complete package really that important? Are you getting $40 worth of content without the need for extra costs?

Now that I experienced this whole mess, I think it's just silly. I'm still gonna buy the game and possibly the DLC when it comes out.

Examples: I bought FE:A and loved it, therefore I bought the extra content to show my satisfaction. I played SMT IV and am planning to get the content later, because I liked the game itself. Is all that really unethical and screwing me over, or am I showing that I'm a satisfied customer? I will sure as hell use the same criteria here too regardless of this "complete package" nonsense.

I think what the difference is here is it's suppose to be the definitive version. By that it should carry the weight of all available content up to this point. I liken it to a GotY edition. This will almost certainly have the content locked on the cartridge which makes it worse.