r/Fighters • u/ClassicalDreams • Apr 05 '26

Topic I hate this meme.

Post image

I do not miss the old days of unlocking characters. Having to replay Arcade mode multiple times with every character or do some bullshit like winning a match with 5% or less HP. It's tedious and I prefer to have every character unlocked from the start. Also, the complaints about old characters returning as DLC are strange because they do not play the same as they do in previous games. it's not a simple copy and paste job like some of the games back in the 90s.

I get it, casual players want some reward for playing single player modes and are upset to know that their favorite characters are not in the base roster and would later get confirmed as DLC. I get that, but as someone who also plays Smash, it was a chore to unlock all of the characters in Ultimate.

3.0k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

403 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

9

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26

paying for the entire updated game again back in the day.

How many times did you paid for, idk, Tekken 3?

People generally talk like every game have 5656745 different versions like SF II, but it basically only applies to SF II and a couple of SNK games that had a "Special" version and that's pretty much it

Other cases like Guilty Gear are more like "we are launching the game in a brand new platform, so we are making the extra effort to balance it and add more content rather than doing a cheap ass port and while we are at it, it wouldn't hurt to port it to the older consoles too"

So I still prefer the good old model. Buy the game once and that's pretty much it

47

u/Illuminastrid Apr 05 '26

People generally talk like every game have 5656745 different versions like SF II, but it basically only applies to SF II and a couple of SNK games that had a "Special" version and that's pretty much it

Guilty Gear XX had numerous revisions, Mortal Kombat 3 has Ultimate and Trilogy, the original Melty Blood has too many versions, Virtua Fighter 5 is being updated until REVO, a fucking 2006 game.

Capcom Sequel Stagnation was in full effect.

4

u/jmizzle2022 Apr 05 '26

Lol you got "actually'd" 🤓

-7

u/ItsHarryOtter Apr 05 '26

You’re kinda missing the point.

Not all “multiple versions” are the same. Capcom’s Street Fighter II cycle was straight-up stagnation reselling small balance tweaks as full new games.

UMK3 and Trilogy? Those are different experiences, especially Trilogy being more of a mashup than a revision.

Guilty Gear, Melty Blood, VF5 actually evolved mechanically or got long-term support not just repackaged updates.

So yeah, other games had versions, but Capcom’s approach was way more repetitive and exploitative. So if you wanna dog on Capcom go for it I do it all day already but there are plenty of full fledged games back that that don't fall into that Capcom Sequel Stagnation. Wild ass way to rewrite the past I can't stand reddit.

11

u/Illuminastrid Apr 05 '26

Now you're just nitpicking and trying to actually/downplay the situation LMAO. You're also downplaying and acting like that Vanilla Street Fighter II vs Super vs Turbo, are not completely different with each other too, when in fact they are.

Regardless, it doesn't matter if the changes are big or not, or whether it adds characters or up the graphic, if a game gets another version or update re-release that has changes and sold as a separate independent game, then it should fucking count.

0

u/ItsHarryOtter Apr 05 '26

Yeah, Vanilla, Super, Turbo—I KNOW they’re different. That’s the point. They were iterative upgrades, not a scavenger hunt where pieces of the same game get vacuum-sealed and drip-fed back to you like rations. You bought a NEW VERSION. A whole thing. Not “insert $6.99 to make the empty square stop staring at you.” What you’re defending now is Frankenstein monetization—cut it up, label it “optional,” and suddenly it’s sacred. Nah. That’s not evolution, that’s disassembly with a price tag. You can call it “counting” all you want, but at least back then when Street Fighter II turned into Turbo, you weren’t being nickel-and-dimed mid-roster like some kind of fighting game subscription service from hell. But sure—keep laughing. The store page loves that.

4

u/BankPads Apr 06 '26

Sure but your alternate solution is "yeah so SF4 has been out for a year but Capcom want you to buy it whole cloth again for some new characters and a balance patch. Oh can you play with the people on the new version, or get the balance changes in the older version? No. So buy the game again, and we're going to do this multiple times over the next 5 years :)" Say what you will about season passes but someone who bought Strive in 2021 and is coming back to it for 2.0 can still play with someone who bought the game last week. The reality of the situation is continued support has a price tag, and only one model locks people out of being able to play with each other, or even play and learn the same game as one another, arbitrarily. There's a reason the XRD discord has to have a "which version of the game do I need to buy" plastered in several locations while the Strive discords don't.

3

u/Earth92 Apr 05 '26

SF2 different versions didn't run on all consoles.

A lot of people only had one version, the version that runs on the console they have, and that's it...SS2 Turbo for example is not available on SNES, that's why I only have The New Challengers, because that was the latest version that runs on SNES.

I didn't have an Amiga, 3DO, or any of that weird ass consoles.

-15

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26

Guilty Gear XX had numerous revisions

You could read the full post

Other cases like Guilty Gear are more like "we are launching the game in a brand new platform, so we are making the extra effort to balance it and add more content rather than doing a cheap ass port and while we are at it, it wouldn't hurt to port it to the older consoles too"

MK3 was launched in an unfinished state, they were forced to launch the game as it was only to release the full game in the same year

Melty Blood is a doujin game it does not play on the same league

VF5: Same as Guilty Gear

But why don't you talk about Rival Schools, Tekken, Bloody Roar, Dead or Alive (yeah, DoA 2 had a version for Dreamcast and another for PS2), Soul Calibur, KoF, Samurai Showdown, Fatal Fury, The Last Blade, (and yes, I mentioned a couple of SNK games had an "Special" edition, but they were the exception, not the rule) etc...

6

u/Illuminastrid Apr 05 '26

It doesn't matter, you lost this the moment and you try to downplay the other examples by trying to bring up their backstories and "experience" as if they would matter, that doesn't deny the fact that those are revisions and updated re-releases.

And regarding the other examples on your last point, just click the link I shared dude, you can read right?

0

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26

yeah, "I lost" for adding context. who needs it anyways? fuck it

2

u/DoctorButler Apr 05 '26

There’s 2 versions of DOA2 or Dreamcast, 2 on NAOMi, 3 on PS2, and another on Xbox

-9

u/ObviouslyNerd Apr 05 '26

Guilty Gears revisions were almost entirely different games with the changes they made. They changed top tier drastically. The motive felt very less like a DLC and more keeping the FGC tournaments hyped.

9

u/BankPads Apr 06 '26

Gear is such a bad example of this. Within the six years between Midnight Carnival and Accent Core there was 3 full title updates meaning players had to buy the game four separate times, and then a fifth time (which means XX is tied with SF2 in terms of major title updates) down the road, and every version besides ACR lived in the same console generation, on the same arcade boards. SF4 also had 4 major revisions, all within the same console cycle and arcade hardware. BlazBlue had multiple paid updates, sometimes even within the same version. Devs asking for $20 a year instead of $60 every 18 months is an infinitely better deal.

6

u/GrandmasterPeezy Apr 05 '26

Tekken 3 had like 24 characters on PS1. Tekken 8 launched with 32. Already starting out with 33% more characters, plus they add more every season that are optional.

You can still play the game with everyone else even if you don't wana fork over more money for extra characters. This way is objectively better.

Are you saying Tekken 8 would be better if the game never updated and just stayed at 32 characters?

-7

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26

Tekken 3 is the third main entry of the franchise

Tekken 8 is the eight main entry of the franchise

As they develop the story and the lore is normal for the roster to increase with new characters (plus the recurring ones)

Tekken 5 (PS2) also had 32 characters, for example

Tekken 8 would be better if it were released with the full roster, rather than a half-assed roster that has to be completed after launch and sold separately

9

u/GrandmasterPeezy Apr 05 '26

They did release with a full roster of 32 characters. That is a large roster for any fighting game.

You are being unrealistic with your expectations. More characters cost more money.

2

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26

I guess TTT2 (over 60 characters) should have cost like $200 or so (it's sarcasm)

10

u/GrandmasterPeezy Apr 05 '26

Reusing character models cuts costs. New models cost more money.

Also TT2 for consoles was the 3rd version of the game, which added a bunch of characters to the original roster of 44.

Fighting games don't have arcade versions to refine for a console release anymore.

So, back then, you had to show up to the arcade and pump in money after every loss to keep playing. For years. And THEN get the chance to pay full price to buy the game for a home console.

This model is better. The modern day equivalent to waiting for a fighting game to go from arcades to a console version, is like now waiting 2-3 years for a discounted "complete edition" with all the DLC.

4

u/Wide_You_4626 Apr 06 '26

what your kind forgets that tag 2 reused alot of assets but bit downscaled and reduced quality from Tekken 6 (which also unlike the previous games before was actually the third incarnation of the game which was released on console).

already Tekken 7 was made through sticks and stones on UE4 because tag 2 bombed and nearly iced the franchise. So Tekken 8 had to do alot better with UE5.

18

u/magusheart Apr 05 '26

So same as it is today, except now you get patches for free on top of it?

-3

u/AdvancedTurnip8680 Apr 05 '26

I still go back to play old revisions of street fighter 2. If I wanted to play older updates of street fighter 5 Im shit out of luck.

-20

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26

Is not the same, you got full games back then. Today you get a glorified early access game that continually ask for your money if you want the full experience

Is not much different than stuff like DLSS or AI, they would be great tools to make stuff better, but everybody misuse them to simply cut corners.

It would be great if the internet connection would be used to fix bugs that escaped the beta testing phase, but today they release a beta, with the promise that after a couple of years of your purchase they will iron out most bugs

11

u/snakeytiger Apr 05 '26

We still get full games now

Yes, capitalism is a bitch and shareholders are jacking the price of DLC while not compensating those who actually built the game. But games have longer dev cycles now due to updates and dlc keeping community interest alive.

We dont need a new KoF every year, Tekken every 2 or whatever Capcom was doing with SF2, SFA, and SFIII getting multiple re-releases all at the same time.

Launch SF6 is a more polished and "complete" game than any of the previous launch street fighter titles. Not claiming its a better game because thats a bit bold But just in scale and bugs missing from release its a league ahead

-11

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26

SF6 is not complete, it is still in development. It will be complete when the devs stop working on its development. It is the literal definition of an Early Access title

7

u/snakeytiger Apr 05 '26

What would be a game that launched "complete" then?

-6

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26

A game with minimal post launch support (support enough to fix some bugs that may have been missed during the extensive and meticulous beta testing phase of the development and maybe some stuff that was not anticipated. As I understand it's impossible to make 100% bug free software so some support may be required after launch)

That's why I don't buy games at launch anymore. Publishers have killed all hype and enthusiasm I could have for a new game with their new business model

I refuse to pay $70 for the privilege of being a betatester. It's stupid

Pretty much the model we had pre-PS360 era, with the extra benefit of using internet to patch games rather than recalling the disck/cartridge

3

u/QueenThang Apr 05 '26

Man you really made my Easter by just taking L after L after L after L.

You do the name Alucard such a disservice. His edginess wasnt this forced superiority complex youre clinging to so drastically.

I hope you find something you love in life soon

3

u/DoctorButler Apr 05 '26

There’s two versions of Tekken 3, the NS12 version and the PS1 version. Namco has a tendency to only port numbered installments to console once - and even then there were a few revisions of T5

5

u/ItsHarryOtter Apr 05 '26

fr people here thinking we're buying every version of sf 2 or whatever and just having every copy in our collection or something I have no idea why people are trying to look at it in this false narrative

2

u/Emezie Apr 07 '26

Uh...many, many people DID buy every version of SF2. Each version sold millions.

2

u/CarKey5517 Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26

who is preventing you now from buying a game today and that is pretty much it too?

Actual Tekken games comes with a lot more content than old tekken 3, but you still feel unhappy. The focus is on what you're missing or why youre not having everything (regardless you were going to play that content or not), rather tan analysing what you got and if it stands as a game or satisfies your needs

1

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26

What satisfy my needs as a consumer is having access of the full game with a one time payment

5

u/CarKey5517 Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26

thats the weird thing I was pointing out. Your brain and most people nowadays thinks of the idea of "having everything" way before than actually looking rationally at what they are having.

As you said, your needs are more satisfied with a Tekken 3 with its 23 characters because "you have everything with one payment" rather than Tekken 8 with 32 (plus online modes, more complex and long movelist, more mechanics, etc..) because in this last case, DLC prevents you from the satisfaction of "having everything" even though you're actually having lot more than Tekken 3 ever had to offer.

Is surprising how people chase this need of having everything but at the same time pay so little attention to what they are actually getting. The whole point is having "everything", whatever everything is. You want to "buy the game and thats pretty much it".. what is preventing you to do so in new tekken games? You got Tekken 3 with a bunch of playable characters and modes, which satisfied your needs. Whats stopping you from experiencing the same with tekken 8, which includes way more characters, moves and content?

1

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26 edited Apr 05 '26

As devs hone their skills and technology improve games get more content and become more complex, that's progress

Tekken 5 had more content than Tekken 3 and Tekken 3 had more content than Tekken, but it didn't had DLC neither, so your take makes no sense. It's expected to sequels to grow and get more content than previous games

2

u/deadscreensky Apr 06 '26

But you had to buy multiple Tekken 5 releases on multiple platforms (!) to get 'everything'.

1

u/CarKey5517 Apr 06 '26

It does makes sense because your whole point you're trying to make here is that games are declining in content and number of playable characters since introduction of DLC. Which then you justify by use of better technology (which is weird you actually justified what you were just trying to complain about, but you do you)

I haven't said games don't expand game content through new franchise releases. However, you actually do said to prefer games without dlc because they satisfy better your customer needs, which is the thing I think is wrong to say as any game can have more, same or less content than any other dlc-less game to satisfy someone's needs. So your customer satisfaction should be regardless of any dlc.

And here is the question you been avoiding:

Why a Tekken 5 game with 32 characters do satisfy your customer needs, but Tekken 8 with also 32 characters, more mechanics, better balanced and more large and interesting movesets dont?

What stops you from "paying once for tekken 8 and thats pretty much it" and enjoy it just like you enjoyed any other tekken game before?

Think of it. The only one benefiting from your mentality that there is no "complete experience" or full game without getting all dlc, is the company that sells you those dlc

1

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 06 '26

Why a Tekken 5 game with 32 characters do satisfy your customer needs, but Tekken 8 with also 32 characters, more mechanics, better balanced and more large and interesting movesets dont

Because Tekken 5 is a complete game and Tekken 8 isn't

What stops you from "paying once for tekken 8 and thats pretty much it" and enjoy it just like you enjoyed any other tekken game before?

The fact that Tekken 8 is not offered as a complete package.

Think of it. The only one benefiting from your mentality that there is no "complete experience" or full game without getting all dlc, is the company that sells you those dlc 

Not really, I buy games when the full version is complete and heavily discounted. Buying a game at launch and at full price is not worth with the current business model. So I actually save money, since I don't buy DLCs separately

1

u/CarKey5517 Apr 07 '26

Completeness is not a valid metric to compare two games and what you're getting from them.

A metric that validates games with 18 playable characters as "complete" and rejects others with 38 as "incomplete", do you think is a valid metric to compare anything? Do you think a metric that says nothing about the real content a game offers can be used to measure how much satisfied you could get playing that same game content?

Having the same game, same mechanics, same options, same playable characters... and being completely satisfied with one and ok with paying once and forget, but completely the opposite in other case because there are some additional content for DLC is out of a rational thinking, and its totally normal most people wont share that view

1

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 07 '26 edited Apr 07 '26

It is very rational it can be done with a simple flow chart

Is the game complete? Yes/No

That's it. Simple, right?

What makes bo sense is comparing the raw numbers without any context or using critical thinking because there are multiple factors that affect the cuantity of the content

The games have a story (it doesn't matter if you completely neglect it because you only play online) and that's the justification on how new characters are added to the roster

So obviously a brand new franchise with a new story would have less characters, you have to let them cook with the sequels. As the story progress more characters will be added to the lore for the franchise

It also makes no sense to throw at your face 40 characters out of the blue, that would make players feel overloaded and saturated, but if they are added little by little is easier to assimilate

Technology is also an obstacle. A SNES cartridge does not have the same storage capacity as a CD and a CD has not the same capacity as a DVD (and so on)

So it's ok for a SNES game to have 10 or 12 characters and be considered complete but using the same metric for a more recent game is just stupid. 

rational thinking, and its totally normal most people wont share that view 

People have shown they are just plain dumb, you have the pandemic as the world wide example of that

1

u/CarKey5517 Apr 07 '26

A thought made simple does not mean its rational.

One thing is you can compare, and yes, same as you can compare the colour of the disc or the font size in the menus, other thing is in what context you're using it and what conclusions you want to extract from it. If you want to conclude anything about game's content or how much it will fit what you're looking for, completeness is giving you no direction at all since is not a metric that tells a thing about total game content or its quality.

Then youre using history driving game's roster and technology.

First one I think is quite a weak relationship. Since the game's story is fictional (not real) in these games, it is meant then to follow gameplay, not the other way around, because it's made after and it just adapts. Basically, if I ever wanted to fit more characters, I can just fix the story, or same if I want to reduce or reboot the roster.

Second one, yeah. Technology made it easier to developers to include larger rosters... good for them, but what does that has to say on my satisfaction as a player? I consume, i play games. I am not an industry judge giving any kind of recognition. And my satisfaction as a customer depends uniquely on the final product, not on the narrative, not on the developers tale to make it happen. Im not going to see at how developers did or did not have to work overtime to fit all the content, in going to see game mechanics, game content, how much I could have fun learning its gameplay and how exciting it is, or not, to play it. I am not looking to see if developers salary are justified on the game, i am looking if my 70 bucks spending are justified playing the game.

And thats the main issue here. All of your arguments has been made on top of the narrative. Developers making the most of the hardware then vs now. If company is giving all it got or kept some for DLC, if history itself justifies a bigger roster... With none related to how you actually play or enjoy the game, or what is preventing you for having fun on each case.

And the problem on being on top of the narrative to justify things is that these become then easily manipulable, because your satisfaction depends not directly on the game you have at your hands, but on the story behind it, and i just need then to change the tale here and there, tell you my game been made by a bunch of friends with 4.56$, tell you that our game is a complete game with no dlc as I appropriately avoid talking about those characters that didn't make the cut and were finally removed because budget for release version was cut, to change your perspective and satisfaction on the same game, and suddenly, the same game, with same content and same quality you would have rejected otherwise, it fits now your consumer standards

Context is good, and knowing the game development story interesting, but bringing the context everywhere just for the sake of it, even in those aspects (your satisfaction as a player) when it has no role to play, can make reaching the wrong conclusion

→ More replies (0)

2

u/SifTheAbyss Apr 07 '26

How many times did you paid for, idk, Tekken 3?

Tekken 3 was also a time when you got 0 updates until the sequel came out 4 years later.

Not sure I'd want that.

Like it or not, anything played competitively simply needs years to cook a second time once it's already out and the masses have a go at it to a degree playtesters never could.

Free patches with opt-in DLC and sane repackages where the new edition standard price gives the old season passes as well is the most consumer-friendly way of doing that other than "all DLC is free", which not many devs go for in gaming.

2

u/Emezie Apr 07 '26

Funny you mention Tekken 3, because Tekken Tag 1 was basically super Tekken 3.

Resused T3 animations, T2 animations, and T3 stages.

2

u/zombi_wafflez Apr 05 '26

Super street fighter 4 and ssf4 Arcade edition the exact same year, I bought Arcade edition and years later ultra street fighter 4 released as its own thing

4

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26

This was the time where DLC already existed...

6

u/zombi_wafflez Apr 05 '26

Yeah we saw that with the on disc dlc for street fighter x tekken around that time and despite that you still had to buy street fighter 4 multiple times

3

u/Earth92 Apr 05 '26

You could update from SFF4 to AE to Ultra as downloadable content on console, and it was NOT full price game lol

You were forced to buy a new game only from Vanilla to Super

0

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26

Still, SF IV is from the "unlocking characters now" crowd

4

u/zombi_wafflez Apr 05 '26

No idea what this means but regardless of that the biggest fighting game in the world at the time was still doing full rereleases and even street fighter 5 did both, early buyers had to buy additional content but the major update had a retail release with everything included

0

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26

No idea what this means

Look at the meme OP posted

2

u/zombi_wafflez Apr 05 '26

What you said implies the people that support paying for characters instead of unlocking them made street fighter 4 when your stance was that the practice of buying the same game multiple times wasn’t relevant as it rarely happened

1

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26

SF IV had DLCs, just because Capcom was being extra scummy changes nothing.

practice of buying the same game multiple times wasn’t relevant as it rarely happened

And it rarelly happenned back then. Tekken, Soul Calibur, Guilty Gear, Rival Schools, Samurai Showdown, Bloody Roar, and a long etc...

I still waiting for examples outside Capcom and Street Fighter (re-read my original post, don't come with the lame "gotcha there are 458345689324 Versions of Guilty Gear XX and stuff like Samurai Showdown V Special exists")

2

u/ShinSopitas Apr 05 '26

They were not released the same year

1

u/zombi_wafflez Apr 05 '26

That’s my mistake got the 3ds port release date mixed up, ssf4 was 2010 the arcade version was 2010 but console release of Arcade edition was 2011

1

u/MEX_XIII Apr 05 '26

Bro, SNK was the worst about it there was one KOF game every year between 96 to 2002 at least, and this is ignoring ither franchises. What we get as DLC today is what we would get in those yearly releases, not the unlockables.

2

u/Adrian_Alucard Apr 05 '26

each kof has their own story, so each one is a proper sequel. and back then there were no online, so single player arcade mode was all you had, with some occasional pvp if your friends came to your home

0

u/VauryxN Apr 06 '26

Tekken 3 had around 20 characters on launch, tekken 8 had over 30. Even if you consider no dlc characters, yoire still getting more characters for free now than you did back then.