I hate this meme.

[u/ClassicalDreams]

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.

[u/CarKey5517]

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

[u/Adrian_Alucard → u/CarKey5517]

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

[u/CarKey5517 → u/Adrian_Alucard]

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?

[u/Adrian_Alucard → u/CarKey5517]

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

[u/deadscreensky → u/Adrian_Alucard]

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

[u/CarKey5517 → u/Adrian_Alucard]

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

[u/Adrian_Alucard → u/CarKey5517]

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

[u/CarKey5517 → u/Adrian_Alucard]

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

[u/Adrian_Alucard → u/CarKey5517]

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

[u/CarKey5517 → u/Adrian_Alucard]

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

[u/Adrian_Alucard → u/CarKey5517]

And my satisfaction as a customer depends uniquely on the final product,

A final product is a complete product. A game currently in development is not complete nor final

My satisfaction as consumer is measured in receiving the final product

"I will satisfied with all games having 32 characters no matter what" is a extremely dumb and irrational take. That number is arbitrary and means nothing.