You didn't answer the question.
It's a good thing that this model allows them a source of revenue to develop more content, while still being able to offer patches for free so that players on the base game still get to enjoy compatibility. That's good. The alternative is we either break compatibility, or the content doesn't get made at all since you don't seem to want anyone to get paid to make it.
I'm talking to you. You're living in fantasy land claiming these games could be the exact same thing without the business model that made them possible. They would not.
Can I have the games that I know and love, in the format that allowed them to be the games that I know and love? There is no third option here.
There's no shortage of games that have been successfully built around it. This is the whole basis for Rogue (1980). Games that are designed to be replayable would be far too repetitive if you only had a handful of premade levels.
But there also no shortage of games that didn't feel like they used it well, games that could've been significantly improved with hand-crafted levels. I played Persona 5 before 4, and this stuck out to me like a sore thumb when I went back to 4.
Generally, if level design is a core focus of the game, then the levels gotta be designed. But if maps are just a backdrop for a more mechanics-focused game, randomization may help those mechanics shine.
I fundamentally disagree with your stance that any form of premium content is 'predatory'. You know what you're buying, and no one's putting a gun to your head forcing you to buy it. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's predatory.
Predatory is when gambling-based business models obfuscate true costs and result in players literally financially ruining themselves. Predatory is when FOMO strategies are aggressively pushed to pressure consumers into buying things they otherwise wouldn't. Predatory is when subscription services keep players locked into an ecosystem, with the threat that they'll lose everything if they stop paying (and it's still extremely weird to me that you called this better).
If you want to go after that kind of stuff, I would be with you. But calling everything predatory actually just makes it harder to talk about real problems. You are ruining this word.
"We" includes the guy saying "skins are fine," in reply to the same comment.
Yes, optional skins are fine. I agree with that statement.
If I buy the game, right now, all of those characters are in the game... but I don't get them. I can get my ass kicked by them. But I can't select them.
This is a good thing, because it means that you can still remain compatible with any opponent even if you choose to stay on the base game. The alternative was the old model where you HAD to buy every upgrade from Street Fighter IV to Super Street Fighter IV to Super Street Fighter IV: Arcade Edition to Ultra Street Fighter IV, or else you were left behind and could no longer play with the rest of the playerbase that moved on to the latest edition.
Would you rather have that be mandatory? Is that the model you want to go back to?
I don't think you understand how much work it takes to design and balance that many characters in a serious competitive fighting game. Serious question, do you play competitive fighters at all, do you know anything about how they work?
In fact, the best way to ensure they're all polished is to start small and expand incrementally over time. This is the right model for a competitive fighter. You're deliberately ignoring the path to get from point A to point B if you think that in your world it would just be the final version right away. I'm saying that in your world, the fighting games I know and love would not be the games that I know and love.
Personally, my favorite game of all time is Skullgirls, and they have been very open and transparent about all the expenses involved in developing a much smaller cast. Look up their finances, look up how long it took their small team to get from the eight characters at launch to what they have today. And I'm very happy with every cent I spent on that game, they didn't scam me by offering more of my favorite game. This is a game that has entertained me for a decade. Even if I count all the money I've spent on traveling to tournaments, which is far more than I spent on the game, it's still quite possibly the most efficient form of entertainment I've ever gotten my money's worth from.
Can I have the games that I know and love, in the format that allowed them to be the games that I know and love? There is no third option here.
I'm not missing, I'm saying that your hardline stance against things being sold isn't reasonable.
Chuunibyou. First season had a fantastic ending, then they decided to make a second season that undoes all character development in order to introduce a dumb love triangle.
And while S2 isn't even out yet, I'm already disappointed that I'm in Love with the Villainess set up what should've been a perfect ending but then didn't commit in order to leave it open for a S2.
This is an entire market of games where you can pay $1000 and still not have the whole thing.
Those aren't the games we're talking about. We're talking about DBFZ, an example of fixed DLC being sold at a reasonable price, which you want to dishonestly conflate with more predatory models in order to say that nothing should be sold ever.
DLC is honest. I get a thing in exchange for money. I know what the price tag is, and I'm happy to pay what I think is a fair price. And I only pay once to keep the thing I paid for, unlike a subscription.
Let me just cut straight past all your deflecting. Do you think that the final version of DBFZ, with all of its DLC, sold at its price, should be able to exist in this form?
I do want updated games, yes. My favorite games wouldn't be my favorite games if 1.0 was all we ever got.
Some games have predatory models, and I do oppose that. But only when it actually is predatory. I take issue with how you're trying to say nothing should ever be sold, even when what's being sold is perfectly fair.
You said "Nothing inside a video game should cost real money". Those are your words. If you want to claim that your stance is actually something else, why did you say those words?