Street Fighter 6 Launches Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle Costumes for $15 Each

[Tsing]

What's the opposite word for cowabunga? That's a question that Street Fighter 6 players are asking, as Capcom has launched a new collaboration that adds TMNT skins, emotes, and more to its next-gen fighting game, but at an apparently premium price. According to complaints that be found over social media, a single costume costs roughly $15 (750 Fighter Coins), meaning that those who still haven't decided on a favorite turtle yet may be paying $60 for the entire team. Some Capcom critics have protested the publisher's "greediness" by creating their own TMNT costumes, which, while not looking as great, is a lot easier on the wallet.

See full article...

 

[Grimlakin]

At first I thought . Not bad for a kids Halloween costume. Then I got in here and thought. Ahhh developer greed and micro transactions I would hesitate to call micro.

 

[MadMummy76]

LOL, I can't even, so does that mean four costumes make a full game?

 

[Zarathustra]

I don't play Street Fighter, or any other fighting game, but if I did, seeing someone with paid clothing for their fighters would make me think less of that person, not more.

 

[Grimlakin]

I don't play Street Fighter, or any other fighting game, but if I did, seeing someone with paid clothing for their fighters would make me think less of that person, not more.

I think this is a case of the dev's marketing to the whales not the mass market. They just need to sell enough sets to cover the dev cost plus profit.

 

[DrezKill]

Fighting games, racing games, and their never-ending DLC trains are why I ended up switching to only using "community demos". The only exceptions are NetherRealm's MK games, because they do eventually offer the entire games AND all DLC that ever came out for them for super-cheap prices ($10 or less), which is when I jump on them. So I still buy their games, but f*ck everyone else.

...seeing someone with paid clothing for their fighters would make me think less of that person, not more.

That's how I feel about everyone who spends real money on in-game items in any game, including cosmetics. I still can't wrap my head around why someone would ever f*cking do that. My friend's girlfriend has grown children in their 20s, and they do that sh1t. My friend and I shake our heads. We don't understand these kids.

 

[Zarathustra]

That's how I feel about everyone who spends real money on in-game items in any game, including cosmetics. I still can't wrap my head around why someone would ever f*cking do that. My friend's girlfriend has grown children in their 20s, and they do that sh1t. My friend and I shake our heads. We don't understand these kids.

...and as long as they and people like them keep doing it, games will keep including this ****.

In most cases at least you can still ignore it if you don't like it.

In some it is pretty obnoxious.

Fighting game? No big deal I guess, but if I'm in some immersive first person title, and some douchebag rolls up in a ninja turtle costume, that is immersion breaking and thus game ruining.

 

[Grimlakin]

Fighting games, racing games, and their never-ending DLC trains are why I ended up switching to only using "community demos". The only exceptions are NetherRealm's MK games, because they do eventually offer the entire games AND all DLC that ever came out for them for super-cheap prices ($10 or less), which is when I jump on them. So I still buy their games, but f*ck everyone else.


That's how I feel about everyone who spends real money on in-game items in any game, including cosmetics. I still can't wrap my head around why someone would ever f*cking do that. My friend's girlfriend has grown children in their 20s, and they do that sh1t. My friend and I shake our heads. We don't understand these kids.

Meh I've done it in WOW, mostly for the glitter pony when it was very first introduced. Then I did it a couple times when it came with a plushy for a friend, or when it was to support some charity. That's about all I recall.

 

[DrezKill]

...or when it was to support some charity.

I mean that seems legit.

 

[Brian_B]

I think I have come around to this:

I don't really care what you want to spend your money on. If you feel good about your purchase, I doesn't matter what I think about it.

I care about what the Publisher wishes to make me spend money on.

I don't care about cosmetic stuff, in general, so if they want to load up a store front full of that, sure. I won't be spending on it, but that's ok.

Content - not too hung up on paying for content, that one makes sense to me. I don't typically mind on that one, provided the game appeals to me in some way.

Subscriptions / Battle Passes - If the game is good, I don't mind. Similar to Content above. I have to be able to see a return (in enjoyment) on my investment.

I care a good deal about "Pay to Win" and Convenience (inventory slots, etc) and look at them extremely cautiously - if you want me to buy that stuff, your game better be **** good. I have done so in the past, but only for exceptional games where I've just had a lot of fun playing them.

It really comes down to the developer (not really the publisher). If I like the game, I have absolutely no problem supporting the developer at all. There are even times where the game has been meh and I've still bought it because I liked something else the developer was doing (Mac OS native versions, non-predatory business models, supporting the product well after release, etc).

 

[Zarathustra]

I think I have come around to this:

I don't really care what you want to spend your money on. If you feel good about your purchase, I doesn't matter what I think about it.

I care about what the Publisher wishes to make me spend money on.

I agree with this to a point.

I don't care about cosmetic stuff, in general, so if they want to load up a store front full of that, sure. I won't be spending on it, but that's ok.

I feel the same way. I just won't buy it. As long as it doesn't impact me, I'm not too bothered by it.

When I do hate it it is because a game has a certain theme, and then other players found the goofy "costumes" to buy, and walk in dressed as a pink ****ing easter bunny totally ruining immersion.

I think this stuff can be done well, if it is just kept thematic. No goofy ****, unless it is a goofy game.

Content - not too hung up on paying for content, that one makes sense to me. I don't typically mind on that one, provided the game appeals to me in some way.

Again, it depends.

As long as I feel like I am getting a complete game for my initial purchase price, I don't mind if they try to sell me expansions.

I absolutely will not stand for the stuff of memes though:



As long as we remain squarely in 1999 land we are all good.

Subscriptions / Battle Passes - If the game is good, I don't mind. Similar to Content above. I have to be able to see a return (in enjoyment) on my investment.

I'll probably never sign up for a subscription for anything, but I'm also not into the type of game that lends itself to subscriptions.

I care a good deal about "Pay to Win" and Convenience (inventory slots, etc) and look at them extremely cautiously - if you want me to buy that stuff, your game better be **** good. I have done so in the past, but only for exceptional games where I've just had a lot of fun playing them.

Ditto. Pay to win stuff needs to be destroyed.

 

[MadMummy76]

I don't care about cosmetic stuff, in general, so if they want to load up a store front full of that, sure. I won't be spending on it, but that's ok.

Cosmetic stuff is important and making it paid is more egregious than most think. Finding cool armor pieces and weapons used to be part of the core gameplay experience. Removing that and selling it back to you for money is actively making the game worse.

Content - not too hung up on paying for content, that one makes sense to me. I don't typically mind on that one, provided the game appeals to me in some way.

New content is the only type of DLC I consider fair play. As long as it is not overpriced.

Subscriptions / Battle Passes - If the game is good, I don't mind. Similar to Content above. I have to be able to see a return (in enjoyment) on my investment.

Paying a subscription for a game is out of the question to me. It is predatory and leverages sunken cost fallacy to make you play the game more. No, I want to play games at my own leisure and pace. If I paid a monthly fee I'd be forced to not let it go to waste. So this is an automatic and non-negotiable deal breaker for me.

I care a good deal about "Pay to Win" and Convenience (inventory slots, etc) and look at them extremely cautiously - if you want me to buy that stuff, your game better be **** good. I have done so in the past, but only for exceptional games where I've just had a lot of fun playing them.

This is another egregious thing, because it shows that they deliberately made the game worse and are forcing you to pay to unlock the better version. This might fly in free to play games, but not in any full priced game. There is no way in hell I'm paying to unlock features that should be in the game already. If it is anything significant then this is also a deal breaker.

 

[DrezKill]

Paying a subscription for a game is out of the question to me. It is predatory and leverages sunken cost fallacy to make you play the game more. No, I want to play games at my own leisure and pace. If I paid a monthly fee I'd be forced to not let it go to waste. So this is an automatic and non-negotiable deal breaker for me.

Amen brother.

This is another egregious thing, because it shows that they deliberately made the game worse and are forcing you to pay to unlock the better version. This might fly in free to play games, but not in any full priced game. There is no way in hell I'm paying to unlock features that should be in the game already.

Again I say Amen.

 

[Grimlakin]

What I personally find hilarious is **** like this in single player games. Unlocking outfits behind a paywall in a single player game is just dumb. Putting accelerators to character progression behind a paywall is idiotic. Character power behind a paywall is as I said before dumb.

I've looked at my cheathappens.com lifetime sub favorably more and more as companies continue to do stupid **** like this. 6 months after release or something based on player demand, the monetization to cover costs and make a few bucks. Ok. But ESPECIALLY right after or with launch. That's just crap as MadMummy has said.

BTW if you go look at prices now. I got in when they were having issues and a lifetime base sub was 20 bucks.