I don't mind the concept of paying for a new character, but yeah, I can see how that makes a mess for online competitive play. I'm curious what percentage of players just do head-to-head locally? Cause then the balance issue matters much less. Everyone there will just have whatever the host has!

I really don't like this trend. Civilization 5 is doing the same thing by offering new civs through DLC purchases. So far, the Babylonians are unavailable in multiplayer because not everyone ponied up for the digital deluxe version of the game or later bought them as DLC. Other DLC civ packs are on the way, and I don't think they'll be playable in multiplayer, either.

It's entirely a technical problem brought on by a business decision. And it makes me feel like I don't have the complete game.

Also, unlike Nintendo and Microsoft, Sony doesn't use a points system. You can pay with real money on PSN.

Mixed feelings on DLC gameplay. Both Chris and Rob really touched on two of the primary problems: a customer has the right to the game-play experience that they paid for initially, and DLC (even when it isn't downloaded) alters that experience. It can muck up competitive play, it can lead to legitimate customers who paid full price feeling like they didn't get a full game, it can lead to problems. It's not quite as much of an issue with cosmetic changes (like the alternate costumes in SSF4). Ican see Ono's take on this. The competitive fighting scene is strategic to the point where having to pay for additional gameplay components ends up being detrimental. 
That said, what Capcom's doing does make some sense: these games take a lot of time and budget to create, and DLC is an effective way of expanding their shelf-life and profitability. Fighting games thrive on interest and community, and I think that this is more than just profiteering on Capcom's part - I think it's a concerted effort to increase interest, and that can help the fighting game community. Overall, I would prefer they do that with cosmetic changes (SSF4 alternate costumes have been effective for me), but I can understand this approach too. I like Ono's idea of 'version' DLC - I think that's a graceful middle ground. 

I understand where you're coming from with this, but I am going to have to disagree and this is coming from an avid member of the fighting game community and a tournament organizer.   IMO adding characters to a fighting game is no different than adding maps to a FPS.

In each genre no matter what map or character you're playing you always have a set of constant fundamentals.  In an FPS its movement, aiming, weapons, etc.  In a fighting game its things like blocking, throwing, dashing, jumping, etc.  Beyond this is where the specifics of characters and maps come into play.  If you're playing Halo 3 for example, you need to learn the spawn points (weapons & characters), base placement, sniping spots, cover, etc for each map you play on.  The same thing goes for a new character in a fighting game.  You have to learn their move set, normals, combos, match ups, etc.  Sure if you don't have the DLC you are missing out on the experience other players that do are getting, but if anything I would give the fighting game genre an edge here since some games allow you to at least play another person online that is using a DLC character that you don't have so you can at least learn how to fight against that character.  In most FPS games, you would noramally get kicked out of a game using a DLC map if you don't have it.

Sure I understand the issues that missing characters/maps when running tournaments can cause (experienced them lately myself) and people feeling pissed that they have to pay more for characters they feel should be part of a full retail release, but I think there is more good happening here if you look beyond that.  Back in the day I never heard anyone complain about having to pony up 50 bucks to buy SF2 Turbo on the SNES just for the ability to play as 4 characters that were already in the original and turbo modes.  Now you got the option to add what content you want and the prices for most of them are pretty fair.  The content itself doesn't change any of the preexisting chracters so you can still play the game you already did if you felt the need.  The only real negative that I see about DLC characters is that they tend to not get the same extensive balancing and tweaking that characters in the retail release get.  Although these things tend to get updated with later patches anyways.

David and Brian: I agree with Ono in the last paragraph that DLC should best be treated as a full-on update a few months after release.  I like having a package deal where I get everything, even if I don't like one character or another.

Brian, I disagree when you say a new fighting game character is the same as a new map for a shooter. You have to learn a new map the same way you have to learn a new character, but new characters are like ambassadors for a fighting game. The box for SSF4 and BBCS has all of their new characters on it. We watch the MVC3 trailers to see what the new characters will do or say. Characters have a link to players that stages don't. Putting characters out one-by-one or two-by-two makes them feel optional, which a fighting game character should never be. This argument isn't from a competitive standpoint, but I think we can both agree that someone should be able to play their character in a tournament, regardless of one's viewpoints.

You know much more about running tournaments than I do, so I'm interested to hear how you have treated DLC characters. While not having all the characters on every system is a pain, I can see why if the tournament is small and you're relying on other people to bring their systems. I don't know if it's that's acceptable for a major tournament like EVO, though they probably get help from Capcom/sponsors.    

I've heard the arguements about some players having one character and the others who don't wanna pay up are left in the dust in terms of balance because they have to deal with a new match up. I didn't stop to think that the Arcade Edition update (if coming at all) is one big expansion rather than a few characters like Blazblue: CS.

However, my only problem is going back to Capcom's old business model of adding new content and putting it on a disc while calling it a separate game. There are what? 4 different versions of Street Fighter II alone? It maybe be a narrow view, but if my choices are DLC or an entirely new disc, I'd rather go with DLC.

A DLC expansion fixes the problem, I agree, but I'd do whatever it takes to steer clear of the disc release. Super Street Fighter IV was huge, yes, but I'm not about to go out and buy Super Street Fighter IV:Arcade Edition if it's another disc.

I don't really agree with most of this. For one, in chess, it's really difficult to win without a bishop. In a fighting game, if a DLC character is necessary to win a competitive match, then that's a poorly designed game, and a whole other issue. Neither BB nor SSFIV have this problem. No current-gen fighters do.

And if that character does break the game, you have a new meta game. Either that character is banned -- which will only happen if it's so utterly broken that nobody can handle it -- or the meta game changes. This happens every time a new balance update comes out for any game. Why are fighting games exempt?

Besides, BB automatically downloads patches for you when new characters are released, so even if you don't want to pay for a new character, you have the data required to play against them, and nobody has to be segregated.

As for the tournament comment, I personally wouldn't even go to a tournament for my favorite game if I didn't have some assurance beforehand that things were legit. Not having characters unlocked or having limited access to DLC characters shows a lack of coordination. Either decide to have them banned, or pony up and buy the DLC, or find people who have systems who have that DLC. It creates problems, but running a tournament isn't easy. It comes with the territory, and it's unfair to expect companies to cease lucrative character packs just because a niche group of people finds it unfair.

You also don't have to pay $20 for a points card. You can't buy the exact amount you need, but you can purchase smaller amounts via credit card, and if you do have to buy a $20 card, it's not like those points explode in a time-sensitive way. Save them for the next big update you want to buy.

Your solution to the whole problem, though, is probably the one thing I disagree with most. Your solution to trickles of content that supposedly break the playing field and cause problems is to save things up for one big update... and for that update to somehow be optional? How could it be, unless there's a patch that includes the balance changes and raw character data for those who opt out?

In that case, we'd be looking at the Continuum Shift approach. Having read your past pieces, though, I'm inclined to think you're only getting down on the whole thing because you didn't like Makoto as a character, from her design to how she plays, and that this has little to do with being asked to forgo a Meatball Marinara footlong for a squirrel girl.

Finally, I would pay for M.O.D.O.K and She-Hulk. It's not fair to assume that people wouldn't, just because of your own personal tastes.

Not trying to come down hard on you, Chris. I just don't see how you can criticize what AkSys does with BB while applauding a more expensive, arguably less-inclusive approach from Ono.

I think there are some decent points here (though I tend to agree with Mike.) I will say I think the matter of DLC fighters is different for a game like Marvel Vs. Capcom. While it is played competitively, I would venture a guess that the overwhelming majority of players find it to be a more casual experience (I know I do.) 

In that sense, DLC characters are a great idea. I'm just fine dropping a few dollars for characters that wouldn't have a chance making it into the main game (Jin, Skullomania, and Hayato come to mind immediately.)

A game like Street Fighter 4 though, with its super hardcore reputation, probably isn't the right fit for DLC fighters. I think Ono made a wise decision, but I don't believe everyone else has to follow suit.

I plan on buying every character Capcom puts out because that will be the most fun for me when I play with my friends and that's the most important thing a fighting game can have for me.

@Chase Hardcore players are going to be the minority of any game base, regardless of whether the game is intended to be hardcore or not. Marvel Vs. Capcom 3 is going to be scrutinized just as much as Street Fighter 4, so I don't see a problem with holding both games to the same standard.

@Michael I never said anything about a DLC character breaking the balance of the game because any new character could break the balance of the game. You could actually argue that the fear of releasing a broken, game-shifting character (even a character that isn't the best but shuts down a lot of characters like O. Sagat in ST) encourages the developer to overreact and limit how good the character could have been.

As for BlazBlue, yes, I do think Makoto is the worst fighting game character design since the PS2 Mortal Kombat games, but I never said anything bad about how she plays. My friend uses Makoto as his main, and she does bring something different to the roster. 

Likewise, I have no horse in who makes it into MVC3. I'm actually looking forward to playing as MODOK and She-Hulk, but a lot of people whined about Capcom "wasting a character slot" when they were announced, and I doubt they would make as much money as DLC as other Marvel characters. Trying out a weird character that's already on the select screen is different from going to Walgreens/using your credit card, uploading the code to XBL/PSN, and then downloading the character. 

The pay-per-character system works only if your character is already popular. All three DLC characters for BlazBlue have appeared in the game's story mode to stir interest. And there is no economic advantage to this system. If I don't pay for Makoto, then Arksys now has to hope that other people make up for the lost of that sale. Instead of one big update to renew interest in the game, you get three small updates that only hype those who want to play a specific character. In the end, Arksys probably isn't making any more money doing this than if all three were in one pack, which some people are waiting for anyway.

Sorry if I'm arguing a little too hard. I think every character should get played, but pay-per-character is not conducive to that. In the long run it doesn't matter if we got one character a few months earlier than another, so this system only helps those who want to pick and choose.

@Chris do you really believe that MvC3 is going to be under the same quality and amount of scrutiny as SF4? That's ridiculous.

The whole point of MvC is that it's the equivalent of an All-Star game in baseball, more or less. Yeah, it's fun to bitch and debate about which characters deserve to be in, but it shouldn't be held to the same standard as a World Series (or in this stretched metaphor, SF4.)

Having DLC characters only helps to appease the fans who didn't get their choices in the main game. That's a win-win.

You talk about tournaments like it's the be-all, end-all for fighting games, but it's not. Like you mentioned, the hardcore audience is a minority in this case. Capcom is trying to make as many people happy as possible and the fact is, the majority of people who like MvC want as many characters as possible.

Pay-per-character has the best chance of maintaining player interest for the longest amount of time. I know that the daily quests put forth by Dragon Quest 9 have been enough to get me to continually play it (and talk to my friends about it ad nauseum. Just ask them.)

This way really only has the potential of hurting super hardcore tournament players (who should probably be playing SF4 instead anyway.) I don't see the harm. In fact, I believe it will only help in making the game more fun to play.

@Chase You vastly underrate the importance of MvC2 in the tourney scene. You make it sound like it's Mortal Kombat vs. DC Universe or Super Smash Bros. It's not. It may not have quite the clout of a proper SF sequel, but I'd say that it's only a half a notch below that. It's at least as important as SoulCalibur, Tekken, and Virtua Fighter. Either way, it's much more than an all-star game (as seen in video games, baseball, or otherwise).

Some of the best fighting game pros in the world list the game as one of their favorites, and there's a reason people still hold tournaments for it. While I appreciate that the MvC3 should appeal to a wide array of people -- at least if it hopes to be successful -- enthusiasts have a lot of expectations for the game besides the character roster.

MvC2 is one of my favorite games of all time (and probably my favorite figting game) because of its combo mechanics, and while I like to speculate about which characters they might put in, I really couldn't care less if they used Clown Man, Stilt-Man, and Squirrel Girl.

Long story short, MvC2 takes as much skill at top tier play as any other well-regarded fighting game, and I think pay-to-play and exlcusive characters could muck up the competitive aspect.

@James I know people play MvC2 competitvely. I'll admit, I've even watched some matches online because I find the high-level play to be pretty interesting. But I don't think anyone's going to make the claim that MvC2 is balanced. The fact that there are definitive tiers is proof of that.

I think it's sad that a game company is promising post-release support for a title and people are complaining about HOW their going about it. Capcom doesn't deserve this and in my opinion, this article didn't need to be written.