Capcom announced on Monday that the game would be getting a TMNT crossover, which would include new costumes, accessories, emotes, stamps and more.
At the time of the announcement Capcom neglected to including pricing information, but now that the new content is available in the game its various costs are clear.
Players can buy four full Turtle costumes for their in-game avatar, with each costing 750 Fighter Coins, which are the game’s premium currency. If they just want the coloured Turtle masks for their avatar, those cost 250 Fighter Coins each.
The game also includes sticker sets (priced at 100 Fighter Coins), taunts (250), in-game camera frames (100) and in-game device wallpapers (100), at a total cost of 1300.
In all, then, the total cost of all the TMNT content is 5300 Fighter Coins. While these can be earned, they’re mostly bought with real money.
Fighter Coins are sold in bundles of 250, 610, 1250 and 2750. Assuming a player has no Fighter Coins, then, the cheapest way to buy all the TMNT content would be to buy two bundles of 2750 Fighter Coins.
This has a total cost of $99.98 / £79.96, significantly more than the full game’s price of $59.99 / £54.98.
A player wishing to buy a single Turtle costume at 750 Fighter Coins would have to buy a bundle of 1250, costing $23.99 / £18.98. It costs $100 to unlock all of Street Fighter 6’s TMNT content
It should be noted that these costumes aren’t new playable fighters – instead, they’re skins for the player’s avatar, who’s mainly used in the game’s World Tour mode.
In comparison, when the TMNT were added to Warner Bros‘ DC fighting game Injustice 2, the fighter pack cost $19.99 / £15.99 and contained all four Turtles as separate, fully-fledged fighters, as well as two extra fighters, Atom and Enchantress.
The Street Fighter 6 collaboration is designed to tie in with the release of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem, the latest TMNT feature film, which is currently in cinemas.
It should be noted that these costumes aren’t new playable fighters – instead, they’re skins for the player’s avatar, who’s mainly used in the game’s World Tour mode.
In comparison, when the TMNT were added to Warner Bros‘ DC fighting game Injustice 2, the fighter pack cost $19.99 / £15.99 and contained all four Turtles as separate, fully-fledged fighters, as well as two extra fighters, Atom and Enchantress.
The Street Fighter 6 collaboration is designed to tie in with the release of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Mutant Mayhem, the latest TMNT feature film, which is currently in cinemas.
If people are willing to spend the money, what’s wrong with it. I wouldn’t pay for that trash, but it’s their IP. If people don’t like it- don’t play it.
I don’t get the problem.
Have you thought carefully? Or have you not thought much about it?
I’ll give you a benefit of the doubt and pretend like you’re asking seriously rather than trolling.
One problem is that, if studios are primarily focused on maximising immediate profit, game design suffers. Games are no longer designed, for example, to have a nice finite story because finite stories mean finite cash. It’s better to design massive multiplayer games that continue to squeeze cash from players.
You already see the effects of this in 2023. Games that were created in the 80s and 90s and 00s would never be made today by big studios because they cannot maintain a constant source of profit.
The idea of “if people don’t like it then don’t play it” assumes that there is a healthy competition for game design. Have you not noticed the dearth of offline single player games?
I’d say this case is a bit different though. It’s all cosmetic. I guess you can argue that tmnt/other branded adds dilute the game’s aesthetic and make it a worse product overall. However, that would be the case whether or not they were paid. Costumes and other purely aesthetic paid DLC are probably the least egregious of paid content.
Paid cosmetics mean that you don’t earn the cosmetics through normal gameplay. It fundamentally sabotages the way progression and rewards work, replacing fun, user serving game design with cash grabbing addiction mechanics.
There is literally no circumstance where any microtransaction is forgivable. The mere existence of microtransactions irreparably destroys the experience.
The fun in a fighting game is the core gameplay loop and improving. Showing off progress isn’t through a skin, it’s by your performance. If someone dislikes the core loop, they’re likely not playing long even if there’s a hat they think is really cool
The fun in any game is all of it.
They’re taking away stuff to sell back to you. It’s not possible to have microtransactions in your game and be a decent human being.
These people get really butthert here over cosmetics. And trying to argue that if a company has a division dedicated towards monetizing cosmetics that it actually hurts the game is ludicrous.
We are talking about cosmetic DLC that you can also buy using ingame currency, that’s exactly the thing that most DLC should be - optional cosmetic things you can get if you want to, with no real impact on the game itself.
This would be a whole different story if they were selling four new playable characters for $100, but they aren’t.
They are bloody expensive though.
Even this is not quite good. I want to finish whole game and unlock these goodies by playing not spending money. Even though it’s not essential for gameplay it’s better that you are rewarded by these goodies for actually playing the game.
I don’t mind paying for big story DLC like Blood and Wine from The Witcher game but to pay for some cosmetic stuff which should be part of the game is big no no…
this is a fighting game series from the 80’s, what are you on about?
It’s still their IP. Which is my point. Complaint about what someone does with their product is incredibly pointless to me. If for makes a shitty car- I don’t buy ford. If McDonald’s makes shitty food, I don’t buy McDonald’s. Why are gamers so entitled that they think they get to dictate what game developers do with their own product?
If you don’t like capitalism, fix it with your vote. But don’t make the mistake that you get to decide what a company does with their IP unless you are a shareholder.
I understand your position but the problem here is that it is a business model that seems to be successful. This makes other companies and product follow suit. This fact changes the quality of the games produced in the future for the worse (arguably) because they are now designed to get you to spend money on cosmetics instead of you know actually liking the game for what it is.
Again, I don’t see the problem. It’s THEIR product. We are consumers. We have the power, not them. Don’t buy and/or play the game if you don’t like their business practice. Speak with your wallet/purse… But don’t think you have the authority to tell them they can’t do this. Until capitalism is replaced by another system of economic government, this is how things should be. Take the good with the bad.
Voting wallets is what brought us here. Free market does not have the consumers best interest as their prinary driver. It’s money. This discussion is on how us consumers feel about the businesses response to the market and how they are exploiting human weaknesses to get quick cash and how this phenomena shapes the market for the future. It does not look good. That is what we are saying.
No, it’s whining and bitching about how they shouldn’t be allowed to do it. About how it’s “unethical” and “evil.”
It’s capitalism. Nothing more. It’s not unethical to charge money for a service. If you don’t want it- don’t fucking buy it. They’re not going to give shit away for free. And if they’re gouging- fuck them. Don’t buy it.
But don’t think because you’re a “paying customer” you have the right to expect them to stop doing shit because you don’t like it. Gaming is a business. Open your own development studio and make free games if that’s what you want, but you have no say in wether a company decides to use micro transactions. And for the record,
I don’t play a single game that uses them. I think it’s a garbage grifting mechanism, but I don’t assume I have any authority to suggest they can’t do it.
I fully agree with you. If this helps give Capcom money to continue developing SF6 with more content for the actual game then I’m all for it. And I’m sure Capcom got some money from Nickelodeon for their collab as well. I plan on spending $0 on this, but I’ve seen a few players in the SF6 Battle Hub already with the skins. They look cool and I hope they enjoy their purchase.
Your entire post is bad, but this is the most egregious.
No Capcom is PAYING Nickelodeon to add their characters to SF6… Likely paying them a cut of the sales as well.
Continue to make you pay for… Instead wouldn’t it be nice if they just put out a full game, and then worked on a sequel instead of dealing with this microtransaction bullshit?
Fighting games live and die by its playerbase. This isn’t some RPG you put 40 hrs in and then move on. The DLC model greatly improved Street Fighter. It allows existing players to keep playing their game and not be forced to rebuy the $60 “Super” version every few years. SF4 I had to buy 3 times just to keep playing with my one character online. Modern Fighting games are updated and new players can join with all the DLC by buying the latest version while old players can keep using their existing game and upgrade when they feel it’s appropriate at a moderate price, all while playing with the same player base.
I’d love to see Capcoms deal with Nick. But even if they’re paying it’s bringing in players who are interested. A lot of SF players grew up in arcades and TMNT was another popular arcade game, this is a good market overlap for a completely optional cosmetic DLC. It’s bringing in more players and continuing to fund a game with continuous updates, I haven’t seen a single SF player upset about these collab cosmetics.
So instead of paying 60 dollars for a new version you’re ok with them bilking other fans out of 60+ dollars for fandoms just so you might get a few extra trinkets?
Everytime I hear someone defending this practice it is more ridiculous than the time before.
Street Fighter 5 has over 175 dollars of DLC That’s not counting the extra 30 bucks for the premium pass. But hey, I know it’s “Optional”
And that’s the content TODAY, people have calculate all the DLC as it came out in SF5… they would have (or did) pay 1400 dollars for everything.
Shit man, paying 60 bucks every couple of years was such shit, I’m glad I can pay at least 150 dollars for all the characters, and another couple hundred for the costumes and stages… Thank god I don’t have to buy a new game every couple years where I’d get these things at a reasonable price.
More players to be bilked out of money so you can don’t have to worry about an online characters.
You’re ignoring that Capcom rebundles all of the DLC every year as sells that as the new version.
SF5 Arcade Edition was $50 retail. SF5 Champion Edition is $30 retail and that includes $1300 worth of the DLC you claim.
No one individually buys the base game and every DLC individually after for a fighting game. That’s a hyperbolic situation.
You could simply buy the newest bundle every year like you suggest. And still have the existing player base. And you could opt to not buy it and play with all the new players. Every copy of SF4 and MvC3 is useless because they’re not the Ultimate versions. But every copy of SF5 and SF6 can still play the latest version of the game.
NO ONE is missing out on any content from not buying a TNMT skin. It has no impact on the gameplay or even cosmetically in the actual game. This was a fun collab for fans that you got spun up about doomsday for the gaming industry. And no one would insanely buy all 4. Every SF player knows this is a fun cosmetic to help fund the $2mil investment into the competitive scene that’s keeping this game thriving.
You know this isn’t true, but hey. Keep that up, defend that company, I’m sure they’ll give you something for being a loyal fan… or not, because they don’t give a shit about you, they care more about the people who are paying the 170 dollars, But you’re simping for them so they really are happy with that… not going to do anything for you, but they love that you’ll defend their shitty practices.
Being able to go back and play the base MvC3 game is great, Being able to see the evolution of both games even now is something I appreciate. Instead now when I get SF5, the original game is gone, and all you get is the hyper over produced game. Remember when they wanted ads in the game? If you bought the game before that, and didn’t want that… oh you’re fucked because the game changed and you don’t get a choice. I’m glad they removed it, but you seem to not give a shit about any type of preservation.
So wait I can dress up as Donatello? Oh wait I can’t because I haven’t paid 14 bucks for the right. So I am missing out on content. You might not cosmetics are content, but I’ll tell you about this time long ago when you got costumes, outfits, and the rest all in the 60 dollar title with out more money being teased out of you the whole time. It was a long time ago, but it was a better time.
You’re not serious about cosmetically? It’s impossible to discuss this with someone who is that lost. And if it really has so little value, then why would anyone pay for it… oh they pay for it because they want it, so there is some impact on the player or cosmetically… So pretending like there’s no reason for someone to pick it up makes no sense. But do go on.
LOL…
Correct me if I’m mistaken, but didn’t they? Isn’t this just cosmetic bullshit and nothing to do with character access and gameplay?
It is cosmetic bullshit, but that’s kind of the problem, it’s 100 dollars of cosmetic bullshit to milk out of super fans, and you don’t even get an actual character, just a costume you can dress up as. That 750 FC is JUST to look like them. (About 14 dollars)
Most games have characters that are a 10th of the price of all this crap, instead you get bullshit cosmetics here… Just great.
I might be in the minority since I could not care ANY less about costumes/ skins, but I don’t mind if a game wants to promote things that do not influence gameplay.
I personally take issue when games put content or characters or things that directly impact performance or progression (like weapons or armor) begins paywalls, or if producers uses lootboxes (essentially promoting gambling). But if there is an actual market for cosmetics and fans want to buy them, I say more power to them.
deleted by creator
Would you prefer buying SF6 Ultra and then SF6 Turbo for 60 bucks a pop? OR would you prefer paying 150 dollars over that same time for less content, since that’s JUST the characters?
I’d much rather buying a complete game, playing it, and then being able to move on to another game after a couple years. This idea that games have to linger for 5-10 years is awful. Shit like Destiny where they “Sunset” content, instead of just making Destiny 3 make no sense, except from corporate greed. Seeing GTA 5 exist for 10 years, almost the same amount of time that GTA 3, Vice City, San Andreas, AND GTA 4 came out in? That’s better? Since when?
“On going support and development” is just a way they get people to defend this shitty practice. Because you’re paying more for less now. And the companies get more money for doing less. That’s why all these companies are hoping on the Games as Service models, it’s not for the customer’s benefit, it’s for the developers/publishers, who are making shit tons more when putting out less content.
These are just designed as skinner boxes, which almost could be fine, except people like you are defending the practice watching others paying out the noise, and claiming “At least I don’t have to pay for ‘Support’”… Quite gross.
You can make assumptions all you want but they’re just that and you shouldn’t be flaunting them as fact.
The fact is we don’t know the details of the agreement between Capcom and Nickelodeon. There are also Turtles action figures where they are dressed like Street Fighter characters so the promotion goes in both directions.
For all we know these prices could have been set by Nickelodeon.
I’m not defending Capcom as much as saying don’t jump to conclusions without concrete evidence. I think these are extremely poorly priced but I’m still hopeful that the Outfit 3 DLC for the playable cast will be reasonably priced (I’ll probably eat those words though, it’s modern Capcom.)
99.9 percent of licensing deals work this way, the ones who don’t are cross collaboration (A lets B use a character, and B lets A use a character). Someone has an IP. Someone licenses that IP for their project. Licensee pays licenser for their property. I’ve worked in the game industry for 12 years, on games with multiple deals like this, that’s how it works.
Sure Nickelodeon could have forced the prices, and yet Capcom still agreed to them… but that’s typically not how this works because Nickelodeon isn’t a game company so they would understand they don’t have a fundamental understanding of the value of their property in a game market, and their goal is to make as much money as possible. Capcom’s setting the prices thinking they’ll earn the most money as possible from the licensee, and for their game. Even in the one off chance of Nickelodeon trying to dictate the price, I already said it but it’s important to repeat… Capcom agreed, but that’s almost definitely not happening.
You say you’re not defending Capcom, but you’re doing a great job of it in your comment.
But we do know how these deals work almost every other time… well I do. You seem to try to grasp at straws and make a theory thinking if it sounds plausible it’s equally valid and thus probable. It’s not.
I’m not making a theory, my only theory is to not jump to conclusions and make assumptions. If that’s defending Capcom then so be it.
I’m angry about the Turtle costume prices too, I’m just not going to buy them.
All I’m saying is we have to wait until we see the prices for the character alts to really grab the pitchforks. The first paid DLC is cross promotional, there isn’t enough data to extrapolate from to assume that the character costumes will also be overpriced.
And yes, I am saying that just because you work in the industry doesn’t mean you should state something you can’t possibly know without insider information as fact. Of course unless you secretly work at Capcom/Nickelodeon and don’t wanna say publicly :)