Well I guess I am just confused as to what you think the reasonable alternative is, for a company that wants to do right by its customers but can't ignore the mathematical reality of the cost of production. I get that you have an attachment to the traditional release model, but a company can't realistically operate at a loss in respect to its products just to give us that experience in perpetuum. You talk about the variable experiences you've had with Street Fighter games as your test case, so let me talk in those terms. Because you seem to be asserting that the differences in your satisfaction level result from pure greed/slipping standards/a declining cost-benefit ratio for the consumer (relative to the company producing the games) and, especially in the fighter genre, that's just not accurate for the most part.You misunderstand it seems. All I said was I don't like 'season passes'. Or 'roadmaps'. In short policies that treat customers like idiots who cannot think nor have any desire to do so all the while fostering this attitude among them. I said I'm no expert and it's not my job to sell games to people. All I'm saying is if the game company want me to buy their games they need to do their jobs. If I'm not buying their games that's their job to fix. It's not my job to buy games and play them.
Expecting people who just want to enjoy the games they paid for with the money they did work for to use that money not to enjoy games like they may as well have not bothered and then getting upset and writing chunks of word salad in response sounds a little something like 'cutting off your nose to spite your face'. Wouldn't be my choice of words but waste not.
I don't care one way or another. Do your job is not something I should have to say nor shall I. It should be obvious. I merely point that out. Treat your customers like cattle who rely on you for something and see how that turns out. Alternatively glance left and right because they've been doing it all along.
Tis indeed meaningless to argue this point for or against. Tis how it is and it is unacceptable. Figuratively it's the difference between me walking into a store then picking up a game and buying it or never even crossing the threshold to consider the possibility. If you're perfectly happy with the way things are going and the companies feel comfortable with their direction as I am also with mine own there is absolutely no valid reason I would be willing to specify here for a change of direction for anyone. Even if I were to most vehemently disagree it's still not my job to stop anyone else nor do I have any particular care nor reason for doing so currently.
Frankly all I may do is take your respective word for it and wish you all the best as I always tend to and now do so.
This is my final word on the subject.
SFII cost much less to make than SFV did, for several reasons: 1) it took much, much less labor and physical resources to develop and produce a 16 bit game on the SNES than it takes to make a game for contemporary hardware; 2) the cost of that labor and those physical resources has gone up significantly in the last 30 years; and 3) there are more incidental costs to the production and release process (more marketing to compete with more games, more complex licensing, localization, and distribution processes, ect.). At the same time, they are expected to charge no more for the core game of SFV than they did for SFII. So while you seem to be implying that disrespectful, exploitative agendas are behind developments such as the season pass model, the reality is that the per-unit profit margins for fighter game developers have been, on average, shrinking for decades.
I mean, I respect what you're saying that you don't care to hyper-analyze the economics here. But at the same time, you do understand why that situation is arithmetically untenable, long term, right? If the costs to company of producing a new iteration of a product go up, year after year, decade after decade, while their per-unit pricepoint for their products stays fixed by convention, and they are also selling fewer units? Putting aside that every company can be expected to want to make a profit (and a company like Namco has a lot of properties to choose from and will select the ones which turn the largest profit), these companies generally wouldn't be in a position of even staying in the black if they continued to sell games in the old way and with a pricepoint fixed where it was in 1980. R = (c*v) - (d+p), where R=returns; c=sale cost per unit; v=volume of units sold; d=development costs; and p=production and transactional costs). If v goes down, c stays the same, and d and p shoot through the roof, R will steadily decline until it becomes infeasible for the publisher-developer to pursue production of that product.
And I just don't agree that this situation being what it is constitutes such a company "treating its customers like cattle" or that only an "idiot" would recognize that a business decision has to take solvency into account. Some genres of game just won't continue to exist if room is not made for the companies producing them to make a reasonable return on their effort. In that respect, season passes aren't the only way a company could continue to see a marginal profit on fighters, but I think (if we compare them against the alternatives) they are by far the most reasonable, fair, transparent, and consumer friendly way that these games can continue to be made (to the standards of modern technology, design, scale, and polish) without becoming money burning exercises. I'm honestly not trying to dismiss your sentiment that the old reality was simpler and in some respects a more intuitive way to purchase a product. But if you are going to reject wholesale the notion that continuing support sales are a reasonable way to remedy the otherwise tenuous situation, what solution would you recommend instead? Because personally I don't like any of the others nearly as much.