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?
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…
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.
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.