I care. This stuff sets a precedent. We're in a generation where companies are trying to push blocked used games, always online, half of a game locked out via unlock codes, and pay-to-win schemes. I do not want games to go down that route further than they already have. I would rather see my hobby go down in flames than see those practices become rampant. SFxT was Capcom testing these things out to see how willing people are to bend over for their product. It's important to turn around and return the favor.
The difference is that you think it's okay, and I don't.
Consumer law has been going to hell. I'm still waiting for companies to be able to patent my genes so I have to pay them royalties for the license usage.
I think it's okay because I haven't seen people suggest a better alternative for both consumers and developers, and people keep pointing the fingers at publishers trying to stay afloat (and we all know how many have died this gen) when the root of the issue is archaic platform standards from Sony/MS/Nintendo.
Next gen, with PC-like patching on the PS4 and maybe Durango, people are still going to have to download online compatibility packs to see DLC characters they don't have and pay to unlock the characters they want. I think it's trivial to get caught up on this stuff when the bottom line doesn't really change. Suddenly one process is more ethical than another but produce the same result.
SFxTK embodies
a lot that is wrong with this gen, all in one game, and Capcom is definitely at fault for exploiting the circumstances, but I see it more as a consequence of antiquated platforms that aren't ready for a post-Minecraft and like games world that set a precedent for consumer support.
The practice is anti-consumer, yes. But I find it hard to expect more of developers unless they completely drop that revenue stream of DLC and incur the penalties from platform holders for supporting the consumers otherwise. It's a trap for developers trying to fund expensive games which leads to a trap for consumers.