| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Care to tell us when that has ever worked? Sonic Team seems to think that constant failure is winning. | |
I would say they had a point if they were releasing it several months after the initial launch of the game. Releasing it just a few weeks after the game came out meant they had it developed, or at least almost complete, and they want some extra money for it. Yes it's entirely within their right to want more money, but it reeks of bad business. But in the end it's up the consumer, if we all show them we're willing to pay five bucks for a function that was already completed a few weeks after we buy the game, then it will become far more common for the companies to do this. If I'm going to pay for DLC it should reflect the fact that team put alot of extra effort into creating it, such as the Fallout or GTA 4 DLC. They're like the mission packs I used to spend 25-30 dollars retail back in the day for Quake, Quake 2, Half-Life, Warcraft, etc... but they cost less as DLC. Those were almost new games though, paying for DLC which was almost complete and would've delayed the release date by a few weeks to implement isn't worth buying. | |
In Sonic Team's bizarro world where Sonic is a yeti, failing IS winning! | |
How is this different from all the other games that newly introduce a multiplayer or online mode they didn't have before? (Every single multiplayer/online game) We're paying for AN ENTIRE GAME! You shouldn't be able to hide behind the fact that your game is a sequel as an excuse for its inferiority. | |
One thing i never got about console DLC, you guys have to pay for it. And you dont get the massive mod community either which would gladly do the same work for free. | |
The name has a character limit which annoys me, especially if I had to pay to get one. I hate being "El Arab De Magnfco" (no I's) Though, lets not hijack a news thread. As for my thoughts, we're talking to the guys who charged for difficulty levels on Megaman 9. This could have been 20 dollars and I wouldn't have been surprised. | |
They should have released this DLC pack, at least months after the game had been released to retail stores and what's not. While I wouldn't mind to extend the replay value of a game with DLCs, it's a little bit amateurish to release a gaming component, in this case multiplayer ,which is seen as to be included in a retail package, although, releasing it later, would have been seen more as a bonus than a subterfuge from Capcom to try to get more "moneh!". Then again, Unreal 2 received it's multiplayer component as a free DLC months after the game was shipped. | |
"Although Versus mode makes use of the assets that exist in the game, the functionality is not currently in the game and is above and beyond the initial scope of Resident Evil 5," You can't charge users for throwaway DLC like this. This game is going to generate enough money to feed a 3rd world country, and seeing as they took away the great control scheme from RE4 Wii Edition, doing this feels like a bully stealing your puppy and then kicking you down the stairs for crying. | |
Yes well Capcom those game's arn't exactly cheap in all cases and you make a fair bit of profit off the main bloody thing, so is it too much to ask for something free once in a while, or heck even give those that buy the limited edition free multiplayer? I would have understood if basic Resi Evil 5 had to pay but everyone? Plus is a game which is notorious for not letting you move when shooting going to take off on the multi-player stage? | |
Resident Evil versus mode... lol | |
This. I'd understand if they released something like a separate story mode, or released it with more content like the L4D survival pack. (Oh wait that will be free) | |
I was thinking the same thing, They probably didn't include it because it probably sucks. If it's DLC it won't really be counted against the overall "quality" of the game. Besides, we're getting EXACTLY what I expected out of RE5, who cares about paying for a lame little extra that in no way contributes to the overall Resident Evil Experience. Now if they made us pay for the "Mercenaries" mode I'd be annoyed. | |
It's their product, they can do what they want. You don't like it don't buy it. It's only £3.60 or something. I think it's quite funny how some people seem to think they're owed stuff beyond the original contents of the box. | |
Call of duty "free" (excluding the xbox live fee) online play and ability, now why the hell capcom should i pay for yours? go ahead i have time sales pitch it to me. | |
You don't get it the contents of the box SHOULD include the damn multiplayer. It's funny how you can just toss 5$ away on something as totally greedy as this bull your the reason why this asinine quest for money actually works | |
Wait a fucking second guys.... Read THIS "Although Versus mode makes use of the assets that exist in the game, GOD DAMNIT - Capcom making us pay if we want to unlock Costumes for SF4, and to unlock difficulty levels for Megaman 9, and now we need to "unlock" versus and co-op mercs mode. | |
Whoa, calm it down there newbie. This is the nature of business. Companies see a new way to make money, and they take it. Would you rather these companies didn't bother making the extra content, and released the products without them? Because you can bet Capcom wouldn't have bothered putting on multiplayer otherwise. I'm willing to bet it's something of an afterthought. And yet if people want to play it, they'll pay for it and there's little you can do to stop that. Clearly, a lot of consumers don't care about spending a few points on something fun, so who can blame Capcom? I myself will be downloading the content. As for this whole Sonic argument, grow the hell up. Tonnes of people still buy these games, clearly because they happen to get a lot of enjoyment out of them. If you shudder at the thought of Sega or any other games company making money, then it's time to find a new hobby. It's sort of like blaming Kinder Surprise for charging more for putting the shit toy in the middle. Sure it's expensive for what it is, but lot's of people still pay the extra money for it again and again. | |
The DLC perplexes me a bit. I guess I really can't see a reason to play an RE game in versus mode to begin with. Still seems a bit of a 'Dick move' anyway. Could have been worse though, they could have included competitive and sold Co-op. | |
It`s not the priceing i`m unhappy about it`s more the fact that capcom seem to have help this back in order to milk it`s deluded fanbase dry that pisses me off | |
You dumbass, don't you get what he's saying? He's absolutely right! If they had said "There will be a free multiplayer mode" and then charged for it, fine, get angry. But that's not the case, the online mode is an extra feature. Resident Evil has never had an online mode before, think yourself lucky you get it for this cheap! | |
I thought Resident Evil games were already versus games... you know, humans versus zombies? :P I guess Capcom has the right to charge for an extra feature, but it's the timing that makes it suspect: this was released way too fast to be something they just came up with after the game's release, so it must have been under development for the original release. They probably couldn't finish it in time for the planned release date, so they chose to release after and charge for the privilege. | |
Valve makes tons of extra content for their games and they dont ask for money...I still doesnt understand the point of paying for DLC. Like someone said for the PC theres tons of mods and people do it for free and at best they get a "Thanks dudes!" from the comunity. And sometimes when the planets get aligned they might get hired! | |
1. This is why Valve are generally liked more than most other companies. Point being, whilst Valve and a couple of others give away content quite liberally, we shouldn't expect the same of others. It's easiest for Valve, because they are constantly working with the Source Engine anyway, so any fixes they do for Left 4 Dead or Half Life 2 Ep 2 could potentially be progress for thewir next project anyway. On the other hand, most other companies work with different engines all the time, which makes constant delivery of new and free content illogical when compared to the benefits of simply moving on to the next thing. | |
Maybe it's just me, but I'm seeing this more from a glass half full perspective. They developed a play mode that, given the nature of the series, is likely to have limited appeal - if it doesn't just suck outright. Then, rather than include it in every copy of the game and build the development cost into the basic price everyone pays, they release it as a separate add-on that only the people who really want it will have to pay for. Sounds like a good trade-off to me. As someone who's only interested in the single-player content, I'll save money. | |
And this is Capcoms world where they believe that a good villain for a Horror game is the size of an eight year old boy, dresses like someone put under the blade at the Bastille, and keeps acting like you're no threat when you've slaughtered half his men. | |
They feel none of them are as good. They also feel the game itself is more than worth the price of the full game. | |
Throw in a couple fake chopped up bodies and Im in | |
So, basically Capcom is saying that because they are the ones with the limited scope, they are going to make their customers pay for it. Yeah, i guess that sounds about right.
Agreed. haha | |
What about the Medic/Pyro/Heavy/Scout pack? The DoD:S game engine overhaul and map pack. And maybe someday when CS fans stop bitching around, the graphics overhaul for CS:S. And you mentioned the L4D survival pack. Also is not like Capcom is a poor gaming developer, they could have given this DLC for free cause its coming so soon you wonder why it wasnt in-game already. If it was released 6 months after or later it would have made more sense. Maybe Capcom spended those 6 months making this new mode. But instead they release it weeks after and gives the players the sensation this mode was already prepared to be shipped out along with the game. I can give you an example of Empire:TW in which they cuted the Grand Campaign multiplayer part of the game and are going to re-patch it later when they are done testing. And its free. See they could have kept their mouths shut about it, come 2 months after they announce it as DLC and put a price over it, and people buy it. But did they? No. They said that E:TW would have GC multiplayer but it wasnt going to be released as part of the game, but instead it would be patched later for no price. And yes E:TW is a complete new engine like RE5 yet Creative Assembly decided to give that part of the game for free, on a later stage. | |
Its $5..... Don't want it? don't buy it. =_= | |
thai is not that bad... | |
It's on the game disc, you just pay 5 dollars to unlock it. | |
Ohhhhh. I get it now. | |
They're already charging the going market rate of $60 U.S. They wouldn't have gotten away with charging any more, since this is pretty much the market decided rate of new games, aside from the collectors editions that a lot of companies spew out. Adding in the already functional VS. mode and delaying the game wouldn't have cost them that much more money, since it's obvious it was already pretty functional at the time of release. It's not the fact that it's an un-needed feature, or that it's only five dollars, it's the fact that the component was probably already completed or close to it when the game shipped, and now they're trying to get more money for it. Yes it's fine that they're trying to make money, but as a consumer you have to stop and realize that you're paying this company to make games, and if they start charging for things that should've or could've been in the game to begin with, then you might want to show them that you're not ready to get screwed over just because you enjoy their products. This is why I prefer PC games, companies will charge for full length mission packs, but any updates or patches to the core game are free. | |
| (Pages: 1, 2) | |
Extra Punctuation
Experienced Points
MovieBob: Intermission
First Person
Miracle of Sound: Encore
Loading Time
Hexproof
Ask Dr Mark
Backchat
Drinking Games
Escape to the Movies
Escapecraft
Escapist Podcast
Feed Dump
GinxTV
Jimquisition
LoadingReadyRun
Meatbag and Co
Media Sandwich
Miracle of Sound
No Right Answer
Pro-Gamer Gauntlet
Reviews
Tales from the Table
The Big Picture
The Escapist Presents
Trailers
Unskippable
Zero Punctuation
The Darkness II Review
Reckoning Review
Exodus Review
Final Fantasy XIII-2 Review
Scarygirl Review
Amy Review
Critical Miss
Name Game
Capcom Defends RE5 DLC Pricing
Plenty of gamers are miffed that they have to pay for Resident Evil 5's competitive Versus Mode DLC, but Capcom thinks the price tag is wholly justified, considering the circumstances.
Yesterday's announcement of the just-released Resident Evil 5's Versus Mode DLC, which will add a competitive multiplayer mode to the game for the cost of $4.99 on PSN and 400 MS Points on Xbox Live, was met with some scorn from gamers. It wasn't a huge uproar, but people were understandably upset that Capcom would be asking them to pay for a mode that they argued should already be in the game.
The company has responded to these criticisms, defending the mode as worthy of charging for considering the context of the series and the game itself. "Although Versus mode makes use of the assets that exist in the game, the functionality is not currently in the game and is above and beyond the initial scope of Resident Evil 5," a Capcom representative told MSXboxWorld.
They also pointed to the fact that releasing the DLC isn't exactly cost-free for themselves. "We have never included a versus mode in Resident Evil before, and as well as the costs of development of the feature, there's also additional bandwidth costs associated with it," Capcom explained.
Some valid points, but nothing that'll assuage the critics. Well, if you don't want it, don't buy it. Vote with your wallets, folks.
Permalink