Poll: Did CAPCOM cross a line with RE5 DLC?

[Lukeydoodly]

yes, they did.

It's not DLC.

It's just

C.

If your DLC isn't DLC, and you charge for it like it's DLC, then you've crossed the line

They wouldn't have crossed the line if it were DLC though - there's been much worse DLC for much more money.

But if you're going to have DLC, at least make it DLC.

I lold.

Pretty much shows how cheap CAPCOM is.

 

[Deguasser]

I don't think so. As long as you beat the game you get the versus mode but if your too lazy like some people or just don't have enough time you might want to buy it.

 

[Sinvel]

If people bought a new Jonas Brothers CD, which included 10 tracks and an additional 3 bonus tracks, which you can't hear until you buy them as DLC over the internet, they would be as p*ssed off as we are with the RE5 DLC.

Yeah.. I think you really hit the point on that example -- why aren't music companies doing this more often? Because all the of buyers of the cd will look at the DLC and say, "pffff the company wants more money, that's nice" and very quickly and easily download the remaining tracks for free from the internet without batting an eye. I'd hate to say it, but if this game came out on the PC, there wouldn't be any complaints to be heard. They can only pull off this DLC bullcrap only on consoles, since you're forced to pay or just shut up.
Not to bash anybody here I own an 360 myself and I think this is complete bullsh*t that we have to pay for content that's already been developed for the game.
"They have a different development team who worked on the multiplayer DLC, so they have a different budget" Does that like make any sense to you? If there was a 'differnt' development team working on the DLC, they still have to be working closely, and concurrently, with the main team developing the game, because the multiplayer is BASED on the actual game -- not separated and unrelated material. It's like you buying that same music cd and having to pay extra for a few bounus tracks and saying that, 'oh a different development team working on those tracks, so you have to pay extra' It's all a load of BS --anyone looking at this situation will just come out and say they just wanted more money.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

No since its not a patch, patches should be free but so should them fixing the game through game play...er...fixes... then again if they would fix the games I might actually buy DLC just to make the damned unfinished thing more fun to play...

 

[Groovewood]

No, and I think people are totally overreacting to it. Versus mode is totally an extra mode that was not in development the entire time the game was, evidence by it being announced 2 days before the game shipped. I highly, highly doubt competitive multiplayer was part of the original ideas behind RE 5, and it was never promised to include it, as opposed to say co-op play or mercenaries. It's an extra mode, announced way later, and frankly something completely new that nobody figured would actually be put into the game.

The bottom line is, RE 5 is a complete game without vs mode. Not only is it clear that vs was a very slipshod addition to the game, but it's something no one expected to be part of the game.

 

[Gherkins]

Picture the scene:

You have just beaten Portal. "Wow, that was fun," You think to yourself, "I have heard lots about this ending, I hope the song is as good as everyone says..."

It starts...

"This was a tri-" The screen pops up with a message...

"Huh? What's going on here?"

"We're glad you purchased and enjoyed Portal, if you would like to hear the rest of the song and see the credits, you can purchase the Song + Credits Pack from the Xbox Live Marketplace for 200 MS points."

This is just as awful as if valve had done that with portal. You should have access to everything on the disc that you payed money for.

 

[Kevka]

and sorry to break it to you...
the law is not on your side either.
just a little further down...

Section 109
(B) This subsection does not apply to --

(i) a computer program which is embodied in a machine or product and which cannot be copied during the ordinary operation or use of the machine or product; or

(ii) a computer program embodied in or used in conjunction with a limited purpose computer that is designed for playing video games and may be designed for other purposes.

the laws you are citing are directly tied only to the owner ship and copyright of Sound files and recordings... nothing more.

>:/

Well, thanks for pointing that out. Now I'll know not to use this source on my presentation coming up, which was nicely on a similar issue as this thread.

Of course, it just means that the government isn't behind me.

My argument's changed to "I should technically own the content that I purchased and the government should back me up on this. What I do with my purchase shouldn't be subject to anybody's rule but mine, so long as it doesn't hurt anyone's wallet.

It's like THQ having the gall to tell me I have to register my store-bought copy of Dawn of War II with my Steam account, therefore making it subject to the Steam Subscriber's Agreement. Irks me every goddamn time.

 

[CyberAkuma]

I don't get the bog fuss about it.
Resident Evil 5 was released on the Xbox360 and Playstation 3 - consoles whose main marketing philosophy is to make money out of them.

They are a lot of things in these consoles that you should had to pay for - and this DLC is one of them. I really don't understand what really is the big deal. This is MICROSOFT and SONY we are talking about here.

 

[MrSnugglesworth]

No they didn't. Capcom is a COMPANY. They're out to make PROFIT. If you hate it so much then don't buy it.

Because, you know... they don't have enough money already.

 

[chipmunk2510]

No they didn't. Capcom is a COMPANY. They're out to make PROFIT. If you hate it so much then don't buy it.

This.

Oh for fuck sake! Look, Capcom already made their money when everyone went and spent forty-five fucking pounds on the fucking game! Unlike all you teenage Randians living at home with your parents, some of us have actually got rent to pay and food to buy. If I buy a game, I damn well expect to be able to access everything on the disc, especially considering that for the same amount of money I could buy enough food to last me two weeks!

Wow. Alright. Look. Did I say I agreed with Capcom? No. All I said was that a business has the right TO DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THEIR PRODUCT. Well almost anything anyway.

And by the way. This isn't a personal battle you fuck. I'm just stating the truth.

 

[RheynbowDash]

No they didn't. Capcom is a COMPANY. They're out to make PROFIT. If you hate it so much then don't buy it.

This.

Oh for fuck sake! Look, Capcom already made their money when everyone went and spent forty-five fucking pounds on the fucking game! Unlike all you teenage Randians living at home with your parents, some of us have actually got rent to pay and food to buy. If I buy a game, I damn well expect to be able to access everything on the disc, especially considering that for the same amount of money I could buy enough food to last me two weeks!

Boo freaking hoo. Again, you dont like what Capcom does with DLC and their games, dont buy them.

 

[EzraPound]

No they didn't. Capcom is a COMPANY. They're out to make PROFIT. If you hate it so much then don't buy it.

Oh, I forgot, thanks for reminding me.

A big part of profitability is not alienating your customers, so by defending Capcom's eagerness to push the boundaries of consumer disregard in the handling of the DLC, you're effectively complicit with such practices. This is actually a vital part of the way supply and demand works, and gives companies an impetus to treat consumers with respect - the fear of backlash.

Oh, and I should mention: I'm actually abstaining from purchasing RE5 owing to the news of what they're doing. A small thing, I know - I'm not the countercultural type that boycotts McDonald's solely for the sake of doing so - but I hope it'll send a message. Likewise with people that merely refuse to download the DLC: they'll have their effect.

 

[Crowser]

I wouldn't be so pissed if that mode was actually good...

RE was not meant for multilayer, it all usually boils down to two people run at each other until there is NO possible way for a single bullet to miss, and then hope your machine gun is better than their machine gun.

It could have been truly great if they had made some maps just for multilayer, (merc maps = killing zombies, not people) put a ton of objects that you could use the take cover option on, made it so people died in 2-3 pistol bullets, and had 8v8 matches. Awesome.

Instead we get an even clunkier gears with no cover system or melee. And annoying zombies running around. God i hate those things when I'm trying to shoot someone.

 

[MecaEcco]

For those uninitiated the question before us is whether or not CAPCOM crossed a line for charging for a game feature that is essentially already on the disk. In other words the only thing you get when you purchase the DLC from Xbox live or PS store is an unlock key that opens up content already on the game.

Here is the IGN article: http://xboxlive.ign.com/articles/970/970396p1.html

This actually happens all the time, more than you would think. I don't really like that Capcom was singled out here. Resident Evil 5 was a complete game without the DLC and this is why it doesn't bother me. DLC is supposed to be something extra, and that's what you paid for here. I think that if the game felt incomplete without the DLC I would be angry. DLC is frequently worked on before games are actually released/shipped, so if Capcom was able to get their DLC done and shipped on the Disc more power to them. It actually makes everything easier when getting things done on the developer side.On a side note... releasing DLC at the same time as/ very near to the launch date of a game is a very good idea. If it is launched while the game is still hot, its beneficial to both the company and the player. The company makes more money, and the player gets extra game awesomeness while they are still interested in the game.

You pointed out the problem at hand..."if the game FELT incomplete..." That is a very subjective assessment. You clearly feel that the game was complete, whereas others may not. One way to draw a line in the sand is to look at whether or not the content is on the disk already. You paid for that multiplayer mode and I think many gamers feel that this is double dipping. In your argument you assume your reader is interested in CAPCOM making more money and that the development processes is easier on the game makers. I personally don't care about those things. I'm a gamer not a developer...so I'm not interested in CAPCOM's bottom line...I'm interested in mine and I'm interested in getting a good game for a good value. Do not let your respect for a companies previous efforts cloud your judgment of where your loyalties need to lie. Just because you respect CAPCOM doesn't mean you shouldn't hold their feet to the fire when they nickel and dime you. On the other hand if you had made the argument that DLC on the disk keeps the content off your hard drive making more room for other content I would have found your position more appealing.

Well, none of that matters in the end. Maybe you believe that since you bought the disc you own everything on it and it's not right for you to pay for something you already own? That's not true. Let's apply this idea to a CD before I go any further. When you buy a CD do you own the music on the disc? No you don't. You have bought the right to listen to that music on the disc for your own personal use. You are not allowed to do whatever you want with it... like upload it to a sharing site where tons of people can download it for free or using it as back ground music for your new TV show you have in production. It's not yours. You have bought the right to listen to it. When you buy a game disc, you have bought the rights to play the game and game options that are advertised on the box. To go back to Resident Evil 5, no where on the box (or in the booklet for that matter), does it say that you are receiving the bonus multiplayer mode for purchasing the disc. You got what you paid for. Remember, you didn't even know it was there until CAPCOM told you so.

I agree I don't own the rights to the game. I can't publicly perform the game or take the music from it and call it my own work or put the game code online for others to download (as you have analogized to a CD). But in your analogy this stunt from CAPCOM would be as if you bought a music CD and you had to pay a premium fee to play the last track. To my knowledge this sales tactic has not been employed by any of the major record labels I am familiar with.

 

[-Orpheus-]

I am not against DLC by any means. Some of it is clearly developed way after the original release of a game and helps keep it fresh. Stuff like this, however, that was ready at the time the game went on sale is a bit naughty. Yes, they are a business and all that but it is not like we don't pay quite a bit if we buy games when they are still new. I have not and will not be buying this particular bit of DLC for that very reason.

 

[Shepard's Shadow]

No. DLC is extra content. I dont agree with how they did it, and wouldnt purchase DLC like that, but I dont have a problem w/ it. They just want to make more money and if that is how they chose to do it then it is there perogative.