Poll: Did CAPCOM cross a line with RE5 DLC?

[RAWKSTAR]

I remember simple times in which I would buy a game without having to download more of 'the game'... Good times.

Anyway, yes Capcom are pushing it with this one.

 

[Weaver]

If this was all DLC, you'd pay a few dollars to play this new mode. The way it's presented here, you pay a few dollars to play this new mode. It's not any different.

Well, perhaps YOU would but I refuse to support this lecherous business model except in the few cases where it's actually worth it.

If a developer DELIBERATELY leaves things out of the game in order to charge their customers more then gaming has truly become a monster.

 

[Ladie Au Pair]

I'm done with this thread.
It makes me sad.

 

[SimuLord]

On a side note,
NO ONE SHOULD BE MAD AT CAPCOM, BUT RATHER CAPCOM'S MARKETING.

Being someone who is in the industry and seeing how this whole thing works from the inside, I really think that the developer's probably had nothing to do with it and marketing made the call. The Capcom guys may even resent there marketing team for this....

Nothing good has EVER come out of a marketing department. I majored in business my first time in college (right after high school; I'm going back to major in accounting) and the sorts of people who were drawn to marketing classes were exactly the sorts of people who ought to be lined up against a wall and shot, or at the very least committed to a maximum-security facility for the criminally insane.

Thanks to marketing weasels, we have the spoonfed corporate idiocy of mainstream media (a big part of the reason I don't watch TV or listen to the radio) and now those same assholes are infecting the game industry. Kill 'em all, there's a special place in Hell for 'em.

(note to Escapist marketing guy Spinwhiz: Nothing personal, but you're the exception.)

 

[Cylinwolf]

Well, perhaps YOU would but I refuse to support this lecherous business model except in the few cases where it's actually worth it.

If a developer DELIBERATELY leaves things out of the game in order to charge their customers more then gaming has truly become a monster.

I'm not sure you understand the current game market. Games need downloaded content or updates (see new map packs for shooters or the 3.1 update's new features for WoW) to help stay afloat and fight off the tedium associated with every game after it's been played too much. It's new, it's something else to do, it's something else to do over and over that you aren't *quite* tired of yet.

Even if this content was released at launch, the game still needs DLC to stay afloat. It's not that it needs MORE content to stay afloat to the people who have bought it, it needs NEW content. So they develop the DLC and hold it for a bit before releasing.

 

[Weaver]

Well, perhaps YOU would but I refuse to support this lecherous business model except in the few cases where it's actually worth it.

If a developer DELIBERATELY leaves things out of the game in order to charge their customers more then gaming has truly become a monster.

I'm not sure you understand the current game market. Games need downloaded content or updates (see new map packs for shooters or the 3.1 update's new features for WoW) to help stay afloat and fight off the tedium associated with every game after it's been played too much. It's new, it's something else to do, it's something else to do over and over that you aren't *quite* tired of yet.

Even if this content was released at launch, the game still needs DLC to stay afloat. It's not that it needs MORE content to stay afloat to the people who have bought it, it needs NEW content. So they develop the DLC and hold it for a bit before releasing.

I argue that DLC does not need to cost a thing. Relic, Valve, Crytek, Criterion and Epic (with UT3 on PC at least) all release free tools, maps, updates. Notice how Relic, Valve, and Criterion are respectively small developers compared to the likes of the corporate giants like EA, Microsoft, Sony and Capcom? Yet, who are the ones who refuse to give anything up for free? Clearly the ones riddled with layers of bureaucracy and well versed in corporate dickery.

I personally much prefer full blown expansion packs to DLC (I'm a PC gamer mainly if you haven't noticed) and the model is simply not suited for that platform IMO.

 

[Cylinwolf]

I argue that DLC does not need to cost a thing. Relic, Valve, Crytek, Criterion and Epic (with UT3 on PC at least) all release free tools, maps, updates. Notice how Relic, Valve, and Criterion are respectively small developers compared to the likes of the corporate giants like EA, Microsoft, Sony and Capcom? Yet, who are the ones who refuse to give anything up for free? Clearly the ones riddled with layers of bureaucracy and well versed in corporate dickery.

I personally much prefer full blown expansion packs to DLC (I'm a PC gamer mainly if you haven't noticed) and the model is simply not suited for that platform IMO.

I'd like to go ahead and note that Relic is owned by THQ, which is a large corporation riddled with layers of bureaucracy and well versed in corporate dickery, and Criterion is owned by one said corporate giant that you listed, EA.

I'd also like to note that developer's kits and tools are *not* DLC in the same way that it comes to consoles. It's a tool to create user-created content that can not exist in any manner of pleasant form on consoles and remains on PC. DLC is professional content which is added onto the game by the developer. The releasing of a construction kit(and I do not recall a scenario where this has ever been charged to use. I'm sure there's one but not for anything as big as the 'small companies' you listed.) is not the same as releasing full-blown content for the game.

And I'd rather not argue and spike a flame war on whether or not DLC should be free. The point is that if Capcom sells a game: you pay for that game. If they want to sell you DLC, you have the option to buy or not buy the DLC. There's no backstabbing there.

 

[Weaver]

I argue that DLC does not need to cost a thing. Relic, Valve, Crytek, Criterion and Epic (with UT3 on PC at least) all release free tools, maps, updates. Notice how Relic, Valve, and Criterion are respectively small developers compared to the likes of the corporate giants like EA, Microsoft, Sony and Capcom? Yet, who are the ones who refuse to give anything up for free? Clearly the ones riddled with layers of bureaucracy and well versed in corporate dickery.

I personally much prefer full blown expansion packs to DLC (I'm a PC gamer mainly if you haven't noticed) and the model is simply not suited for that platform IMO.

I'd like to go ahead and note that Relic is owned by THQ, which is a large corporation riddled with layers of bureaucracy and well versed in corporate dickery, and Criterion is owned by one said corporate giant that you listed, EA.

I'd also like to note that developer's kits and tools are *not* DLC in the same way that it comes to consoles. It's a tool to create user-created content that can not exist in any manner of pleasant form on consoles and remains on PC. DLC is professional content which is added onto the game by the developer. The releasing of a construction kit(and I do not recall a scenario where this has ever been charged to use. I'm sure there's one but not for anything as big as the 'small companies' you listed.) is not the same as releasing full-blown content for the game.

And I'd rather not argue and spike a flame war on whether or not DLC should be free. The point is that if Capcom sells a game: you pay for that game. If they want to sell you DLC, you have the option to buy or not buy the DLC. There's no backstabbing there.

DLC only started being called DLC when Microsoft started labeling every damn packet that went through Live Marketplace as "DLC". 5 years ago it was just called "supporting the sodding game" with patches. People got professionally developed maps and game modes all for free.

Yes criterion is owned by EA and relic is owned by THQ. However, we don't say that when Maxis makes a game that "EA made this game" do we? Subsidiary or not, I know these two developers try their best to get as much free content to their fans as they can. And as a subsidiary are allowed a certain accordance in freedom. Relic, with respect to DOW2, is currently under a lot of pressure from THQ whom is near bankruptcy and from Microsoft, since they get a cut of all DLC through GFWL to create payed DLC. But I'll be damned if they didn't announce their upcoming patch will have another free map in it. They announced there WILL be payed DLC but it wouldn't be something piddly like a free map or army colours, it would be major game expansions and updates. They also announced that major updates wouldn't only be through GFWL but would also be released via boxed expansions

Anyways, I don't have the problem that console gamers do. If someone put "dlc" on the disc, it's pretty easy to access it and make it work.

IMO GTA 4, as much as I really don't care for the game, did DLC right with their latest the lost and the damned release. That was something worth paying for if you liked the game.

 

[guardian001]

If a developer DELIBERATELY leaves things out of the game in order to charge their customers more then gaming has truly become a monster.

In that case, any dev who releases DLC is a monster. What do you think DLC is? They decide in advance what they want, choose things that aren't essential to the game, and sell those later as DLC. The actual idea for the DLC has been around for a long time, they just waited until later to sell you it. They thought it up, left it out, polished it off, and resold it.

So really, I find this better than traditional DLC. They did the exact same thing, only they saved you a several GB download.

 

[search_rip]

I don't think Capcom crossed a line with the Resident Evil 5 content... they do, however, since Megaman 9 DLC.

 

[Weaver]

If a developer DELIBERATELY leaves things out of the game in order to charge their customers more then gaming has truly become a monster.

In that case, any dev who releases DLC is a monster. What do you think DLC is? They decide in advance what they want, choose things that aren't essential to the game, and sell those later as DLC. The actual idea for the DLC has been around for a long time, they just waited until later to sell you it. They thought it up, left it out, polished it off, and resold it.

So really, I find this better than traditional DLC. They did the exact same thing, only they saved you a several GB download.

It's different if you release a finished game, then start development on additional content than if you finish a game, then remove chunks from it to charge more for.

Anyways I gotta cool off here. Taking a break!

 

[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.

 

[Ladie Au Pair]

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.

 

[Ladie Au Pair]

Something else that has been bothering me is the misconception that the $60 you pay for the game should cover the DLC if it?s already on the disc. That?s not true either, The fact that the game and DLC were done at the same time and put on the same disc doesn?t change the fact that both sets of content have their own development teams, their own budgets, their own profit forecasts?. The sixty dollars price covers the full game development. The five extra dollars you pay covers the DLC development. It?s two separate price tags for two separate pieces of work. Not paying for downloadable content would just be like not paying a set of developers, and that?s not fair.

 

[jdnoth]

Pretty disgusting. Charging people extra money for something they already technically own.

Randroids and Capitalists pretty quick to defend them I see.

Edit/Addendum:
Just take a second to think about how far this could go. Capcom are basically charging extra money for the multiplayer mode. How long until we have to pay extra money for Halo, Timesplitters or Killzone multiplayer?

This isn't add-on DLC either. DLC is consistently developed and released after the actual game, in an effort to add to the game experience and keep the franchise going. The RE5 versus mode was developed in parallel with the main game. They are just splitting up the game and selling it in pieces for a profit.

Companies are using new technology to unfairly exploit the market. At least piracy is providing a nice counter-balance.

 

[jymbobjones]

u ppl do forget they are a company a company going through the resesion so they are trying to make as much money as possible so they have done wat most companys do and have started stabbing there consumers not saying i want them to do this but there not the first arseholes to do it :/ seems every 1 does

 

[Ladie Au Pair]

Pretty disgusting. Charging people extra money for something they already technically own.

Randroids and Capitalists pretty quick to defend them I see.

Technically you don't own it... CAPCOM owns the game content...

 

[Blizzinam]

I honestly dont see the reasoning behind: "the games need DLC to stay afloat". Oh sure the game does, and with MMOs theyre planned to stay for long and being patched, its what they are for! (long grinds in variatingly pretty locales). And just see it this way, what if they decided not to release it? Would people rage about not recieving unfinished content? probably not.(except the PC gamers that could manage to find it by hacking zeir disc if they wanted to) And they could probably have released this fix free if it werent for the quite obvious fact that Microsoft and Sony wants some cash for them hosting this .EXE(or whatever) on their servers! Also we are in an economic crisis and i'd rather pay for this then see somebody get fired.

In short: Pushing the line a bit.