Poll: Did CAPCOM cross a line with RE5 DLC?

[Ladie Au Pair]

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.
.

1. Resident Evil 5 Already launched with the same features that Resident Evil 4 had... and to be honest more features when consider that you could do co-op and multiplayer on Mercenaries. (This does not cover your thoughts on whether or not those features were up to your standard.) So the multiplayer here was extra, and should not be compared to something like Halo where multiplayer is a standard feature.

2. As someone in the industry... DLC is consistently developed DURING the production of the full game... It happens all the time. When they release it doesn't give you any indication to when it was actually developed. And you still aren't addressing that 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

1. RE5 is a significantly shorter than RE4. So it isn't really the same single player features. On top of this; Resident Evil 4 was released for £40 rrp (http://www.gamershell.com/news_19159.html). Resident Evil 5 on the other hand has a release price of £45 without the DLC (http://www.game.co.uk/search.aspx?platform=11271&s=resident+evil+5&sort=itemOrderasc). And finally, they are both estimated to have had development cycles of around 4 years (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_Evil_4#Development http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Resident_Evil_5#Development). Ya *****, who da juggernaut?

2. Untrue. Bethesda, for example, documented the development of their Fallout DLC after the game was released. Same with Little Big Planet and Metal Gear Online. Even if this isn't always the case, then Capcom are still carrying on an abhorrent marketing ploy. Which isn't much better than pioneering it. The people who made the versus "DLC" have their wages paid by Capcom. In no way do they directly profit from this. And all of the different parts of a development team are broken up into different little departments. People who make the multiplayer aspects of a game always work with a degree of independence from the single player devs. Unless the programming team is small and they have to multi-task.

If you really are in the industry you simply cannot be serious about what you have said so far.

Sigh... I just wish this thread would die... You can't compare price... not even on the same console... Both had single player story mode... both had mercenaries... included in price... the features i mean... if you think it's too short that doesnt change that it had the same features... im sure it costs a bit more to buy equipement to develop on 360s and ps3s than ps2 and gamecube... i know how development works... im sitting at my desk staring at a game in development right now... people do directly profit...i promise... bonuses and such.... being multiplayer devs vs single doesn't matter at all in this conversation... they both can work on dlc...

i am so over this thread. i can't even form complete thoughts or capitalize or proofread. im going back to work.

 

[DrHoboPHD]

Capcom is far from the first people to do this.

The only remarkable thing about them is that I could've sworn I read somewhere before the game was released that the versus modes would already be in it.

 

[karmapolizei]

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.

That was awesome! Made my day - actually, the day made by that must have been on the wron side of the crappy-awesome-continuum, but nevertheless - great point.

 

[amodelmerol]

I read the CD metaphor and I want only to say this.

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.

It doesn't matter whose fault this is, what matters is that if people are angry about this move by Capcom, let them know we repudiete this by NOT BUYING THE F****NG DLC.

Thanks


(And in my opinion, they did cross the line to see if it worked. If people buy it, they will cross it again until the line is gone and paying extra for online modes becomes normal)

 

[DChesebro1]

Greedy bastards want an ADDITIONAL $5 from me?



AND I'M STILL GOING TO PAY FOR IT!!!

 

[Ripshot]

+1 for the over the line

It's true that capcom is out to make money as they are a business, I'm not denying that. But this is an incredibly shady move in my opinion. With the content on disk, I don't see why it couldn't be there with the game (or maybe unlocked after you beat the game).

All I can see this as is a dick move, a quick few more bucks Capcom will get out of those wanting to play a mode (I believe) they should have had with the original purchase. In these times, $60 is a lot of money and I know that I for one am not going to buy any more games from Capcom until they cease this faggotry (No I don't want to play a remake of the first resident evil, I never much liked the series anyway).

Yes I don't have RE5 nor do I plan to get it, but I think I can still say my opinion, as we're talking about the content, not the game itself.

 

[DemonI81]

This is exactly the problem with DLC and the reason I rarely buy DLC. More and more companies are pulling things like this and leaving content off the disc on purpose, then announcing the DLC before the game even ships. EA and Activision are quickly becoming famous for this.
IF I buy an EA or Activision game, I buy it used because of their dirty tactics. I refuse to give them any money. Now I will handle Capcom the same way.
Boycott this supposed DLC and stop buying Capcom's games new, show them they can not treat customers like this by hitting them in the only place they care about, their pockets.

 

[DChesebro1]

Yes, theoretically, but that requires that someone would actually buy a Jonas Brothers CD.

 

[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.

 

[UpcountryGecko]

Yes they did but as people are buying it this kind of thing will continue to happen.

*didn't they do something similar with street fighter 4 as well?

 

[Mighty Wulrus]

Eh Profit Company If they didn't make obscene amounts of profit then they wouldn't have enough money to...wait bastards they took my money grr...but seriously I think mostly DLC should be free because we already bought the game and those things aren't really cheap..

 

[Mighty Wulrus]

here here I say don't buy Capcom games unless they are really really awesome this is yet to happen...

+1 for the over the line

It's true that capcom is out to make money as they are a business, I'm not denying that. But this is an incredibly shady move in my opinion. With the content on disk, I don't see why it couldn't be there with the game (or maybe unlocked after you beat the game).

All I can see this as is a dick move, a quick few more bucks Capcom will get out of those wanting to play a mode (I believe) they should have had with the original purchase. In these times, $60 is a lot of money and I know that I for one am not going to buy any more games from Capcom until they cease this faggotry (No I don't want to play a remake of the first resident evil, I never much liked the series anyway).

Yes I don't have RE5 nor do I plan to get it, but I think I can still say my opinion, as we're talking about the content, not the game itself.

 

[DrHoboPHD]

Oh and I'd like to point out to the jackasses that have already flooded this topic as they do ALL topics like this.

there is a BIG difference between trying to make money and screwing over your customers, you don't have to ruthlessly wring your consumers pockets dry with thinly disguised scams to make money, look at Valve, they are doing pretty good and they treat their fans well.

I don't intend to buy this DLC, mainly because it just looks boring and not fun in the least.

 

[theCMNDER]

What Capcom has done is basically sell the consumer a treasure chest, except the treasure chest is locked and Capcom still has the key, and they didn't tell you that until after you bought the treasure chest from them.

Bastards.

 

[Sixties Spidey]

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.

That's the best description of the Multiplayer content.... xD

 

[Kevka]

I'll be honest, I think the idea of a Versus Mode in a Resident Evil game is idiotic. With its controls the way they are, it would be a slow-paced, incoherent mess.

Now, onto the topic at hand:

When I buy something, I expect to get everything I've paid for. This does not necessarily mean all of the features I know about: for instance, I didn't know that my car came with a trailer hitch and extra jack until a year after I bought it because they were stored in out-of-the-way compartments under my seats. Bonus!

Inversely, I don't feel that I should be able to, say, copy the content on the disc and freely distribute it to my friends and random internet strangers; that's piracy. As a capitalist I would rather those people buy the stuff that developers make for them.

But, I own the content on the disc. All of it. It's all mine. I paid for it, just like I paid for the extra jack and trailer hitch in my car, just like I paid for the 1500 GB hard-drive in my computer, just like the stories in my oodles and oodles of books. I am the rightful owner of this content, even the American government agrees (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#109 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine).

I'll try and imagine that I actually care about the content in question...hmm...Star Wars...Force Unleashed, maybe, not as good of a game but would have been awesome with...A VERSUS MODE! YEAH!

So our Versus Mode in question here was on the disc, but I didn't know, and I spend $5 to unlock it. I call bullshit. It was finished. It was on the damn disc. It's mine, by right, regardless of what the company says.

My bottom line: Star Wa...Resident Evil 5's Versus Mode should have been available out-of-the-box, no DLC attached. But, if it had to be DLC, I'd rather it be actual DLC. That way I can justify the extra money I spent and also not spend several months trying to hack the game to get it for free on principle.

Oh I see, you believe in intellectual property.
Adorable.

Yeah, so do I. I made something up, all things within and related to it are mine to do with as I see fit. I believe in free spread of information, but if I come up with something awesome I want recognition, preferably in the form of money if I decide to distribute it. Unless I just give it away freely.

 

[Big Chuggz]

idk what the DLC really waas but I think RE5 crossed the line big time, oh lets have a mexican or white dude after 5 zombies you kill just so we can have some spear chucking tribal zombies.....no spear chucking african zombies wrong but if you dodge something to be not accused of some thing dont go around and do something worst....common sense really

 

[Pyro Paul]

no they didn't cross a line.

there is a high demand for DLC content on consoles, but a real problem because it is extreamly hard to put additional content on games which run off of a disk... it is the crutch of running games off of consoles really, you can't easily mod the game once you distribute it.

to get DLC out there either you have to put enough resources into the project that it could possibly be released as a full fledge expansion pack, or simply code it into the disk and flag simple 'yes/no' switches which are activated when the proper DLC modifers are purchased.




If this was a PC game... then yes, the line would be crossed.
but as a console game, no. that is their economic solution to give players accessable DLC in a timely matter.


simply said.
It is the compromise you pay for playing on a console instead of a PC.

 

[Pyro Paul]

But, I own the content on the disc. All of it. It's all mine. I paid for it, just like I paid for the extra jack and trailer hitch in my car, just like I paid for the 1500 GB hard-drive in my computer, just like the stories in my oodles and oodles of books. I am the rightful owner of this content, even the American government agrees (http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#109 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine).

So our Versus Mode in question here was on the disc, but I didn't know, and I spend $5 to unlock it. I call bullshit. It was finished. It was on the damn disc. It's mine, by right, regardless of what the company says.

no, you don't own the content on the disk.
you own the disk, and with the proper reader, you own the ability to read what is on the disk... you by no means own the content on the disk.

if i owned the content on the disk, then i could rip the code off of the disk, back engineer it and make my own game with out having to purchase the 1500 USD game engine the game runs on.

you purchase a film, you don't Own the actors in the film, the images or even the music of the film, you own the tape, and the the ability to see and hear it.




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.