Resident Evil 5 Heads to PS4 and Xbox One in June

[Lizzy Finnegan]

Resident Evil 5 Heads to PS4 and Xbox One in June

//cdn.themis-media.com/media/global/images/library/deriv/1325/1325509.png

A posting on the Xbox Store shows Resident Evil 5 will hit on June 28.

20th anniversary of the Resident Evil franchise [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/166601-Resident-Evil-4-5-and-6-to-Release-on-PlayStation-4-and-Xbox-One], Resident Evil 4, 5 and 6 would be playable on PlayStation 4 and Xbox One. The re-releases were staggered in reverse order, with Resident Evil 6 releasing in March, Resident Evil 5 slated for a summer release, and Resident Evil 4 set to hit the consoles in fall.

If you're interested in playing Resident Evil 5 on a current gen console, a listing on the Xbox Store has outed the release date, which isn't too far into the summer at all. According to the listing, RE5 will be playable on June 28, at a cost of $20 - and will include all previously released DLC.

Capcom hasn't officially revealed the date, so we will update you if anything changes. In other Resident Evil news, Japanese analyst Serkan Toto recently stated [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/167467-Resident-Evil-7-in-Development-Will-Return-to-Horror-Roots] that Resident Evil 7 is currently in development, adding that Capcom is planning on showing the game at E3 2016 next month. According to Toto, the game will "go back to [Resident Evil's] horror roots," serving as a "clean slate" for the franchise.

Permalink

 

[Saelune]

Could just...ya know...make it backwards compatible.

 

[Erttheking]

Oh just fast forward to the Resident Evil game people actually want to play. 4.

 

[RJ 17]

Could just...ya know...make it backwards compatible.

No no no, that would make far too much sense.

Plus how are they supposed to get an extra $20 out of you if you just play the game you already have?

 

[Saelune]

Could just...ya know...make it backwards compatible.

No no no, that would make far too much sense.

Plus how are they supposed to get an extra $20 out of you if you just play the game you already have?

I just don't want my 360 collection to go to waste...my 360 broke forever ago, and I don't want to buy another.

 

[Saelune]

Could just...ya know...make it backwards compatible.

Your old version of the game doesn't run at 1080/60.

When did people start getting mad that they don't get ports of games for free?

This gen, and Gamecube maybe.

PS2 can play PS1 games. 360 can play Xbox Original games, PS3 used to be able to play PS2 games. Wii can play Gamecube games. Gameboy Advance can play every single Gameboy game ever made until DS came out.

Maybe if the 360 and PS3 would last for decades like my PS2 and N64 do, sure, but for many reasons they don't and wont.

 

[Saelune]

Could just...ya know...make it backwards compatible.

Your old version of the game doesn't run at 1080/60.

When did people start getting mad that they don't get ports of games for free?

This gen, and Gamecube maybe.

PS2 can play PS1 games. 360 can play Xbox Original games, PS3 used to be able to play PS2 games. Wii can play Gamecube games. Gameboy Advance can play every single Gameboy game ever made until DS came out.

Maybe if the 360 and PS3 would last for decades like my PS2 and N64 do, sure, but for many reasons they don't and wont.

You're talking about backwards compatibility. RE5 is a port, with the basic expected improvements that come with a port. Last I checked, ports of games even on backwards compatible consoles cost money. Remember RE Archives 1 and 2 on Wii? Yeah.

Id prefer we ported older games than RE5. My point is that I don't think we need a port of RE5. I like when a remake/update actually shows improvement, like MSG Twin Snakes and Ocarina of Time 3DS. And so what if it costs money? All games cost money.

 

[Saelune]

Could just...ya know...make it backwards compatible.

Your old version of the game doesn't run at 1080/60.

When did people start getting mad that they don't get ports of games for free?

This gen, and Gamecube maybe.

PS2 can play PS1 games. 360 can play Xbox Original games, PS3 used to be able to play PS2 games. Wii can play Gamecube games. Gameboy Advance can play every single Gameboy game ever made until DS came out.

Maybe if the 360 and PS3 would last for decades like my PS2 and N64 do, sure, but for many reasons they don't and wont.

You're talking about backwards compatibility. RE5 is a port, with the basic expected improvements that come with a port. Last I checked, ports of games even on backwards compatible consoles cost money. Remember RE Archives 1 and 2 on Wii? Yeah.

Id prefer we ported older games than RE5. My point is that I don't think we need a port of RE5. I like when a remake/update actually shows improvement, like MSG Twin Snakes and Ocarina of Time 3DS. And so what if it costs money? All games cost money.

I meant that you had to (re)buy ports of games on those older platforms you listed.

Why not have a port of RE5? There is (going to be) a clear improvement in performance and resolution. You really shouldn't conflate remakes and ports btw, demanding a complete remake of a game instead of a port is outrageously unreasonable. Honestly, the baseline for a decent port is the standard resolution and performance bump. Stuff like Wind Waker HD and the 3DS ports of the N64 games is going well above and beyond what you should expect.

(Also, "remaster" is just another word for port, usually used to bedazzle dullards into thinking it's some super special thing. Because evidently people are too stupid to parse that a port of game on the new box should run better or look better unless there is a meaningless word showed in the title. Keep that in mind if you ever see someone arguing silly shit about what a "remaster" should and shouldn't be.)

Ports are even less defendable. It only makes me think making it backwards compatible is the better solution. I don't care about updating the graphics. Windwaker HD looks just as good as it was on Gamecube and offered little in improvements, but atleast there was a console between the two. But Id be just as happy to pop in my Gamecube disc if I could.

As for definitions of things, it doesn't help that people who make the games throw the terms around a lot too. Remake, HD upgrade, port, remaster, reboot etc. Some of those words are actually different things entirely, yes.

 

[Saelune]

Could just...ya know...make it backwards compatible.

Your old version of the game doesn't run at 1080/60.

When did people start getting mad that they don't get ports of games for free?

This gen, and Gamecube maybe.

PS2 can play PS1 games. 360 can play Xbox Original games, PS3 used to be able to play PS2 games. Wii can play Gamecube games. Gameboy Advance can play every single Gameboy game ever made until DS came out.

Maybe if the 360 and PS3 would last for decades like my PS2 and N64 do, sure, but for many reasons they don't and wont.

You're talking about backwards compatibility. RE5 is a port, with the basic expected improvements that come with a port. Last I checked, ports of games even on backwards compatible consoles cost money. Remember RE Archives 1 and 2 on Wii? Yeah.

Id prefer we ported older games than RE5. My point is that I don't think we need a port of RE5. I like when a remake/update actually shows improvement, like MSG Twin Snakes and Ocarina of Time 3DS. And so what if it costs money? All games cost money.

I meant that you had to (re)buy ports of games on those older platforms you listed.

Why not have a port of RE5? There is (going to be) a clear improvement in performance and resolution. You really shouldn't conflate remakes and ports btw, demanding a complete remake of a game instead of a port is outrageously unreasonable. Honestly, the baseline for a decent port is the standard resolution and performance bump. Stuff like Wind Waker HD and the 3DS ports of the N64 games is going well above and beyond what you should expect.

(Also, "remaster" is just another word for port, usually used to bedazzle dullards into thinking it's some super special thing. Because evidently people are too stupid to parse that a port of game on the new box should run better or look better unless there is a meaningless word showed in the title. Keep that in mind if you ever see someone arguing silly shit about what a "remaster" should and shouldn't be.)

Ports are even less defendable. It only makes me think making it backwards compatible is the better solution. I don't care about updating the graphics. Windwaker HD looks just as good as it was on Gamecube and offered little in improvements, but atleast there was a console between the two. But Id be just as happy to pop in my Gamecube disc if I could.

As for definitions of things, it doesn't help that people who make the games throw the terms around a lot too. Remake, HD upgrade, port, remaster, reboot etc. Some of those words are actually different things entirely, yes.

Ports, given they aren't bad, give a far superior experience to backwards compatibility. BC is anchored by the fact that its ceiling will be the original output and performance, most of the time, whereas even a baseline decent port will atleast adhere to current output standards and/or will have better performance. If you're lucky, you'll get a variety of improvements for either/both gameplay and visuals. Only part of BC that is attractive is that you don't have to rebuy stuff, otherwise, it's worse in every conceivable way.

You're going to need to look up some comparison videos of TP and WW. Just the resolution increase makes those games look significantly better. 480p doesn't look hot on current day TV's and Monitors.

While the visual differences are more obvious next to eachother, its not enough, not to me. I am not a graphics person. Id prefer either I just keep playing the games I already own, or get a remake on the level of Pok?mon FireRed/LeafGreen over Red/Blue. Ports are mostly just good when it bridges a huge gap. FireRed/LeafGreen is better than Red/Blue, but I still bought the 3DS ports that did virtually nothing to the games beyond making them work on the 3DS, and the eventual ability to transfer to Sun/Moon that is more likely done Sun/Moon side.

 

[Dach]

Ports, given they aren't bad, give a far superior experience to backwards compatibility. BC is anchored by the fact that its ceiling will be the original output and performance, most of the time, whereas even a baseline decent port will atleast adhere to current output standards and/or will have better performance. If you're lucky, you'll get a variety of improvements for either/both gameplay and visuals. Only part of BC that is attractive is that you don't have to rebuy stuff, otherwise, it's worse in every conceivable way.

Most recent ports/remasters only improve on the graphics and cost 40-60 USD, making them a tough sell for someone who already owns the original(s). However, between the growing console market, decreased backward compatibility, and cheap production cost, remaster remain viable. It is frustrating though, as the resources spent to make the remaster could have (partially) funded a new game. It is particularly problematic when the games in question are PS3/360 games that run fine and are very available.

 

[Baresark]

It's sad when your big news for your company is releasing a remake of a 7 year old game. C'mon Capcom... you think maybe you are concentrating on the wrong thing here?

 

[KingsGambit_v1legacy]

It's sad when your big news for your company is releasing a remake of a 7 year old game. C'mon Capcom... you think maybe you are concentrating on the wrong thing here?

They have no idea. They're entire has business has been ports and remakes for the last few years with so few actual original games.

I'll say one thing tho...if they announced a Dragons Dogma 2 for PC tomorrow, I'd pre-order that shit without hesitation. But that won't happen. It would require actual developers to actually develop something.