View Full Version : Bakery Story
Here's my story:
I was walking to work one morning when I saw a new bakery had opened. I thought to myself "might as well have a look and see if it's any good".
I went into the bakery and looked around.
Everything looked good and at the front of the counter was a delicious looking chocolate cake. So I got the attention of the woman at the counter and told her I'm interested in buying the cake.
She smiled and picked up the cake and put it in a nice box and told me how much it cost. I then paid the woman said "thanks, bye" and headed for the door.
She said "wait a minute would you like the rest?"
I walked back up to the counter and asked her "what do you mean?"
She then picked up a plate and there's a small slice of chocolate cake on it. Confused, I opened the box and lo and behold the other side of the cake had been cut off! I then said "Of course I want the rest of it!"
She then went to the till and tells me that it will cost me extra!!!
Obviously I wasn't going to pay.
Another guy walked in and he asked for some cakes as well and I told him about it. He just shrugged, paid for it and said "what can you do?"
So what do you think of the bakery and the young woman? since you've read up to this part I'll tell you honestly that this didn't actually happen to me. The entire story is an analogy for another issue. The bakery is in fact Capcom, the cake is a game and the extra slice is dlc, the customers are still customers.
This is my issue with dlc. That something we expected to be inclusive from previous experience (costume dlc/multiplayer dlc) and could have been included from the start, was denied us to make extra profit. I sell things myself and I don't find this acceptable. I didn't want to rock the boat tbh but this is something that I don't think is right.
Frustrated_hunter
13-03-09, 21:47
Is this about RE5?
This is what someone from Capcom USA had to say in response to a similar question...
This is the part where I get to say "BS". RE5 is well worth every penny of $60. A huge game, with tons of replay value, loads of unlockables, new weapons, co-op, mercenaries mode, etc. If any game warrants its price point, it's RE5.
Prior to the announcement of the Versus mode, no one complained they weren't getting their money's worth with the initial release because it packs TONS of value because it is an amazing game. So if people were already satisfied with what the package had, when we offer MORE, why is it people feel they've been somehow cheated? If you don't find value in our secondary offerings, the choice is simple, don't purchase it. If you do find it valueable (and we hope you do) please do but it and enjoy it.
Secondly, whenever we do PDLC, that content exists with its own budgets, it's own profit and loss analaysis with its own forecasts. If it didn't, that extra content wouldn't have been put into production, because it did not fit within the production budget of the base product.
The content that is shipping in the full game exists within its own budget. The content shipping afterward (regardless of how close to release it is... because the goal IS to have it release relatively closely to the base product's release) exists within its own budget. To try and have it release in a timeframe that is relatively close to the initial release, development starts well before the base product is on the shelves. There's no other way to keep it within 3 to 6 weeks of the initial release (which is the goal).
makes sense to me you didn't buy half a cake, you bought the full cake and then were offered a cupcake...
Is this about RE5?
This is what someone from Capcom USA had to say in response to a similar question...
makes sense to me you didn't buy half a cake, you bought the full cake and then were offered a cupcake...
Not really, because it's something that was part of the original package and ready to go and then cut to sell as DLC. The arguement is pretty flimsy tbh as a couple of developers recently have even been giving away their DLC for free!
You can't really justify it, because in the days before dlc would you have paid for an expansion that gave you a couple of costumes and/or an extra gameplay mode? the answer is no! because these things are meagre content and are considered unlockables.
Also it's absolutely fine if that Capcom rep doesn't want people to buy the dlc if they don't like it as it shows he has a negative attitude towards customer service, because people have a general problem and he's just dismissing it and saying "I don't care, don't buy it then".
Carbonox_Ratchet
13-03-09, 23:20
But not all developers give away their DLC for free. This is a completely new mode, with additional features, goals, ways to play and even a new bunch of Trophies. If anything, I can see this warranting the purchase. It's not a bunch of Akuma costumes for Chris, it's not an additional race track for the BSAA Hummers, nor is it a bunch of fruit-based guns for the various characters, with bananas used as knives; it's a new multiplayer mode that on paper, would never have been considered for a RE title in the past. It's something fresh, potentially exciting and original for the franchise, with even a foot-in for future titles, providing the demand is there. Lastly, it can even function as an entirely seperate game in itself, especially if there is continued support. Thus, the fee is - in a way - necessary.
Online co-op isn't comparable because it isn't new to the franchise in essence (although the depth and focus may be). Versus mode is. It's a test-bed for Capcom, with a very small fee to boot. Online co-op is still at the end of the day, part of the core Resident Evil 5 game. Versus on the other hand, is completely new and can be deemed as such.
You either buy it or you don't. The aims, goals and integrity of Capcom can be questioned 'til the cows come home. Either way, I personally find the response to be a little exaggerated, despite claims that Versus is already on the disc but requires "unlocking". I just see it as a viable bit of DLC that was developed after Resident Evil 5, as a way of prolonging the game's playability and appeal.
We can all get 100% on Resident Evil 5. But to those who love the whole 'nutha world of online gaming, Versus could function as the other half with its own "100%" to boot.
But hey, I don't mind if people boycott. I can't wait for the DLC to be released as it will be a lot of fun, I'm sure. I do have my worries pertaining to certain aspects (stand and shoot in a competitive game? um wut?) but for £4, I think that's very much money well spent. :)
Not really, because it's something that was part of the original package and ready to go and then cut to sell as DLC. .
Who said it was cut and ready to go?
from what I understan it's still being finished then needs to be tested.
charmed699
13-03-09, 23:40
I agree as we all have different views on how to look at a situation. When Beutiful Katamari came out it already had download content on disk too. But I saw it as extras that the programmers worked hard on after finishing the game to extend it a bit more. So didn't really mind and ended up buying all of them and it proved to make the game a lot more fun.
This new mode was problably worked on after getting the game done too and problably cost a lot more hours in order to get finished. It's actualy pretty cheap so might have to give it a try too sometime. On the bright side because it is on the disk it will not occupy a lot of hard drive space. :)
Your bakery analogy doesn't work. In that case, you're paying for what you know to be a full item: a full cake. You know you should have gotten a full cake. With RE5, you can't know what the "full game" is until you buy it - and at that moment becomes the "full cake". If anything, your analogy suggests that the DLC is an extra slice that you can purchase on top of your "full cake". xD
A company is a company, profits have to be made for it to work.
But not all developers give away their DLC for free. This is a completely new mode, with additional features, goals, ways to play and even a new bunch of Trophies. If anything, I can see this warranting the purchase. It's not a bunch of Akuma costumes for Chris, it's not an additional race track for the BSAA Hummers, nor is it a bunch of fruit-based guns for the various characters, with bananas used as knives; it's a new multiplayer mode that on paper, would never have been considered for a RE title in the past. It's something fresh, potentially exciting and original for the franchise, with even a foot-in for future titles, providing the demand is there. Lastly, it can even function as an entirely seperate game in itself, especially if there is continued support. Thus, the fee is - in a way - necessary.
Online co-op isn't comparable because it isn't new to the franchise in essence (although the depth and focus may be). Versus mode is. It's a test-bed for Capcom, with a very small fee to boot. Online co-op is still at the end of the day, part of the core Resident Evil 5 game. Versus on the other hand, is completely new and can be deemed as such.
You either buy it or you don't. The aims, goals and integrity of Capcom can be questioned 'til the cows come home. Either way, I personally find the response to be a little exaggerated, despite claims that Versus is already on the disc but requires "unlocking". I just see it as a viable bit of DLC that was developed after Resident Evil 5, as a way of prolonging the game's playability and appeal.
We can all get 100% on Resident Evil 5. But to those who love the whole 'nutha world of online gaming, Versus could function as the other half with its own "100%" to boot.
But hey, I don't mind if people boycott. I can't wait for the DLC to be released as it will be a lot of fun, I'm sure. I do have my worries pertaining to certain aspects (stand and shoot in a competitive game? um wut?) but for £4, I think that's very much money well spent. :)
I'm not suggesting a boycott, I have a complaint and I'm voicing it. Capcom is like any other company they sell a product to a customer and the customer has a right to voice their opinion.
Whichever way you try to dress it up multiplayer mode is being slapped onto the game and tbh it is a meagre form of DLC. As you said it doesn't even work with this type of game and it will probably be composed of 4 people camping and turreting on the map.
It may be new and innovative for Resident Evil but it isn't not really for games in general.
You're probably a bigger Resident Evil fan then me, so I'll ask you would you rather have them spend time working on a bad multiplayer mode slapped on or would you rather have them working on a huge extended story DLC?
Who said it was cut and ready to go?
from what I understan it's still being finished then needs to be tested.
It's what I suspect. We'll know it's just a key when the DLC comes out and the file size dl is tiny.
I agree as we all have different views on how to look at a situation. When Beutiful Katamari came out it already had download content on disk too. But I saw it as extras that the programmers worked hard on after finishing the game to extend it a bit more. So didn't really mind and ended up buying all of them and it proved to make the game a lot more fun.
This new mode was problably worked on after getting the game done too and problably cost a lot more hours in order to get finished. It's actualy pretty cheap so might have to give it a try too sometime. On the bright side because it is on the disk it will not occupy a lot of hard drive space. :)
I'm not against giving it a try, but seriously can't they throw us a bone here and give us something worth spending money on. I don't want to feel like an idiot if it turns out it's bad and I've just spent money on it.
Your bakery analogy doesn't work. In that case, you're paying for what you know to be a full item: a full cake. You know you should have gotten a full cake. With RE5, you can't know what the "full game" is until you buy it - and at that moment becomes the "full cake". If anything, your analogy suggests that the DLC is an extra slice that you can purchase on top of your "full cake". xD
Interesting point but I don't think your analogy works either. I'm paying for a full cake and she isn't offering me another slice, she is offering crumbs for extra payment.
A company is a company, profits have to be made for it to work.
That's true but the end doesn't justify the means, and especially not at the expense of good customer service.
I'm still waiting for an official reply or will the topic just be breezed over?
UPDATE:
It seems I'm not the only one who has a problem with it.
http://kotaku.com/5169886/capcom-explains-paid-dlc-multi+player-patch
It's the most hostile response I've seen on Kotaku for a while. Basically they seem to say the same thing as me but with slighty more colourful language.
Member_of_STARS
14-03-09, 07:18
The obvious point the original poster is trying to make is that if the game was designed with certain aspects and elements, and those said aspects were cut from the final product, only to be added via DLC you pay for- that is wrong. That isnt something unheard of either, but still wrong.
Creative released one of their gaming grade soundcards, which hardware supported Dolby Digital sound, however, due to some deals with a third party, the drivers did not use DD. Later, a newer version of the card was released by that third party which utilized DD sound.
The question is, if the DLC offers only 3 new gamemodes and it uses existing resources from the game, is the 1/10th price of the game justified? Lets assume, for a second, that RE5 sells 5 million copies total. And theres about half a million downloads for the DLC, they make 2.5 million bucks off 3 gamemodes. Trying to spin this so that adding these 3 gamemodes takes major resources, is surely PR department being at their highest. Bandwidth cost? Really?
Seriously...
Interesting point but I don't think your analogy works either.
Probably because I never posted an analogy?
I'm paying for a full cake and she isn't offering me another slice, she is offering crumbs for extra payment. That still doesn't make sense in regards with your analogy. You're comapring one whole, accepted, thing with something that only becomes a whole when you purchase it.
Creative released one of their gaming grade soundcards, which hardware supported Dolby Digital sound, however, due to some deals with a third party, the drivers did not use DD. Later, a newer version of the card was released by that third party which utilized DD sound.
Creative refused to pay DD and DTS Interactive the licensing fee's in order to use the DD and DTS features which was supported by their hardware. As such it was disabled, and the hardware price lowered as result. When they finally sorted out their dispute, they re-enabled the tech on their newer cards, bumped the price to cover the licensing fees, and made the same price license to append to the previous existing hardware so you could download an app that would again re-enable the feature.
If you buy a standed PSP it comes with no memory card even though you need one so you have to pay extra for one.
If you go to Mcdonalds and want extra pickle, chease ect on your 1/4 punder you pay extra.
I don't realy see any difference.
So each to their own
Carbonox_Ratchet
14-03-09, 12:42
I'm not suggesting a boycott, I have a complaint and I'm voicing it. Capcom is like any other company they sell a product to a customer and the customer has a right to voice their opinion.
Whichever way you try to dress it up multiplayer mode is being slapped onto the game and tbh it is a meagre form of DLC. As you said it doesn't even work with this type of game and it will probably be composed of 4 people camping and turreting on the map.
It may be new and innovative for Resident Evil but it isn't not really for games in general.
You're probably a bigger Resident Evil fan then me, so I'll ask you would you rather have them spend time working on a bad multiplayer mode slapped on or would you rather have them working on a huge extended story DLC?
Woah, simmer down there, lad. Never said you couldn't voice your opinions.
You can argue about the content as much as you want but to me, a bunch of new multiplayer modes is the next best thing other than a Lost & Damned style side-story. Thus, I'd still be willing to pay the measly sum for it. If I can get another 100 hours out of it, how can I complain, irrelevant of the means behind it.
There is one thing I will say though. The multiplayer pack would have to make sense in terms of playability, which is the one big problem I see with this DLC. Shooting eachother from one spot? Eh, quite dodgy.
The worst DLC that you have to pay for is that which adds little longevity to your game; something that doesn't compliment what's already there, and something that doesn't make you want to play the game a lot more than you originally did.
Versus mode is seemingly anything but. If I know I can get a lot out of it, I am more than happy to pay.
I'd rather have Capcom explore every avenue (which they may do), than just stick with a new multiplayer pack. Can't have everything my own way though, can I? :thumb:
Considering I got my LE for around £40, the added £4 would still combine to produce a price that most shops still exceed with the game on its own. So in essence, I never really lost anything. I'm still getting my money's worth and I'm not being conned out of it. I was expecting to pay £45 for the LE and would still not mind paying that as a total price for the game + DLC.
Member_of_STARS
14-03-09, 17:23
That still doesn't make sense in regards with your analogy. You're comapring one whole, accepted, thing with something that only becomes a whole when you purchase it.
Sure it does. Such minimal additions that utilize miniscule resources or resources already developed, should not be paid for, if its obvious that these were planned to be included at some point in the development. Essentially, paying 5 dollars for 2 new gamemodes for *four* people is just greedy.
I dont see how hard it is to see that these gamemodes were planned to be used, if not from the start, at least from the time they figured Mercs would be included. The game was already COOP, so COOP mercs being included wouldnt be a stretch of imagination.
Considering how rushed the ending of the game was, I personally have no doubt that the DLC was all included into the game at some point but while not being tested and with the game being pushed for release, they excluded it to include it later on. March 13th... Cant miss a magical release date.
Creative refused to pay DD and DTS Interactive the licensing fee's in order to use the DD and DTS features which was supported by their hardware. As such it was disabled, and the hardware price lowered as result. When they finally sorted out their dispute, they re-enabled the tech on their newer cards, bumped the price to cover the licensing fees, and made the same price license to append to the previous existing hardware so you could download an app that would again re-enable the feature.
Thanks for refreshing my memory, I was following the aftermath of this whole ordeal after Creative threatened a poor guy, who released modded drivers to enable those features, with a lawsuit. Last time I checked, this app was exactly that, modded drivers, not Creatives official ones. Has anything changed during the past 6 months?
Frustrated_hunter
14-03-09, 17:32
It's what I suspect. We'll know it's just a key when the DLC comes out and the file size dl is tiny.
Same rep who posted the response in my first reply ( "luckily" we have similar "discussion" going on the USA boards)
You're in luck. It's not an unlock.
http://www.capcom-unity.com/ask_capcom/go/thread/view/7371/13988776/How_come_ye_released_an_incomplete_game_Capcom
Yeh, Creative threatened that guy with his modded drivers. I guess that's why they ponied up the money to DD and DTS to use their tech on their products. Once that happened, they could enable that tech on new cards such as the Titanium. If you had an older card, you could purchase the license to use the DD and DTS from the site, a small app that would re-enable the feature.
Member_of_STARS
14-03-09, 18:17
Yeh, Creative threatened that guy with his modded drivers. I guess that's why they ponied up the money to DD and DTS to use their tech on their products. Once that happened, they could enable that tech on new cards such as the Titanium. If you had an older card, you could purchase the license to use the DD and DTS from the site, a small app that would re-enable the feature.
It is still wrong, on all levels. There are so many analogies I could use here and they would all be equally wrong.
And to put this into context, a few hundred KB sized update, 2 "new" gamemodes, and to charge 5 dollars for it, is equally wrong. I personally cant wait for some tech-savvy sailor to go and hack the files.
Ive never had to pay any money for additional gamemodes that use existing resources and only need a few lines of code to be rewritten, as a matter of fact, so far the devs have been rather glad to release this kind of stuff for free. CAPCOM is doing this whole thing wrong.
a DLC pack with a few more guns, a few extra maps, a few extra characters- that would be worth 5 bucks.
I dont need to be harsh, the internet is already reacting the way it should.
What's still wrong? I'm not claiming the creative nor the RE thing is right or wrong, myself.
Member_of_STARS
14-03-09, 18:33
What's still wrong?
Charging 1/10th of the price of the full game for features that make up far less than that. Two truly new gamemodes, one of which will most likely to be bashed to hell. In fact, none of these gamemodes really are any different from the solo and COOP game itsself, on technical level. Theres no new content. What is wrong, is charging money for something that is not worth that much, knowing that the community will buy it regardless.
You see it as additional multiplayer gamemodes and say they are worth the money.
I see it as a few lines of code being rewritten, some PR spin added, and possibly millions in revenue gained out of thin air and nothing of value. And if someone does dig into the files and discovers such as even a hint that there were additional multiplayer gamemodes being included, I suspect those that did buy the DLC pack will simply ignore it.
Sometimes I wonder if the overly submissive behaviour of fans and pseudofans of respective franchises is what the developers rely on.
Okay, it's just you replied that to my Creative post - I'm not using any of my posts in the topic as a vehicle for pro or against the Re5 (or Creative) thing.
You see it as additional multiplayer gamemodes and say they are worth the money.
I think you're mixing another post up with mine, I never said anything for or against the value etc. of the thing. Though, I'll say now that there's obviously all sorts of wrong for the price, resources of the DLC etc.
Member_of_STARS
14-03-09, 19:12
Ah, sorry, I just got the impression that youre supporting CAPCOMs choice.
On a funny sidenote, I just saw your sig and some of its keywords are remarkably ontopic :D
Woah, simmer down there, lad. Never said you couldn't voice your opinions.
You can argue about the content as much as you want but to me, a bunch of new multiplayer modes is the next best thing other than a Lost & Damned style side-story. Thus, I'd still be willing to pay the measly sum for it. If I can get another 100 hours out of it, how can I complain, irrelevant of the means behind it.
There is one thing I will say though. The multiplayer pack would have to make sense in terms of playability, which is the one big problem I see with this DLC. Shooting eachother from one spot? Eh, quite dodgy.
The worst DLC that you have to pay for is that which adds little longevity to your game; something that doesn't compliment what's already there, and something that doesn't make you want to play the game a lot more than you originally did.
Versus mode is seemingly anything but. If I know I can get a lot out of it, I am more than happy to pay.
I'd rather have Capcom explore every avenue (which they may do), than just stick with a new multiplayer pack. Can't have everything my own way though, can I? :thumb:
Considering I got my LE for around £40, the added £4 would still combine to produce a price that most shops still exceed with the game on its own. So in essence, I never really lost anything. I'm still getting my money's worth and I'm not being conned out of it. I was expecting to pay £45 for the LE and would still not mind paying that as a total price for the game + DLC.
I don't get angry over things like this, what made you think I was?
I'm not against a developer taking a new direction but trying to make a meagre multiplayer mode to make quick cash isn't the way.
The problem is if you have the 2nd customers mindset where you can just shrug off paying for it. This is the attitude that a lot of gamers have at the moment and it's not good. If we continue in this direction what else will we be charged for? what other microtransactions will developers try to introduce to make more money?
It doesn't matter if it's only £4 and you managed to get the LE cheap or the regular edition cheap.etc.etc it's basically a £4 cup of coffee, which means it's not worth it.
Each to their own. To me it's worth it and i will buy for both ps3 and 360 versions.
They are out to make money anyway as are all companys in the busines.
Member_of_STARS
14-03-09, 23:36
Spike, would you be interested in buying a formatting executable (a quickly slapped together commands in a notepad file in a .bat format, to help you format your harddrive with a simple doubleclick) for say... reasonable 10 dollars?
Spike, would you be interested in buying a formatting executable (a quickly slapped together commands in a notepad file in a .bat format, to help you format your harddrive with a simple doubleclick) for say... reasonable 10 dollars?
No.
I don't buy all DLC i only buy what i want and I want the Resi DLC.
This DLC is a nail in the coffin of videogames.
Also no official reply?
The US forum atleast had a reply to this issue with some PR script...
tbh the game mechanics dont even work with a verses mode, and i doubt i will get the download content, though its not too unreasnable when compared to other games, i mean dead space expects people to pay £4 for an extra coustume and thats per coustume btw, soulcaliber wants money for pieces of a coustume and so verses mode is at least not a complete rip off
that said... spike, your buying it for both consoles... i mean thats like funding terrorism, your not going to get your moneys worth of use out of em
tbh the game mechanics dont even work with a verses mode, and i doubt i will get the download content, though its not too unreasnable when compared to other games, i mean dead space expects people to pay £4 for an extra coustume and thats per coustume btw, soulcaliber wants money for pieces of a coustume and so verses mode is at least not a complete rip off
that said... spike, your buying it for both consoles... i mean thats like funding terrorism, your not going to get your moneys worth of use out of em
I think i will but even if i don't i won't find it a great loss as it's hardly breaking the bank:whistle::D
Carbonox_Ratchet
16-03-09, 13:17
It doesn't matter if it's only £4 and you managed to get the LE cheap or the regular edition cheap.etc.etc it's basically a £4 cup of coffee, which means it's not worth it.
I'll decide whether or not it's worth it, and I say it is worth the money based on the fact that it's equivalent to the couple of quid I saved off the game itself. To me, it matters. Either way, pay £45 for the full game (general RRP) or pay £40 (which I did) and pay £4 for the DLC. No extra costs needed.
Either way you look at it, I haven't been conned out of it in the end, based on the money I personally put towards the game. At the end of the day, I've come out with no money lost which makes the DLC worth the money.
Thus, I have no qualms buying the DLC, nor do I find it distasteful.
But hey, this is my scenario. To you and many others, you may have had different experiences and/or find the DLC and its cost unworthy.
For me, I'm just not on the same wavelength as many others who don't support Capcom's decision because I'm getting my money's worth. That's what matters to me, as a consumer. I'm not oblivious to the issue this has caused though, but it's no issue to me, nor am I losing anything. :thumb:
I'll decide whether or not it's worth it, and I say it is worth the money based on the fact that it's equivalent to the couple of quid I saved off the game itself. To me, it matters. Either way, pay £45 for the full game (general RRP) or pay £40 (which I did) and pay £4 for the DLC. No extra costs needed.
Either way you look at it, I haven't been conned out of it in the end, based on the money I personally put towards the game. At the end of the day, I've come out with no money lost which makes the DLC worth the money.
Thus, I have no qualms buying the DLC, nor do I find it distasteful.
But hey, this is my scenario. To you and many others, you may have had different experiences and/or find the DLC and its cost unworthy.
For me, I'm just not on the same wavelength as many others who don't support Capcom's decision because I'm getting my money's worth. That's what matters to me, as a consumer. I'm not oblivious to the issue this has caused though, but it's no issue to me, nor am I losing anything. :thumb:
It's irrelevent that you saved money. so the small cost makes it worth it? it doesn't. You'r still spending more than the DLC is worth.
Atm I'm playing Resident Evil 5 I think it's great and I've bought a Resident Evil 5 poster so you can see I do like the game.
Despite this, my enjoyment from the game doesn't stop me from thinking pragmatically about the bad DLC.
The DLC as DLC goes is embarassing. It's entirely up to you whether or not you think it's worth it or how you spend your money but when the next DLC comes out and it's even worse remember that you are partly responsible for it.
Carbonox_Ratchet
16-03-09, 14:14
It's irrelevent that you saved money. so the small cost makes it worth it? it doesn't. You'r still spending more than the DLC is worth.
It really is relevant that I saved money. That extra £4 is what I would have spent had I gone elsewhere than where I did to buy the game cheaper. Thus the DLC price was always going to be spent money.
The DLC is worth every penny of that measly £4 because of the content and potential longevity that comes with it. Trophies and the fact that it's another way to play online will result in me being on it for a considerable amount of time. To me, THAT'S what constitutes as good DLC. Costumes etc. aren't, yet extra modes that prolong the game's appeal and playability is.
The DLC as DLC goes is embarassing. It's entirely up to you whether or not you think it's worth it or how you spend your money but when the next DLC comes out and it's even worse remember that you are partly responsible for it.
Right, because feeling guilty will be one of the instantaneous reactions I get from having fun. :whistle:
If the next DLC is even worse, I won't buy it, simple. I most certainly won't kick myself in the teeth for being "partly responsible" for its development.
Like I said, I'm not being mugged off here so I PERSONALLY see no problem for my own benefit.
I'm gonna have to wait a while for Verses/Versus, as I'm not online until the Easter holidays (on 360). Thing is, if I wasn't going to be online, then I wouldn't be able to have the extra game modes. I find this a bit annoying.
Of course, if they sold these game modes on disc, then I wouldn't be complaining here. The price isnt the problem, really.
It really is relevant that I saved money. That extra £4 is what I would have spent had I gone elsewhere than where I did to buy the game cheaper. Thus the DLC price was always going to be spent money.
The DLC is worth every penny of that measly £4 because of the content and potential longevity that comes with it. Trophies and the fact that it's another way to play online will result in me being on it for a considerable amount of time. To me, THAT'S what constitutes as good DLC. Costumes etc. aren't, yet extra modes that prolong the game's appeal and playability is.
Right, because feeling guilty will be one of the instantaneous reactions I get from having fun. :whistle:
If the next DLC is even worse, I won't buy it, simple. I most certainly won't kick myself in the teeth for being "partly responsible" for its development.
Like I said, I'm not being mugged off here so I PERSONALLY see no problem for my own benefit.
I agree on both counts.
If ther is DLC that I want I will pay for it, like new modes extra levels.
Not botherd about paying for costumes so if the option came avalible i wouldn't buy them
Either way the DLC cost money to make and not every thing in life is free.
Don't like paying for DLC then don't.
I'm gonna have to wait a while for Verses/Versus, as I'm not online until the Easter holidays (on 360). Thing is, if I wasn't going to be online, then I wouldn't be able to have the extra game modes. I find this a bit annoying.
Of course, if they sold these game modes on disc, then I wouldn't be complaining here. The price isnt the problem, really.
That could be said for any DLC as their is 1000's across ps3 and 360 some free most not.
Another thing against this DLC content I noticed today. Having finished RE5 last night, I was looking through the official guidebook today and noticed they have an entire section devoted to the Versus mode. The book was published along side the game. It also fails to mention that it's DLC nor anything "out of the ordinary" from the other unlockable extras that precede it.
Considering people read reviews before buying a game, you'd think they'd be well aware of what the game does and doesn't have. And when you consider that package to be worth the price and buy it, why would you expect some additional content for it to suddenly come for free? It's not like the game without the DLC is suddenly not worth it's money.
To give an example, imagine buying a car. You've looked at several models, but you eventually decided to go with this one. It's an expensive one, but you've convinced yourself that it's a smart investment to make.
A few weeks later, the car's manufacturer comes with new headlights, which eminate a green light instead of the standard white one. You really like the idea of this, because you've read several articles on how green light's easier on the eye and people notice it faster. Would you expect the car's manufacturer to give you a pair of these new headlights for free?
Capcom's a company, not santa clause.
Considering people read reviews before buying a game, you'd think they'd be well aware of what the game does and doesn't have. And when you consider that package to be worth the price and buy it, why would you expect some additional content for it to suddenly come for free? It's not like the game without the DLC is suddenly not worth it's money.
To give an example, imagine buying a car. You've looked at several models, but you eventually decided to go with this one. It's an expensive one, but you've convinced yourself that it's a smart investment to make.
A few weeks later, the car's manufacturer comes with new headlights, which eminate a green light instead of the standard white one. You really like the idea of this, because you've read several articles on how green light's easier on the eye and people notice it faster. Would you expect the car's manufacturer to give you a pair of these new headlights for free?
Capcom's a company, not santa clause.
Yeah, well good point except Valve did it completely ruining your headlight example. The thing with community orientated companies is that they keep their customers by giving them a quality service, and they don't make them pay to get the most out of their game.
Another thing against this DLC content I noticed today. Having finished RE5 last night, I was looking through the official guidebook today and noticed they have an entire section devoted to the Versus mode. The book was published along side the game. It also fails to mention that it's DLC nor anything "out of the ordinary" from the other unlockable extras that precede it.
So it was in fact in a finished state when the game went gold. Meaning the versus was cut from the package for DLC purposes.
I think the problem is Capcom's have a dodgy batch of staff dictionaries in their office and the word free is missing from it. Luckily I have a couple spare dictionaries and I can highlight and bookmark them so Capcom will always know what free means and hopefully can start to use it.
Where do I send them to?
The thing with community orientated companies is that they keep their customers by giving them a quality service, and they don't make them pay to get the most out of their game.
We've had companies that bring out expansion packs long before DLC was even something people were considering. How is DLC really any different? Because I don't see anyone complaining at Half-Life's episodic gameplay, or WoW's expansion packs.
Member_of_STARS
16-03-09, 19:57
We've had companies that bring out expansion packs long before DLC was even something people were considering. How is DLC really any different? Because I don't see anyone complaining at Half-Life's episodic gameplay, or WoW's expansion packs.
Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa! Hold it right there, cowboy. Youre comparing an EXP pack to DLC, which is fundamentally wrong.
An expansion pack is pretty much a whole game, using the same engine and mostly same resources (but often provides entirely different content). That thing usually *is* its moneys worth. At about 1/3 or 1/2 of the original games price, it actually measures up and offers content which makes up for it.
DLC is not a new concept for PC games either. They were called "Booster Packs" for Battlefield 2, and for 10 dollars, you got 3 new maps, an assortment of new vehicles and weapons. There were a total of 2 BP released which served as nothing more than splintering the ocmmunity.
-
RE5 DLC of 5 dollars, which gives you 1 fundamentally same gamemode and 2 fundamentally similar gamemodes, is not worth its money. Whether or not your inner CAPCOM fanboy resists in ignorant screams and yells that its a gift from God himself- that is completely irrelevant. By the end of the day, as my fellow soldier in thiese trenches said- its a 4 quid coffee, and youre not even getting any sugar or cream.
This has nothing to do with how much money you make or spend, this is entirely about the value of the product, against money asked for it. And as Jlikew00t pointed out- this has now officially been exposed as a scheme as this *was* planned beforehand, stuff like this, which takes so little effort, is released for free,
We've had companies that bring out expansion packs long before DLC was even something people were considering. How is DLC really any different? Because I don't see anyone complaining at Half-Life's episodic gameplay, or WoW's expansion packs.
You can't tell the difference?
The good thing about a game that has expansions like Oblivion is that you get a huge amount of content in your DLC and it's all created AFTER the release. That's the essential point of DLC it's created to enhance the game.
Slapping on a bad versus mode is not good DLC, it's not even half-decent DLC.
A couple of years ago we would have run through the story mode and it would have been unlocked. Now you have to pay for it and it's not even worth paying for.
If you have too much spare money Capcom have provided another easy way to get rid of it:
Resident Evil 5 Lighter - £5.99 (http://www.play.com/Gadgets/Gadgets/4-/8780107/Resident-Evil-5-Lighter/Product.html#)
http://images.play.com/covers/8780107x.jpg
Actually, I was referring to DLC in general. Stuff like PoP's extra level and Mass Effect's additional planet. Don't want to burn my hands on the RE5 ordeal yet, seeing I don't know the details yet (Yes, I jump into debates without reading previous posts way too fast).
I am wondering now though, is RE5's versus mode already on the disc, or do you have to download the entire package? Because I can imagine a company finishing a game, putting extra manpower on working out something nice and then selling that. That'd only make sense, considering they've also invested extra effort and money into making this.
I am wondering now though, is RE5's versus mode already on the disc, or do you have to download the entire package?
It's most likely on the disc.
Because I can imagine a company finishing a game, putting extra manpower on working out something nice and then selling that. That'd only make sense, considering they've also invested extra effort and money into making this.
Versus was certainly finished before the game released; it's completely detailed in the official guidebook, and in there they mention nothing about it being DLC - it's just lumped in with the Extras right after the Merc guide - again implying the entire thing was finished, and is most likely still on the disc.
Member_of_STARS
16-03-09, 20:17
Actually, I was referring to DLC in general. Stuff like PoP's extra level and Mass Effect's additional planet. Don't want to burn my hands on the RE5 ordeal yet, seeing I don't know the details yet (Yes, I jump into debates without reading previous posts way too fast).
I am wondering now though, is RE5's versus mode already on the disc, or do you have to download the entire package? Because I can imagine a company finishing a game, putting extra manpower on working out something nice and then selling that. That'd only make sense, considering they've also invested extra effort and money into making this.
Its very likely that it wasnt on the disk, but considering that proof of it being planned before the games release, is here, Id say theres a big chance that theyve actually developed the new gamemodes before the launch, but couldnt add it in due to time constraints. Its a very popular theory and is supported by two things- March 13th is a special date and the ending of RE5 was obviously rushed.
All right.
Either way, I still do stand by what I said previously. People buy games knowing what's in them, so that should be quality enough - else you wouldn't have bought the game, would you? If a company chooses to later on release additional content for which you can pay, there's no reason why they shouldn't. Or well, couldn't. You might feel cheated having to pay more money to play the DLC if that's your thing, but I doubt a few disgruntled fans weigh up against (is that how you say it) the money they'll make with stuff like this.
Or hey, you could claim that stuff like this is a way for companies to make money on games that get pirated. But that's a random thought I had just now, so don't call me stupid for mentioning the possibility. Nor would I even agree with them doing that.
Member_of_STARS
16-03-09, 20:38
People buy games knowing what's in them, so that should be quality enough - else you wouldn't have bought the game, would you?
Oh, you naive child :(
Id show you some horror stories but I dont want you to lose your sleep over it, haha. All in good jokes.
Ubisofts CEO adressed Ubis shareholders with this, paraphrased, message.
"Because our games lack in quality and are basically Licker dump wrapped in shiny plastic, we must spend more money on marketing in order to achieve expected sales results."
In practice, this means that a wide assortment of bugs on Rainbow Six Vegas games is comparable to a decomposing, 2 month old body. But marketing never mentions that, and theres no Demos released either. Just a lot of adds and PR spinning of this Hollywood-esque tactical realism (which is really only arcade shooter grade stuff).
I like Vegas 2, its a quilty pleasure, but I lose a piece of my soul and nerves every time I play it.
I realize there's tons of games that aren't 'good', or however you might call it. My point is that you've already bought the game for what it is. Whether that's because of good marketing, fanboyism or just because it's a good game isn't the case here - you still bought the game the way it is. So in this case, people probably bought RE5 well aware of the lack versus mode. (Or well, in most cases. Some people just jump the gun)
Member_of_STARS
16-03-09, 20:54
I realize there's tons of games that aren't 'good', or however you might call it. My point is that you've already bought the game for what it is. Whether that's because of good marketing, fanboyism or just because it's a good game isn't the case here - you still bought the game the way it is. So in this case, people probably bought RE5 well aware of the lack versus mode. (Or well, in most cases. Some people just jump the gun)
So youre saying what the CAPCOM rep quote said on the first page.
"You got your moneys worth, now each additional bonus will cost you more"
And in theory, its a sound idea. However, as been said-
A) Most developers release this little content for free, or mix it up with enough content to justify the pricetag.
B) Recycled gamemodes, of which at least one is questionable in its function, is not, ever, never worth 5 dollars, unless youre willing to spend 10 bucks for a paperbag with Hunter dump in it, just because it has the name of your favourite game developer on it.
http://kotaku.com/5170633/capcom-calls-bs-on-resident-evil-5-dlc-complaints
That's more like backlash over a reasonable explanation.
I think that they had always planned to release the content on the disc, but it probably was incomplete so they decided to cut it and include it as DLC at a later time.
Member_of_STARS
17-03-09, 09:02
That's more like backlash over a reasonable explanation.
I think that they had always planned to release the content on the disc, but it probably was incomplete so they decided to cut it and include it as DLC at a later time.
Holy crap! My Windows displayed a "critical error" message the second I scrolled to this part!
"BS"? I mean, what kind of marketing guy trained him? He's telling us what to think and not addressing our concerns, and insulting those with concerns in an attempt to be a "bad-ass I don't care what you think" kind of guy, with people like this doing the marketing, its any wonder why we are paying for this type of "BS" as he so eloquently put it.
Member_of_STARS
17-03-09, 09:23
LOL, Dante, why do I get the feeling that someones been posting under your account?
LOL, Dante, why do I get the feeling that someones been posting under your account?
Heh, well, it's a terrible response, regardless of his rank he should show far more intelligence than to be "BUY DLC OR YOU'RE NOT COOL".
Yes, I appreciate Capcom and their games, but im not entirely stupid or devoted to them, consumers have an important role in all this, Vice-President or not, he should ease worries, not cry foul, the moment a problem shows up.
Also no official reply?
Apologies, occasionally I don't work weekends and take the odd day in lieu after having a 6 days week.
Versus Mode wasn't in the original desing for Resident Evil 5 and was confirmed as an addition towards the very end of the development cycle, and provides a brand new mode of play for Resident Evil that has never featured in previous titles.
Versus Mode wasn't in the original desing for Resident Evil 5 and was confirmed as an addition towards the very end of the development cycle
I find it hard to believe, to be honest. The entire Versus mode is covered in a devoted section in Capcom's official guidebook. It appears in the extras section, right after detailing Mercs, and makes to effort to mention that it's DLC or anything other than unlockable content when you complete the game much like everything else in the Extra's section.
Imagine you're Jo-Schmo: you have no internet, it's lucky you have a 360/ps3. You get the guidebook, finish the game, and spend a long time trying to unlock this Versus mode with no success.
The book provides reasonable doubt in my opinion. :/
and provides a brand new mode of play for Resident Evil that has never featured in previous titles.
Couldn't you play deathmatch in the Outbreak series?
erm in the guide book it does mention it will be download content, look harder.
and its much faster to write a book than it is to create a new game mode
erm in the guide book it does mention it will be download content, look harder.
Page and line number. I've seen people post this all over the net, can't imagine everyone being wrong.
and its much faster to write a book than it is to create a new game mode
That makes no sense. What's your point? Writers can time travel? You can't write a complete, detailed guide, if the game mode isn't completed. ;)
dude, i have seen it written like 3 times, its just not where you would expect to see it, im far too lazy to look up the page of it when you can do it yourself
and i could write a guide on the best ways to combat majini and the axe man based on the demo and it would be very detailed
dude, i have seen it written like 3 times, its just not where you would expect to see it, im far too lazy to look up the page of it when you can do it yourself
Well I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and have a good look through the book. Will report back later.
and i could write a guide on the best ways to combat majini and the axe man based on the demo and it would be very detailed
Again, makes little sense. This is a guide on the maps that are appearing, strategy, weapon loadout, time bonus placement ... and so on. You can't write that kind of guide without playing a finished version that isn't going to change.
I find it hard to believe, to be honest. The entire Versus mode is covered in a devoted section in Capcom's official guidebook. It appears in the extras section, right after detailing Mercs, and makes to effort to mention that it's DLC or anything other than unlockable content when you complete the game much like everything else in the Extra's section.
Imagine you're Jo-Schmo: you have no internet, it's lucky you have a 360/ps3. You get the guidebook, finish the game, and spend a long time trying to unlock this Versus mode with no success.
The book provides reasonable doubt in my opinion. :/
Couldn't you play deathmatch in the Outbreak series?
We work very closely with the guide publishers to make sure that there aren't any misprints/omissions. Please bear in mind that several weeks pass between going gold and the actual release. There are significant differences between the printed materials and the Xbox/PS software production cycles.
You can't write a complete, detailed guide, if the game mode isn't completed. ;)
You can if you are provided with the relevant information from the additional development document. I'm sure you don't really believe that these guides are compiled purely (if at all) on game play.
ok i cant belive i am doing this but page 155 under the list of unlockables (yes its that obvious)
there is incomplete information with a side note - Verses mode is accessible as download content.
Please bear in mind that several weeks pass between going gold and the actual release.
Indeed. But does that mean, however, that Versus was gold at the same time (in order for it to be included in the guide) or is it a fallback reason of "we weren't sure whether to release it with the game or as DLC"?
*Note: I understand Capcom can charge what they want for what they want. To say otherwise would be naive, it's just a lot of people don't seem to agree with what they're doing.
ok i cant beliEve i am doing this but page 155 under the list of unlockables (yes its that obvious)
Ah yes, there you go. Right under the list of figurines, a little mention of it. Pity they didn't think of mentioning it once in the entire section devoted for it. :whistle: Regardless, it's hardly "3 times" now is it?
ok again at the bottom of page 163 and im sure it says it somewhere else, i think in referance to a weapon
ok again at the bottom of page 163 and im sure it says it somewhere else, i think in referance to a weapon
Hey, don't beat yourself up over it, it's not a deal-breaker, it doesn't really matter if it's mentioned or not my friend. The fact still stands that it was covered in detail, long before publication.
Indeed. But does that mean, however, that Versus was gold at the same time (in order for it to be included in the guide) or is it a fallback reason of "we weren't sure whether to release it with the game or as DLC"?
Why would the additional content necessarily go gold at the same time as the game code? They are 2 separate submissions. The only thing you can be sure is that by the time the guide was ready for publication Capcom had commited themselves and allocated budget for the development of the additional mode. As I said, guides are based on documentation, not on game play.
As I said, guides are based on documentation, not on game play.
Knowing Dan Birlew, I tend to disagree.
Hey, don't beat yourself up over it, it's not a deal-breaker, it doesn't really matter if it's mentioned or not my friend. The fact still stands that it was covered in detail, long before publication.
hey, your the one claiming that because there is no mention of it being dlc in the guide book means capcom is lying, im just removing that from your argument leaving you with the very weak argument that a guide cant be written until a game is 100% complete, which as i stated with my demo example just points out how weak that argument is
also the fact that there is incomplete information in the guide and the verses walk through really isnt that detailed (a whole 4 pages bulked out with info on items already detailed in other parts of the guide and screenshots) means you should go back to the drawing board
hey, your the one claiming that because there is no mention of it being dlc in the guide book means capcom is lying
Indeed, and you proved that worng didn't you? It's not a deal breaker my friend, don't work yourself up over it.
stated with my demo example just points out how weak that argument isNot really; you're "argument", doesn't hold up to detailed information on placements. By your rationale, you could write an entire guide to RE5 based on the demo. I think you can see the futility in that.
means you should go back to the drawing boardOh, please, don't resort to the mentality of a argumentative teen. No one here is out to prove themselves "better" than the others; it's simply an argument and you're taking it personally, rather than theoretically - I expected a little bit more maturity from you Sin.
I conceded to your info on the DLC in the book without dragging the item across multiple posts of "no you're wrong, go back to the drawing board hahah I win" mentality - I expect the same in return.
Come on guys, let's calm down. I'm more than happy to carry on with the discussion as long as it's handled nicely - in all directions, you with each other, you with Capcom, Capcom with you. No flaming, no insulting, please.
sorry i got a bit carried away, proberbly cause my book arrived today and i spent the morning reading it so i knew that it was mentioned
Carbonox_Ratchet
17-03-09, 13:23
Apologies, occasionally I don't work weekends and take the odd day in lieu after having a 6 days week.
Versus Mode wasn't in the original desing for Resident Evil 5 and was confirmed as an addition towards the very end of the development cycle, and provides a brand new mode of play for Resident Evil that has never featured in previous titles.
I'm confused; if the DLC wasn't on the original build in the first place, then why are the DLC Trophies showing up when I compare my Trophy stats with someone else's? The new ones appear at the bottom and I don't even have the DLC.
I'm confused; if the DLC wasn't on the original build in the first place, then why are the DLC Trophies showing up when I compare my Trophy stats with someone else's? The new ones appear at the bottom and I don't even have the DLC.
To guess trophies are compiled when the main game is fineshed and they knew about the DLC when the game was gold so it probberbly was easyer to put them in then than wait for the DLC
thats strange, the last one on my list is that stupid "build a certain level of trust with your partner" trophy
edit: oh wait they are there today... were they always there?
Carbonox_Ratchet
17-03-09, 13:37
They've been there since I got the game on Friday.
Member_of_STARS
17-03-09, 14:48
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v636/Member_of_STARS/CAPCOM.jpg
Sorry, had to :P
And the argument is solid and valid. If there is evidence of Versus mode being planned and developed while the game was developed, all this talk of "separate budget" is simply BS. Especially considering just how little work a company needs to do to produce, develop and market it. The evidence just keeps piling up...
Exactly how little work is involved to produce, market and develop, Member of Stars? I think you're making assumptions based on your perceptions rather than experiece and that can often lead to wrong conclusions.
I can't see any piles nor evidence, I'm afraid.
Can I ask you to stop using "BS", please refer to the terms & conditions you recently accepted.
Especially considering just how little work a company needs to do to produce, develop and market it.
Have to ask, how do you know this?
Member_of_STARS
17-03-09, 16:36
Sorry Tenebra, didnt know "BS" was blacklisted.
Have to ask, how do you know this?
Consider this.
A) Adding additional gamemodes were planned at least in the final legs of the games production
B) Rumour has it (I havent confirmed this myself) that the hacked Demo revealed clues to these gamemodes
C) No matter how you spin it, there is no new content and the gamemodes are either extentions or combinations of existing gamemodes, the technical changes from one gamemode to the other, in a nutshell, require only tweaking of scoring system
D) CAPCOMs PR staff trying to fight accusations with vague rebuttals with no real counterarguments
E) The size of the DLC is mere 180KBs, which means that the DLC very likely simply unlocks certain files on the system and if not, adds or alters a few strings of code to create an alternate gamemode which is fundamentally similar or nearly the same to the available ones
As for the complexity of the task. You really need to start questioning when a PR rep comes up with a statement, in which he/she claims that the workload for DLC warranted a separate budget (which would also mean dedicated staff and direction). Considering that one text character takes 1 to 2 bytes of space, you can imagine just how small the file is.
And Ten, even though I dont work in the field and have little experience with coding, you need to remember that those folks are educated, experienced and paid to do that kind of work, and considering the new gamemodes are simple rearrangement of a few sticks, it does raise suspicion.
A) Adding additional gamemodes were planned at least in the final legs of the games production
Which means they weren't in the original plan, please read my earlier post "towards the very end of the development cycle.
B) Rumour has it (I havent confirmed this myself) that the hacked Demo revealed clues to these gamemodes
a) rumour b) and?
C) No matter how you spin it, there is no new content and the gamemodes are either extentions or combinations of existing gamemodes, the technical changes from one gamemode to the other, in a nutshell, require only tweaking of scoring system
I'm sorry, this is your perception, code doesn't just generate itself.
D) CAPCOMs PR staff trying to fight accusations with vague rebuttals with no real counterarguments
Our response is pretty clear: the Versus mode was not part of the original design, it is an addition.
E) The size of the DLC is mere 180KBs, which means that the DLC very likely simply unlocks certain files on the system and if not, adds or alters a few strings of code to create an alternate gamemode which is fundamentally similar or nearly the same to the available ones
Incorrect. The mode is not on the disc.
As for the complexity of the task. You really need to start questioning when a PR rep comes up with a statement, in which he/she claims that the workload for DLC warranted a separate budget (which would also mean dedicated staff and direction). Considering that one text character takes 1 to 2 bytes of space, you can imagine just how small the file is.
Every piece of work requires a budget and allocated resources. The DLC is a separate "object" from the game itself that required specific resources and separate submission.
And Ten, even though I dont work in the field and have little experience with coding, you need to remember that those folks are educated, experienced and paid to do that kind of work, and considering the new gamemodes are simple rearrangement of a few sticks, it does raise suspicion.
Does this mean that professional work does not need to be paid?
I can't really think of any extra code for versus mode (just to play devil's advocate). The code for hurting your coop partner already exists, so it's merely a matter of switching on damage during Versus, no? The maps already exist from Mercs. Weapons and so on.
If that's the case, Parjay, there is no need to buy the Versus mode dlc, just play Mercenaries with the damage on :) Consumers have the power, never buy anything you don't need/want :)
Well, let's not start insulting each other's intelligence, no?
You can't play Merc's with the damage on.
Therefore, how can you say there can't be any work involved?
I didn't. I said that the code already exists; mere options to turn on and off.
Sorry Parjay, where does it exist? With the same reasoning, since lines of code have already been written, putting them together to produce a programme does not involve any work. My software developing husband might disagree with that.
It's sad to see how skilled work is under estimated around here.
The no work thing was someone else's argument, not mine.
Parjay, I hate doing this but
I can't really think of any extra code for versus mode (just to play devil's advocate). The code for hurting your coop partner already exists, so it's merely a matter of switching on damage during Versus, no?
I said that the code already exists; mere options to turn on and off.
Merely switching on/off (I'm using your words, please correct me if I'm wrong) implies no/little work.
It's not the fact no work was involved (I'm sure it took a lot of time, effort and skill, especially with the source code already existing) it's the fact we are being asked to pay for it.
In the days before DLC this stuff would have been deemed as unlockables implimented into the game on release and we would have still paid the same amount.
Parjay, I hate doing this but
Merely switching on/off (I'm using your words, please correct me if I'm wrong) implies no/little work.
It only implies what I wrote: the low probability of extra code, since, seemingly, it already exists in the game. I never stated anything about there being "no work" in putting together the option to play Versus; that was just added on by the reader from the supposition of previous user's posts. Whereas other users problems are their supposed lack of work involved in the DLC, mine is centered on the associated price for the work we're having to pay, especially when you contrast the price of the DLC to the price of the game.
For example: for £29.99 I got an entire RE5 game, and it's associated content, models, scripts, textures, sounds, music, extras such as Mercs, figurines, professional mode and so on and so on. Yet, for £3.99 all I get, new, is this fabled code to play a mode using zero new content (save for the code). I think you can admit to the gross difference in pricing and content.
It only implies what I wrote: the low probability of extra code, since, seemingly, it already exists in the game. I never stated anything about there being "no work" in putting together the option to play Versus; that was just added on by the reader from the supposition of previous user's posts. Whereas other users problems are their supposed lack of work involved in the DLC, mine is centered on the associated price for the work we're having to pay, especially when you contrast the price of the DLC to the price of the game.
Parjay, "low probability" and "seemingly" - assumptions. With all due respect that's not solid basis to draw conclusions.
Death the Kid, in the days before DLC you wouldn't have seen any Versus mode, you would have got your full story game and Mercenaries mode, as you did with RE4. Funnily enough, the common request from the community was indeed Mercenaries, which was given - free of charge and not turned into a paid for DLC - with the game. Can I also point out that this mode is in any way useful only to those who are online and enjoy multiplayer gaming? Not exactly a must have option, I'd dare say.
For example: for £29.99 I got an entire RE5 game, and it's associated content, models, scripts, textures, sounds, music, extras such as Mercs, figurines, professional mode and so on and so on. Yet, for £3.99 all I get, new, is this fabled code to play a mode using zero new content (save for the code). I think you can admit to the gross difference in pricing and content.
So for £29.99 you got a AAA title at release (pretty good price, I'd say as a game buying gamer) and for £3.99 you have the option to purchase a mode that would give you a fair amount of game play (pretty much until you get bored) which does not affect your main game at all. We can do some calculations on price per gaming hour if you want, but again that only makes any sense if you are keen on the Versus mode game play. If you aren't you don't have to buy it.
Parjay, "low probability" and "seemingly" - assumptions. With all due respect that's not solid basis to draw conclusions.
Indeed, but that's conversely why I used those two words: because they are assumptions. Regardless, the point still stands: £3.99 for only new code, when we got everything I detailed above for £29.99 Anyone can see the problem here.
So for £29.99 you got a AAA title at release (pretty good price, I'd say as a game buying gamer) and for £3.99 you have the option to purchase a mode that would give you a fair amount of game play (pretty much until you get bored) which does not affect your main game at all. We can do some calculations on price per gaming hour if you want, but again that only makes any sense if you are keen on the Versus mode game play. If you aren't you don't have to buy it.
Oh, come on now ... I thought we weren't gonna insult each other's intelligence?
So for £29.99 you got a AAA title at release (pretty good price, I'd say as a game buying gamer)
Yes! Exactly my point. Let's lay it down in broad strokes:
We know there's no new content save for the Versus Code.
So let's, for the sake of this argument, set the Versus Code to 5000 lines of new code.
Conversely, then RE5 we'll say has 5 million lines of code, after all since it's the main meat of the game.
Capcom's reasoning is the DLC has it's own budget and so forth.
Yet...
Capcom can turn out an entire game, not just the code, for £29.99
Capcom can only turn out a code addon for £3.99
See the problem?
Using Capcom's rationale, RE5, which had it's own budget, should have cost the gamer an exceptional amount of money - JUST FOR THE CODE.
Death the Kid, in the days before DLC you wouldn't have seen any Versus mode, you would have got your full story game and Mercenaries mode, as you did with RE4. Funnily enough, the common request from the community was indeed Mercenaries, which was given - free of charge and not turned into a paid for DLC - with the game. Can I also point out that this mode is in any way useful only to those who are online and enjoy multiplayer gaming? Not exactly a must have option, I'd dare say.
True enough, but it still doesn't make it worth paying for. I see DLC as a chance for developers to make downloadable expansion packs. Making multiplayer mode as DLC is certainly not worth it and it could have been included on release.
I have to say RE5 is indeed a great game but this whole DLC issue is overshadowing it. Customer satisfaction is what a customer based company should provide and I'm not satisfied tbh.
True enough, but it still doesn't make it worth paying for.
Don't buy it then. It's an add on, your lack of purchase won't compromise this
I have to say RE5 is indeed a great game
Parjay, please read again my post, I edited it after your edit.
The question is: is RE5 a solid, good quality, bug free game? (comments on whether it's too action or not are irrelevant, plenty of media coverage for everybody to make an informed decision, a demo, a fair number of non nda'ed community representatives who played the game and reported back over a month before release) Was Mercenaries - a big request from the community - made available free of charge? Does the add on in any way diminish the story mode or the Mercenaries mode?
Honest answers, everybody loves freebies.
Yes, I read it and replied to it in my last post edit.
Yes it does diminish the gameplay experience. When fans bought their copy of the game they thought they were getting the best Capcom could offer for the price.
If nobody had known there was a multiplyer mode everyone would be satisfied. Since we know that we didn't get everything and something was held back we are obviously annoyed it wasn't given to us with the game in the first place.
We know there's no new content save for the Versus Code.
A costume is content, would you consider it more valuable than a mode?
So let's, for the sake of this argument, set the Versus Code to 5000 lines of new code.
Conversely, then RE5 we'll say has 5 million lines of code, after all since it's the main meat of the game.
Let's stop basing a conversation on assumptions, shall we? I can't see the value of doing it.
How many hours of game play do you think you will invest in the story mode and Mercenaries?
Yes it does diminish the gameplay experience. When fans bought their copy of the game they thought they were getting the best Capcom could offer for the price.
You did.
A costume is content, would you consider it more valuable than a mode?
Irrelevant; two different things. Here we're comparing the cost Capcom claims to develop one single addon, compared to the cost of an entire game over what, four years of developmental coding?
Let's stop basing a conversation on assumptions, shall we? I can't see the value of doing it.
I'm sorry Ten, but that's just shameless weaseling out of the conversation. The numbers are all theoretical to show the point that still stands. I think, with all due respect, that you aren't stupid enough to really believe that the Versus Code is anywhere near the level of an entire game's code.
How many hours of game play do you think you will invest in the story mode and Mercenaries?
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant; two different things. Here we're comparing the cost Capcom claims to develop one single addon, compared to the cost of an entire game over what, four years of developmental coding?
Nope, you're attaching value to content hence it's relevant.
I'm sorry Ten, but that's just shameless weaseling out of the conversation. The numbers are all theoretical to show the point that still stands. I think, with all due respect, that you aren't stupid enough to really believe that the Versus Code is anywhere near the level of an entire game's code.
No weaseling anywhere (I'm still here answering to a discussion that is clearly not getting anywhere and I've now been working hmmm 13 hours), I don't think that arbitrary assumptions can result in accurate conclusions.
Irrelevant.
Anything but. That's actually the one point we can discuss further without making assumptions. Value for money, that's all that counts.
Nope, you're attaching value to content hence it's relevant.
Nope. CAPCOM attached the value to content with their "excuse", remember? "It has it's own budget." Yet RE5 had it's own budget, and could sell an entire game for only a fraction more.
Again I ask: since Capcom's excuse for the price is that it had it's own dev and budget, why is it £4 with zero new content save the code, when they produced an entire game for selling at £30.
Value for money, that's all that counts.
Nope. But while you mention it, £4 for extra code is hardly value for money when you just bought an entire game for not much more ;)
Imo it wasn't the best Capcom could deliver because there was content that was ready at release but instead was chosen to be used for paid DLC.
Nope. CAPCOM attached the value to content with their "excuse", remember? "It has it's own budget." Yet RE5 had it's own budget, and could sell an entire game for only a fraction more.
Again I ask: since Capcom's excuse for the price is that it had it's own dev and budget, why is it £4 with zero new content save the code, when they produced an entire game for selling at £30.
Nope. But while you mention it, £4 for extra code is hardly value for money when you just bought an entire game for not much more ;)
Who's weaseling out? :p Looks like you're refusing for some reason to try a different path?
Imo it wasn't the best Capcom could deliver because there was content that was ready at release
Nope, I've already said it was submitted separately.
Imo it wasn't the best Capcom could deliver because there was content that was ready at release but instead was chosen to be used for paid DLC.
Why would it be free? They're adding extra code. That's not what you paid for when you bought the full game, regardless of intended content or not.
Imo it wasn't the best Capcom could deliver because there was content that was ready at release but instead was chosen to be used for paid DLC.
As Tenebra has said it was not ready at the games releise .
Who's weaseling out? :p Looks like you're refusing for some reason to try to try a different path?
There's no need for "a different path". (But do feel fre to go down any path of discussion that will answer why the huge disparate difference in pricing) Simply put, with a blank line to fill in:
Budget and Dev: RE5 full game coding and all £29.99
Budget and Dev: Versus code only £3.99
Reason ________________________
As Tenebra has said it was not ready at the games releise .
It was the guide has a section on it and it was written alongside the game before it was released. Not only that but for it to be released so soon it had to have been finished before release.
It was the guide has a section on it and it was written alongside the game before it was released. Not only that but for it to be released so soon it had to have been finished before release.
But even according to the guide, it was always DLC.
But even according to the guide, it was always DLC.
Which is the problem Parjay, if it's finished on release it should go in the game, no excuses.
Which is the problem Parjay, if it's finished on release it should go in the game, no excuses.
Uh no*. They filmed the lord of the rings trilogy at once - when they released the first, should we have been complaining that we should have gotten all three at once?
*only assuming Capcom are telling the truth about the "seperate budgets" and so forth
TENENBRA, just forget it, obviously an impasse has been reached. We're each entitled to our own opinons. (no hard feelings):cry:
Uh no*. They filmed the lord of the rings trilogy at once - when they released the first, should we have been complaining that we should have gotten all three at once?
*only assuming Capcom are telling the truth about the "seperate budgets" and so forth
TENENBRA, just forget it, obviously an impasse has been reached. We're each entitled to our own opinons. (no hard feelings):cry:
That example doesn't work because even if they filmed them simultaneously the movie trilogy was sequential.
The multiplayer mode is not a follow on from the story mode so there's no reason it shouldn't be included with it.
They can take our limited editions and they can take our alternate costumes but they can never take our
http://www.pjlighthouse.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/braveheart-lesson-bible.jpg
FREEEEE-DDDDDDDDDLC!!!
I think you're grasping at straws there.
The multiplayer mode is not a follow on from the story mode so there's no reason it shouldn't be included with it. Do you realize how batcrap insane that sounds?
I think you're grasping at straws there.
You're the one that made the film example that didn't make sense.
Also I see you haven't posted a valid point against my arguement, so have you run out of straws all together?
There's no need for "a different path". (But do feel fre to go down any path of discussion that will answer why the huge disparate difference in pricing) Simply put, with a blank line to fill in:
Budget and Dev: RE5 full game coding and all £29.99
Budget and Dev: Versus code only £3.99
Reason ________________________
Because, I'm afraid to say, you are insisting on working on assumptions and forgetting the details.
Not everybody who buys a game buys its add ons. In my experience, it's about 10-15% but that is based on content that could be used in single player and there are quite a few factors to keep into consideration - how many people are online, how many people do actually play multiplayers/competitive multiplayer. Not as many as you might think.
Member_of_STARS
17-03-09, 22:56
Which means they weren't in the original plan, please read my earlier post "towards the very end of the development cycle.
a) rumour b) and?
Tenebra, seriously, what is this? Are you saying that the "rumour" is incorrect? Because the first mention of a Versus mode for RE5 comes from December 18th, 2008, which is 4 months before the game launched. Take about a month off before it hit gold and theres still 3 months. So its not "a rumour" anymore. Its a fact, the additional gamemodes were in development way before the game hit the finish line. Now, this begs a question, since you guys are actually not trying to resolve this matter with solid facts, dates and figures (instead using the same kind of vague speculation the fanbase does). If youre spinning it, it must be fishy.
I'm sorry, this is your perception, code doesn't just generate itself.
Who says it does? Im talking about the effort needed to create these additional gamemodes when the existing code and features are already in the game and simply need to be added to each other.
All of these gamemodes consist of following features.
COOP
Friendly fire
Scoring mechanism
By enabling, disabling each of these three aspects, you get 3 different gamemodes, which is why only about 180KBs of code is really needed. In essence, it is a key.
Chris“ excuse is that DLC warranted its own budget and production, but if 180KBs worth of work is worth 5 dollars, this is a pathetic argument, to be honest.
Our response is pretty clear: the Versus mode was not part of the original design, it is an addition.
Its an addition found to be in the Demo in 2008, I think its fair to speculate that the second your employers figured out that Mercs was one of RE5s selling points, a DLC plan was come up with. Could have been at the beginning of the development, middle or end, it doesnt matter. What does matter is that Mercs was developed both on paper and in concept way before the Demo was released and when all of these additional gamemodes only need convenient changes in 3 aspects, it raises even more questions. Could it be that this excuse of "It wasnt in the development plan" is all part of damage control? And what can we think of CAPCOM contacting sites after hacked Demo content was released to public, including the mention of a Versus mode?
Incorrect. The mode is not on the disc.
Oh Ten, but it is, its there in building blocks, written and existing code, just not put together, which the 180KB file does. In essence, no real work has to be done to create them. Does that justify a 5 dollar pricetag? 180KBs is worth 2.5 million dollars?
Every piece of work requires a budget and allocated resources. The DLC is a separate "object" from the game itself that required specific resources and separate submission.
Thats what we call JOKK here. Politically correct nonsense. We know it requires its own budget, but we also know that its development cycle DIDNT start after the game went gold, nor even after the Demo was released. So its budget was part of RE5s own budget, which nullifies the argument.
Does this mean that professional work does not need to be paid?
Dont kid me nor yourself. You and me both know that the codemonkeys sweating in the cubicles will see little of that 99% margin thats going to be generated from selling 180KBs of code.
[EDIT] You shouldnt be trying to "win" this through a "debate", when you should have all the answers as a CAPCOM rep. Unless youre debating with us as a community member and not a manager. I must say that I dont see you as CAPCOM, because such a large corporate machine will never provide you with all the answers you would need to satisfy the community, so Im trying to make a distinction between times youre acting as a representative and as a forumer.
Right now, you dont have the answers, but dont try to spin this, because this whole DLC thing is wrong no matter how you look at it. And I dont share the view that DLC should be free, on the contrary, DLCs provide excellent funding options between games releases.
Wait, Tenebra isn't allowed to debate because she has a knowledge base? Personally I'm glad that she's doing what she's doing, same for Chris down at Unity. Most of the times developers just shut up whenever the community's in an uproar. You may not agree with her, but at least she's showing us that she's listening. If you don't see her as some representing Capcom, that's your own shortcoming.
And I'm wondering, are you just assuming it'll be 180 kb? Or have you read it somewhere?
Member_of_STARS
19-03-09, 09:13
Wait, Tenebra isn't allowed to debate because she has a knowledge base?
Thats not what I said. I said that she shouldnt debate this if she technically should have information to end this argument with one swift post. But the responses from both Chris and her have been vague. In short, they are trying to debate this as forum users and not as reps.
You may not agree with her, but at least she's showing us that she's listening. If you don't see her as some representing Capcom, that's your own shortcoming.
Again, thats not what I said. I see her as a community member and not the public face of CAPCOM. Its obvious that she either isnt given all the answers or most likely has a list of topics she can elaborate on and questions she can answer. PR work is all about limits on what you can and should say. And its not my shortcoming, if you actually tried to strain that grey matter of yours, I meant that as a half-compliment. Most of the time, the community managers have three responses. "Yes", "No", "Ill look into it and Ill let you know as soon as I find out". I dont expect her to know or tell everything, that was the point.
And I'm wondering, are you just assuming it'll be 180 kb? Or have you read it somewhere?
RE5 guide book. And its mentioned in various forums aswell.
[EDIT] You shouldnt be trying to "win" this through a "debate", when you should have all the answers as a CAPCOM rep. Unless youre debating with us as a community member and not a manager. I must say that I dont see you as CAPCOM, because such a large corporate machine will never provide you with all the answers you would need to satisfy the community, so Im trying to make a distinction between times youre acting as a representative and as a forumer.
Right now, you dont have the answers, but dont try to spin this, because this whole DLC thing is wrong no matter how you look at it. And I dont share the view that DLC should be free, on the contrary, DLCs provide excellent funding options between games releases.
Member_of_STARS, I'm not trying to "win" anything - between you and me, I don't need to, I'm too old for feeling the need to win online arguments ;) Try to remember that.
I'm going to mention a golden word - confidentiality. It doesn't mean hiding anything, it doesn't mean scamming anybody, it means simply not divulging internal information randomly.
Answering directly with dates and numbers would not not make any difference. You want to know when the mode was confirmed and I answered. That's what you need to know, you don't need a date. Was the mode done for free? No, it wasn't, budget had to be allocated. You don't need to know how much the budget was. Clear and simple.
Member_of_STARS
19-03-09, 09:36
I'm going to mention a golden word - confidentiality. It doesn't mean hiding anything, it doesn't mean scamming anybody, it means simply not divulging internal information randomly.
Exactly, but the problem is, you try to reassure suspecting people with vague information. Perhaps the practice of issuing incomplete or insufficient information is rare because of problems like these?
Vague? Actually, I think that maybe it's that the expectations are a bit over the top. I'm pretty sure you don't ask this sort of questions with other products. I don't think you ask a car manufacturer details about their budgets, expected sales and turnover when you buy a car.
It's really strange how younger gamers think that they'd only look clever if they persistently ask questions on subjects that are blatantly confidential and then complain when they get the best answer they can get that it's all a PR spin. Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if one day you asked me details about our salaries.
Having a happy community is my top priority but this doesn't mean that I will start divulging details that you don't need.
Member_of_STARS
19-03-09, 10:11
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if one day you asked me details about our salaries.
Speaking of salaries... :D
I would start asking questions if the car I was buying had air conditioning installed, but the manufacturer asked for extra for a key to it to work ;)
As for "young gamers", youre off the base here. The young gamers embrace 5 dollar DLC because its released by their "favourite videogame developer". The older ones usually do the questioning. You got this thing backwards.
*sigh*
We've already said that the DLC is not a key.
I rest my case.
The way it seems to me, capcom promissed they'd make a multiplayer mode for the game as an attempt to answer some player's requests.
Since it wasn't in their starting plan, they developed it as an addon and labeled a price for it's download.
I can really see nothing wrong in that. The project was to do X, suddenly it becomes X + Y, hence the time, work, resources spent clearly get larger.
As has been stated before code doesn't write itself (funny how users allways think adding a feature to a program is just, putting it there) and companies are made to profit, if an addon was made for the game i believe it is perfectly fair that it is charged.
Hell, i'd love to get it for free, however it still doesn't make it unfair.
It's not like capcom lied to the costumers, there is in fact an online mode.
If you are paying for it it also means capcom is having extra care making said modes, updating them and debugging.
I admit i haven't said anything truly new, but this argument as i see it has been repetitive for quite a while now. I don't believe this is a problem of costumer support or even morals but of high hopes and i wants.
No offense to anyone, just the way i see it.
6ft tall, stocky, hairy, bloke dresses up as a school girl, while singing to Britney Spears 'Hit me baby, one more time'. Oops, sorry wrong forum.:whistle:
But seriously, can't we all agree to disagree when it comes to whether DLC should be free or not. Regardless of peoples opinions on this topic whether they be right or wrong, at the end of the day you have a choice whether to buy it or not.
The way it seems to me, capcom promissed they'd make a multiplayer mode for the game as an attempt to answer some player's requests.
Since it wasn't in their starting plan, they developed it as an addon and labeled a price for it's download.
I can really see nothing wrong in that. The project was to do X, suddenly it becomes X + Y, hence the time, work, resources spent clearly get larger.
As has been stated before code doesn't write itself (funny how users allways think adding a feature to a program is just, putting it there) and companies are made to profit, if an addon was made for the game i believe it is perfectly fair that it is charged.
Hell, i'd love to get it for free, however it still doesn't make it unfair.
It's not like capcom lied to the costumers, there is in fact an online mode.
If you are paying for it it also means capcom is having extra care making said modes, updating them and debugging.
I admit i haven't said anything truly new, but this argument as i see it has been repetitive for quite a while now. I don't believe this is a problem of costumer support or even morals but of high hopes and i wants.
No offense to anyone, just the way i see it.
Oh really? co-op was planned before what if they chose to use co-op as DLC? that would be fair according to your logic, it doesn't matter your game has been gimped.
Is it right to charge for multiplayer modes in this fashion? I don't think it is.
It's certainly not worth it. Ask yourself have you seen such a storm of angry complaints before over bad DLC?
what if...?
Did we?
such a storm of angry complaints
No storm at all, to be honest. A few is far more accurate.
If you feel it's not worth it then don't buy it, it'd be a bad idea.
Did we?
I was just talking theoretically and pointing out the hole in his logic Phoenix Wright-style.
No storm at all, to be honest. A few is far more accurate.
If you feel it's not worth it then don't buy it, it'd be a bad idea.Complaints Link (http://kotaku.com/5168756/capcom-confirms-prices-versus-mode-for-resident-evil-5)
Even if it isn't posted on the official forums it doesn't mean they don't exist. I think the American forums got a tonne of complaints as well and they started locking them.
I won't be buying the DLC.
I was just talking theoretically and pointing out the hole in his logic Phoenix Wright-style.
Complaints Link (http://kotaku.com/5168756/capcom-confirms-prices-versus-mode-for-resident-evil-5)
Even if it isn't posted on the official forums it doesn't mean they don't exist. I think the American forums got a tonne of complaints as well and they started locking them.
I won't be buying the DLC.
You have recently posted a topic on how well Resident Evil has sold so even all those complaints are still in a minoraty compared to the sales of RE 5 as a whole.
You can't please every one and like it has been said befor no one is forcing people to buy the DLC.
We will see how well or how badly the DLC is recived by the gamer when we have official stats on the actual downloads.
Member_of_STARS
19-03-09, 14:13
People will buy the DLC regardless of how good or bad it is. Fanboyism is never a pretty sight.
Death the Kid, do you really really think I don't read other communities? Swear?
If you call this a storm I'd recommend that you never ever get into community management ;)
I'm also going to quote this from your link
5 bucks is worth playing competitive mercenaries alone
People will buy the DLC regardless of how good or bad it is. Fanboyism is never a pretty sight.
Being a fan of a certain game and buying DLC to get more out of the game I do not see that as fanboyism.
i understand your not happy witht he paid for DLC but some times your understanding your reasonings and belittlement of people and their choices i find amusing to be honest, it's like you thoughts and opinons are the only ones that count.
You have recently posted a topic on how well Resident Evil has sold so even all those complaints are still in a minoraty compared to the sales of RE 5 as a whole.
You can't please every one and like it has been said befor no one is forcing people to buy the DLC.
We will see how well or how badly the DLC is recived by the gamer when we have official stats on the actual downloads.
I always see forum feedback as a test of how things will turn out, so we'll see. It seems like most users in the online community will not be buying it and I don't see a lot of people going yay I can buy the multiplayer mode.
Death the Kid, do you really really think I don't read other communities? Swear?
If you call this a storm I'd recommend that you never ever get into community management ;)
I'm also going to quote this from your link
Well it's been featured twice on Kotaku, also on numerous websites about the paid multiplayer DLC. Whenever the topic comes up on the largest gaming websites we see a large majority of negative responses and Capcom US started locking the topics they had so many.
lol where was that quote 5 pages in?
It doesn't matter anyway, we'll see how the sales turn out, the game is great and I think it deserves the success it's getting, but I hope we don't get a repeat of bad DLC if the DLC figures prove disappointing.
I always see forum feedback as a test of how things will turn out, so we'll see. It seems like most users in the online community will not be buying it and I don't see a lot of people going yay I can buy the multiplayer mode.
Thing with the internet is, only the people who are upset over this are posting about it on forums and such. It's really hard to estimate how many people will be buying it.
Thing with the internet is, only the people who are upset over this are posting about it on forums and such. It's really hard to estimate how many people will be buying it.
Yes, but it's not really a regular occurence that there are so many upset responses on one issue.
The last one was Spore DRM and look how that turned out.
Yes, but it's not really a regular occurence that there are so many upset responses on one issue.
The last one was Spore DRM and look how that turned out.
The Spore issue was, so to say, thousands of times bigger than this. The Versus mode DLC may have caused a lot of disgruntled fans, but I don't think it's any bigger than your average DLC debacle
The Spore issue was, so to say, thousands of times bigger than this. The Versus mode DLC may have caused a lot of disgruntled fans, but I don't think it's any bigger than your average DLC debacle
It was a lot bigger, but you can't deny there has been a multitude of complaints since the DLC has come onto the scene.
It was a lot bigger, but you can't deny there has been a multitude of complaints since the DLC has come onto the scene.
Yeah. But as hard as I try to think of one, I can't remember DLC you had to pay for where people weren't complaining as much as they are now.
I've seen far worse storms about things very smaller than that. specially since most complains come from people who already think that multiplayer + re = fail.
If you think like that what are you whining for? just don't buy it.
And you are missing a point, if overall people think it is not fair, they should not buy it. Buying a product or not buying it in a market is also a form of protest, if you buy it you are saying you are okay with it, sure, if you don't buy it you'll miss the fun, it's a choice for you to make.
Let's also put it in another way. there are people who simply dont like survival horror games. If those people feel like the game isn't worth anything, does it mean a company should sell the game for free? While client support and listening to your clients is a good policy and should be done, there are also boundaries to be established. (i know my example was a bit over sized so to say)
If co-op wasn't in the original planning and they had to actually reschedule and replan things, indeed, i woult still think it as a fair price.
It's like playing most MMORPG's, i loathe monthly fees, hence i simply don't play them.
Hebion, hat off to you and your wisdom. I hope you'll hang around.
I've seen far worse storms about things very smaller than that. specially since most complains come from people who already think that multiplayer + re = fail.
If you think like that what are you whining for? just don't buy it.
And you are missing a point, if overall people think it is not fair, they should not buy it. Buying a product or not buying it in a market is also a form of protest, if you buy it you are saying you are okay with it, sure, if you don't buy it you'll miss the fun, it's a choice for you to make.
Let's also put it in another way. there are people who simply dont like survival horror games. If those people feel like the game isn't worth anything, does it mean a company should sell the game for free? While client support and listening to your clients is a good policy and should be done, there are also boundaries to be established. (i know my example was a bit over sized so to say)
If co-op wasn't in the original planning and they had to actually reschedule and replan things, indeed, i woult still think it as a fair price.
It's like playing most MMORPG's, i loathe monthly fees, hence i simply don't play them.
What recent issue garnered so many complaints as this? the only one I can remember is the Street Fighter IV costumes and that was Capcom again.
You can't really use the example of people who dislike survival horror don't buy it, because the people who are complaining like Resident Evil 5 and they wouldn't mind trying the multiplayer they are just annoyed Capcom have become so focused on wheedling money out of their games whatever the cost.
I think a good example of the situation would be you buy a bike from your friend and they have a spare bike pump, if your friend charges your for something so silly wouldn't you be annoyed?
The obvious difference between the situation I described and the one we are in is that we aren't buddy-buddy with Capcom, we are the customer and they are the business providing us with a product. I still think the example is comparable though because there is always a relationship between a company and fans where the company gives their customers good customer service and good will gestures to keep them coming back.
They could have said "Hey we finished the multiplayer mode soon after the game went gold. So what we'll do is release it for free." Fans would have rejoiced, Capcom's rep would have been intact and the next Capcom game people would most certainly check it out because they like the developer.
We don't have the sales figures but I believe it would have been a viable option consideringwe have a precedent as Valve has done it and Capcom have made huge sales of Resident Evil 5.
They could have said "Hey we finished the multiplayer mode soon after the game went gold. So what we'll do is release it for free." Fans would have rejoiced, Capcom's rep would have been intact and the next Capcom game people would most certainly check it out because they like the developer.
bottom line is that you simply want it for free, overlooking the fact that it was something done extra and that the people doing it deserve to be rewarded for what they did.
Without wanting to imply any offense, i believe you are simply being stubborn because you want it to be free.
it's actually amusing that you refer to it as something highly damaging to capcoms rep.
There is nothing immoral about it. You're just turning things the way that fits you the best.
Capcom has a product good enough to be entertaining even without the addon. People that like the game will most likely buy the next game either ways.
Simply re-refusing to buy the addon if capcom makes it a payed one again.
About the people who don't like survival horror games, had you read my post through you would have notice the side comment saying i was exaggerating on the example, just so that the image was clearer...
And wetter or not those people like RE i don't know, but it still doesn't invalidate the fact that most of those people start by being pretty clear that they don't think much about the combination of RE and multiplayer...
using your own metaphor about the friend and the bike.
you get annoyed at your friend because when he sells the bike he charges for the pump?
So you believe that in your righteousness you deserve the pump for free? Hell, then if he's really your friend he'll give you the bike for free!
I believe our senses of justice diverge quite a bit if you truly believe so.
Capcom is quite a lot more buddy-buddy with their clients than you seem to realize. The simple fact a senior worker answered you in a forum, do you realize how rare that is?
If capcom did not listen to the complains of players it would not have produced such great games and maintained such a large fan base. However listening to client complains and bending to the whims of a group ARE different things. Companies have to make decisions of what is profitable, what is small enough to be given as a freebie, etc... You constantly seem to forget, no matter how many times it has been said, that you are talking about peoples WORK.
I guess if a painter made a painting and in the end he made a small derived painting you'd be entitled to the second painting just because it is related.
There was more effort from the painter, he spent money on drawing tools and time. It's the same with game industry, and any other industry.
When you tell me that the biggest complains you ever seen are about capcom i cant get to shake the feeling you are a bit unaware of the world surrounding you, either on the gaming market or any other market, as i said, I've seen far worse for far less.
I hope my post didn't sound aggressive as that was not my intention. I also hope it's not too confusing since overall, this subject is something that has become repetitive.
So in the end I believe what I'm trying to say is, "Let's agree to disagree".
i actually really liked your comment of the people who think it isnt worth anything want it to be free, it is espcially relevent with this dlc as a lot of people dont like the idea of it and thus dont like the price of it
Irregardless I still find it not worth the cost so yes I do believe it should be free.
Also It does damage the reputation of Capcom because it kicked off arguements across every games forum about DLC with unfavourable responses.
We have a difference of opinion and I'm not going to be changing my mind on the subject either. All I can do is advise you in future is to not take PR spin at face value.
White Knighting may make you feel better but what you're actually doing is supporting the arguement for limiting and restricting of games.
If you don't think it's worth the price don't buy it.
And it's not like they sold you something that is locked. Otherwise there would be no need for it to be DLC at all...
I believe companies have rights as well as costumers. You are not forced to buy it if you don't like it.
As has been said before, people who disagree may talk out, but people that are pleased usually feel no need to express their opinions, hence it is not so unnatural that you see mostly complaints.
It is not unusual for a group of people to be unsatisfied with things on a game, or certain decision a company makes.
In case capcome comes to the conclusion it was overall a bad decision im sure next time it shall be thought in another way.
Also, I am not white knighting, I'm voicing my opinion as you are voicing yours.
To me this is the same as the possibility that monster hunter tri has a fee. I love the game, i loathe monthly fees, so I'll just play united and offline at WII in case it happens, it is a way of protest.
Nontheless you don't see me trying to impose that they do it for free. I have enough insight to think that while i do not support paying to play, it will maintain the servers online and allow for a more dedicated support to the game.
Such is the case for resident evil, even though the molds are different the concept is the same.
Sure, you can embelish the situation as much as you like, but bottom line there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.
Allow me to disagree, as i believe that the one taking things at face value is you (though that might just be an issue of point of view).
Once again you insist that the game was complete and that they are making you pay to unlock something that was already there even after being told by official sources that such is not the case.
If what you trully need is to win an internet argument go ahead and take the cup.
As long as this remains repetitive i think i shall rest my case and see how this unfolds as i've already been repeating myself too much.
Oh, wow. I don't think I've ever agreed with someone as much as with you, Hebion.
If you don't think it's worth the price don't buy it.
And it's not like they sold you something that is locked. Otherwise there would be no need for it to be DLC at all...
I believe companies have rights as well as costumers. You are not forced to buy it if you don't like it.
As has been said before, people who disagree may talk out, but people that are pleased usually feel no need to express their opinions, hence it is not so unnatural that you see mostly complaints.
It is not unusual for a group of people to be unsatisfied with things on a game, or certain decision a company makes.
In case capcome comes to the conclusion it was overall a bad decision im sure next time it shall be thought in another way.
Also, I am not white knighting, I'm voicing my opinion as you are voicing yours.
To me this is the same as the possibility that monster hunter tri has a fee. I love the game, i loathe monthly fees, so I'll just play united and offline at WII in case it happens, it is a way of protest.
Nontheless you don't see me trying to impose that they do it for free. I have enough insight to think that while i do not support paying to play, it will maintain the servers online and allow for a more dedicated support to the game.
Such is the case for resident evil, even though the molds are different the concept is the same.
Sure, you can embelish the situation as much as you like, but bottom line there is nothing wrong with what they are doing.
Allow me to disagree, as i believe that the one taking things at face value is you (though that might just be an issue of point of view).
Once again you insist that the game was complete and that they are making you pay to unlock something that was already there even after being told by official sources that such is not the case.
If what you trully need is to win an internet argument go ahead and take the cup.
As long as this remains repetitive i think i shall rest my case and see how this unfolds as i've already been repeating myself too much.
I feel like I keep repeating myself as well: I won't be buying it.
They didn't sell us something that's locked but they did sell us something that has been limited.
Obviously this isn't the greatest place to post it because the majority here think Capcom is sunshine and buttercups, whereas a broader community like Capcom Unity had a huge negative response.
What makes me laugh is how much you sound like a PR person Hebion, your entire post is focused on the point that Capcom has a right to charge for their content yet you contradict yourself and say that you don't like the monthly fees for Monster Hunter.
Well believe it or not Hebion you have a right as well as a consumer and if you don't like it then why not try and get it changed? being passive and saying oh well it's all fair isn't an attitude that I can ever understand.
It's obvious to anyone with any skills of deduction that versus was ready at launch unless you think the development time was the shortest ever.
Tbh you are white knighting Hebion, you can't understand that you are being charged a microtransaction for a multiplayer mode which all other games would have given you free.
I rest my case Hebion and I also put to you the point that Capcom isn't the holy roman church and you can actually disagree with their viewpoint.
He is not telling you that you can't disagree.
You have different opinons so instead of going over and over the same thing again just let it drop.
Your not happy to pay he is happy to pay end off.
Rest assured, I'm not religious ^^.
Though i like some of Capcom games I'm not a blinded fan (unless it comes to mh, there I'm a blinded fan =D).
Actually, I'm not a PR person, I've worked as a developer, so i do have some insight of how these things work.
I'm not taking a passive stance. If i think something is right then i don't think it's worth fighting for changing.
If capcom had however lied to me or scammed me, THEN i'd start doing something about it.
There is also one thing, while one has the right to disagree, one doesn't have the obligation to.
I'll sue you, i think I'll have nightmares about this argument ;_;.
Member_of_STARS
21-03-09, 02:17
Heres the thing.
Everyone supporting this DLC have two arguments in its defense.
1) Its CAPCOMs decision and if you dont like it, dont buy it.
2) The DLC adds 3 new gamemodes which enrich the game.
3) 5 dollars is not much.
4) RE has never had a versus mode so its not part of the "usual" package.
And every time these points are repeated, its proof that noone has read the argument on previous pages. The criticism of the DLC can be summed up simply
1) The hints of Versus mode being in development have been on the web for a long time.
- RE5 Demo contents being hacked
- Mention of PS3 trophies?
- RE5 guide
2) The gamemodes, on a technical level, are a recombination of existing features and do not add anything completely new
3) The size of the DLC is 180KBs which is the size of an unlock key.
4) Work put in to create the DLC is not worth the potential profit (I speculate theres going to be 2.5 to 3 Million dollars in sales).
5) Multiplayer is usually added to the games for free and DLC is reserved for new and additional content to create some revenue inbetween game launches (during the dry period).
People expect this DLC to come for free. Afterall, Valve released Half Life for 89 cents over Steam. The way I see it, they could have easily just take up the cost of releasing the DLC over the respective networks and chalk it up as marketing cost and enjoy public praise while they work on a bigger DLC that gives you more guns, more maps and more characters. Instead, people are expected to buy content which makes up less than 1% of the game, for price that makes up 10%. There is absolutely no waterproof defensive argument here.
Rest assured, I'm not religious ^^.
Though i like some of Capcom games I'm not a blinded fan (unless it comes to mh, there I'm a blinded fan =D).
Actually, I'm not a PR person, I've worked as a developer, so i do have some insight of how these things work.
I'm not taking a passive stance. If i think something is right then i don't think it's worth fighting for changing.
If capcom had however lied to me or scammed me, THEN i'd start doing something about it.
There is also one thing, while one has the right to disagree, one doesn't have the obligation to.
I'll sue you, i think I'll have nightmares about this argument ;_;.
lol for some reason I really like discussions, this time I refrained from using big imgs with Objection on it.
It seems on this occasion we'll just have to agree to disagree.
just a small detail i forgot to mention, thanks for reminding me.
About he 180 kb download.
What takes up most space in games is graphic modeling and the game engine.
Adding a mode doesn't NEED to have a 2gb code. Usually updates come with new maps, new units and things of the kind.
For an unlock key to be 180kb it would need to be one hell of a long unlock key...
While the other arguments like the ratio size/price, seem valid(yes, even when i take a stand i maintain the notion that i'm no holy holder of truth, i remain aware that i might be the one to be wrong.), the packet size upload just sounds like talking blindly to me.
As long as models that already existing are used there is no need for it to be huge.
Don't worry death, i do enjoy discussions too, only by talking it out can people change each other and change what they view as wrong. it is a forms of improving oneself and those around us, and while you didn't convince me nor did i convince you, i could understand someone elses point of view, and the arguments you focused were at least discussable.
Member_of_STARS
21-03-09, 07:53
I was pointed to this page for giggles. Theres some mature language so be careful. But it creates a TOP 10 of the worst DLCs to date. An interesting read.
http://www.destructoid.com/the-most-rubbish-dlc-on-xbox-live-124257.phtml
About he 180 kb download.
What takes up most space in games is graphic modeling and the game engine.
Adding a mode doesn't NEED to have a 2gb code. Usually updates come with new maps, new units and things of the kind.
For an unlock key to be 180kb it would need to be one hell of a long unlock key...
CAPCOM has semi-officially said that its not an unlock key, and I believe them. When it comes to gamemode, my main argument is that all parts of the three new gamemodes are already in the game. Rearranging or tweaking a few settings here and there, of three main aspects (COOP, FF-ON/OFF, scoring system) is all it takes. The new gamemodes do not come out of thin air, they are technically already in the game. The question is, is 180KBs worth of work, worth 5 dollars a pop or potential millions in sales? I say its not. People who bought Oblivions golden horsearmor say it is.
Personally, I think it was very much designed that way. They get to create the DLC and have an official response if people start asking questions. To give you an idea of how much information in a 180KB text file is, you can just open a "notepad" file and start copy/pasting random text into it, until you reach 180KBs. Having done some coding, I can assure you, if youre tinkering with files and settings, and youve got all of the aspects available to you, its not a difficult task. After 30 minutes of "exploration" I could redesign the entire air aspect of Battlefield 2.
While the other arguments like the ratio size/price, seem valid(yes, even when i take a stand i maintain the notion that i'm no holy holder of truth, i remain aware that i might be the one to be wrong.), the packet size upload just sounds like talking blindly to me.
As long as models that already existing are used there is no need for it to be huge.
Thats entirely the point. If the packet size is small, then were dealing with simple tweaking in certain settings. The work put in does just justify the price and you can argue if the content is actually new if its basically a variation of COOP and your COOP being able to kill you. Instead of punishment however, a reward in "pts" appears. So if the DLC did not require effort worth 10% of the games price, why not release it for free or wait until you get more ideas and toys to include into the DLC, release a major package and depending on the content, buff up the price, even?
Entirely new gamemode with necessary files that come with it for Battlefield 2 modification "Desert Conflict", Capture the Flag mod. It weights 88MBs.
A tweak of existing gamemode for Call of Duty 2, called the "Hardcore Mod", which alters a few lines of code (basically rewrites certain files with altered settings), for example, taking away the HUD, crosshairs, decreasing your hitpoints. All very simple and basic stuff even a complete rookie can do. ~150KBs.
Theres a substantial difference between the two and in the same time these two change the experience of the game tremendously. Hardcore mod, with little effort, completely revamps the way you play the rounds. Capture the flag mode in Desert Conflict / BF2 also does the same. Except that one of these relies on modifying existing settings with little effort and the other creates completely new gamemode out of scratch because the default files do not support the function.
I know how much 180 kb of code is, as i've said before i've worked in code development already.
But good coders have short, useful and understandable code, as in future that code might be adapted, patched up, etc.
I highly doubt the patch for CTF in BF2 simply had code on it if it had 88mb, as it is hard for me to believe that ea would have programed something so monolithic that would need to replace all code implemented in the game. Specially since programing is mostly done by modules, just because such things can happen. (it can happen, everyone makes some mistakes and assumptions, it's just strange) Modules are usually not huge chunks of code.
About the said patch that decreases hitpoints, takes away the hud and so on, that's the kind of thing you put up in a .cfg file, if they sent the whole file or something of the kind, it would easily make such size and not all of it would be new content. (you can use this argument to ask if capcom is doing the same. I doubt capcom would risk that much or charge for something as simple as that.)
The rest of our post is a matter of opinion.
As you said, is the content worth the 10%? people should question themselves if they are willing to pay for it. That's how markets have worked ever since.