Resident Evil 5: Versus Review

By Kristan Reed Published 9 April, 2009

A mercenary move?

Version tested: Xbox 360

As anyone who completed Resident Evil 5's campaign will know, you unlock The Mercenaries mode when you finish the game. It's a rather nifty little offline mini-game where the focus is on blasting as many enemies as possible within a time limit, in a series of enclosed environments. Like a good old-fashioned arcade game, it's all about racking up as high a score as possible, which means trying to keep increasing your combo count by making sure you go no more than 10 seconds between kills. The bigger the combo, the higher the score, and the better the grade. Simple.

While you could play The Mercenaries in offline or online co-op mode with a buddy, Capcom evidently realised that this mode could easily translate to a competitive online multiplayer affair with a few tweaks to the rules. And so, 1.86MB and 400 Microsoft Points (or GBP 3.99 at the PlayStation Store) later, we get the new Versus add-on, using the same eight maps - Public Assembly, The Mines, Village, Ancient Ruins, Experimental Facility, Missile Area, Ship Deck, and Prison - and the same score-attack principle.

All of the four play variations within Versus allow you to choose from ten characters - only two of which, Sheva and Chris, are available by default. The rest (no spoilers!) you'll have to unlock by getting scores of 40,000 plus, gradually giving you the ability to choose characters with slightly more exotic load-outs. Rather than the default pistol being supplemented with a shotgun (for Chris) or machine gun (for Sheva), you can go into battle armed with a flaming bow and arrow, or a grenade launcher. As you'll note once the action gets under way, these can make a big difference in getting points on the board quickly.

Each gameplay variation revolves around the same score-attack principles. Kicking off with a five-minute time limit, the priority is to go looking for kills as soon as possible and get the combo count up. A simple kill might be only worth 300 points, so you can't just cautiously creep around the map and pick off enemies one by one. To stand any chance of winning the round, you have to dash around and find where the action is so you can gain maximum points from your efforts before the ten-second kill buffer disappears.

'Resident Evil 5: Versus' Screenshot 1

Ah, the old roundhouse to the time bonus pillar. It deserved it.

Seeking a good, sheltered choke-point might provide the perfect opportunity to rack up kills while giving you the opportunity to get out of the way of unexpected human attacks, but the feeling of never quite being safe is omnipresent. With limited ammo always at the forefront of your strategy, it's a game in which you're constantly on the run. As players of The Mercenaries will note, the multi-tiered maps can leave you quite exposed to projectile attacks if you're not careful - and with human opponents now thrown into the mix, that threat is multiplied exponentially. It's an interesting dynamic, because while it's fairly straightforward trying to fend off the attentions of the shambling undead, you run the permanent risk of being caught unawares.

Strangely for an online multiplayer game, there's no opportunity to vary round times beyond the basic five-minute limit, which feels like an oversight. You can extend the round times slightly while the matches are under way by kicking time bonuses and killing enemies a certain way, but for the most part you're stuck playing very short rounds regardless.

'Resident Evil 5: Versus' Screenshot 2

As Steve Coogan might say: Move and fire, move and fire, move and fire!

Similarly annoying is the way that, once a match ends, you get dumped back to the Versus start screen, giving you no opportunity to replay the match with the same group of players. Likewise, you can't enjoy a best-of-three round, or, in fact, do any of the kind of match customisation you'd find in most online multiplayer games, which is disappointing considering the premium paid to access the content in the first place. As usual you can play ranked or player matches, and each of the eight maps feature four online leaderboards. Sadly, the leaderboards feature only the baseline score, and no stat breakdown of how the score was reached in the four modes.

Speaking of which, what of these four Versus variations? First up: Slayers. Present in both single and 2-vs.-2 team flavours, it's is a straightforward fight to the death, where each player or team competes for the highest score in a single round. In solo mode, each player is only concerned with killing whatever's in front of them, so whether it's a fellow human competitor, or hordes of infected Majini, everything must perish.

Some players might prefer to limit the scoring potential of their opponents more than focus on their own efforts, so each match tends to play out slightly differently. Sometimes you're aware of maniacs doing nothing but hunting you down, other times everyone kind of goes about their killing business in their own corner of the map, while Majini respawn all around them. Horses for courses.

Team Slayer, meanwhile, adds the all-important co-operative element, and while it feels much the same, the strategy is subtly different. Hunting together, for example, can be useful for helping each other out when caught in a melee struggle, or when you're in dire need of a health boost. It's also useful, in theory, to be able to work together and cover each other's backs. With enemies continually respawning, it's quite easy to be caught out - not only by the AI foes, but by the human ones, so if you can play this online with a friend who understands the benefit of sticking together, do.

Elsewhere, there's another subtle twist on the score-attack formula in the shape of Survivors and Team Survival. Once again using the same eight maps, these four-player affairs penalise you for shooting the AI monsters, meaning it's all about hunting down your human enemies. Just like the Slayer mode, you can see roughly where your enemy is by virtue of their 'P1' icon being visible through scenery, so the element of surprise is somewhat lessened. That said, in these modes it becomes much more about which weapons are most powerful.

For example, while a shotgun can be great for seeing off tons of AI enemies at close proximity, trying to use it against the git with the flaming arrows is only going to end one way. You'll quite often find rounds turning into a bit of a mismatch if you're playing against people who've unlocked the more advanced characters ahead of you. On the other hand, once you know the placement of collectables dotted around the map, you can make a beeline for the RPG and get around any unfair advantage that way.

The outstanding question most people will have is: how on earth can the 'stop-and-pop' combat work in competitive multiplayer? Surely the inability to move while firing reduces the combat to a ludicrous game of who shot first? To some extent, yes, it is patently laughable to have an online multiplayer shooting game where you can't move while firing, never mind strafe. There is an undoubted comic element to the proceedings as each player stands with feet nailed to the floor hoping that their weapon does the most damage quickest - but there is a positive side, in that it does make the game feel very distinct from the hundreds of samey shooters in the market. On the other hand, it can be hugely frustrating to not even be able to slide quickly out of the way when an RPG whistles towards you.

'Resident Evil 5: Versus' Screenshot 3

And it all started as a simple discussion about who's going to win the Champions League...

Likewise, the slow aiming process can be initially irksome, and the glacial default turning speed might wind people up. But that's Resident Evil. Deal with it. If you make a few aiming speed tweaks, stick with the unusual control system and go with it, few of those initial irritations will persist.

What's harder to defend is Capcom's decision to charge for this in the first place. The file size of 1.86MB is an obvious giveaway, and once you actually play it, you'll soon realise that you've paid for some subtle rule changes to The Mercenaries mode, albeit with additional players. Admittedly not everyone who buys Versus will have even seen The Mercenaries yet, given that you have to actually finish the main game to unlock it, but that's not really defensible. Capcom is renowned for providing a ton of added value in all past Resident Evil games via unlockables, but this time it has decided to monetise that with extra content that was blatantly already on the disk.

And while all the modes within Versus are fun for a while, Capcom has missed a trick by not even including basic customisation options which are the very least you expect from an online game in 2009. For a few quid you'll get a fair bit of enjoyment, but the fact remains that there's a putrid whiff of exploitation about this one. Let your wallet be your guide.

6 / 10

Read the Eurogamer.net scoring policy
Picture of Kristan.

About Kristan Reed

Kristan is a former editor of Eurogamer, dad, Stone Roses bore and Norwich City supporter who sometimes mutters optimistically about Team Silent getting back together.

Read more articles from Kristan by visiting the Kristan Reed archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (84) Latest comment 3 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • BadBoyBonner #1 3 years ago

    Wallet says No.

  • conners #2 3 years ago

    Wallet says stuff that is too rude to be displayed here.

    But the gist of it is "no"
    Edited by 1 at 09/04/09 @ 11:35

  • mcmonkeyplc #3 3 years ago

    Fuck you capcom, fuck you very much. Great game otherwise though.

  • Triggerhappytel #4 3 years ago

    @ Coin-Op

    You're right, the score should have been 6/10. Incredibly mediocre game.

  • mcbain23 #5 3 years ago

    looks like the EG gods heard you lads..

    and my wallet also says "ii-E".

  • ObiChrisKenobi #6 3 years ago

    6/10 is very generous, its nothing more then a patch to Mercenaries mode.

  • krudster #7 3 years ago

    Got to love gamers and their trusted inability to agree about anything :)

  • Zaltan #8 3 years ago

    Its stupid that they expect money for this.

  • OmagnusPrime #9 3 years ago

    Whilst I agree with the general sentiment of 'wallet says no' and have no interest in this, I wish people would stop claiming this is content clearly already on the disc. Yes, the resources (maps, characters, etc) clearly all do come from the disc, but they've definitely had to do additional work to code the mechanics of the game modes. A simple unlock flag piece of DLC should exceed no more than a handful of Kb. Ultimately, if the content is there you just need some sort of signature locked flag, and that can be done in very little space.

    However, the 1.86Mb indicates that there's clearly more at work here. As a software engineer who has had to work within confines of limited hardware then I can tell you that you can program an awful lot into 1.86Mb, especially when all the space-eating resources (graphics, models, sound, etc) are already available on the disc.

    Perhaps Capcom shouldn't have charged for this, but they've clearly done additional work to add it. Personally I'd rather the game was $5/£3.50 cheaper and arrived when it did than waiting for this to have been coded in.

  • Mister_G #10 3 years ago

    Wallet has already said "No thanks" to RE5.

  • krudster #11 3 years ago

    I would argue that it's extremely generous to suggest that this is anything more than a simple patch. But unless Capcom actually comes out and publicly says one way or the other, all anyone can do is speculate.

  • mikeck #12 3 years ago

    Let's get ready to angry

    I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE SHOUTING ABOUT!!

    I love Brick Tamland :)

  • Pastici #13 3 years ago

    Isn't the file size less than 400kb on the PS3 version?

  • krudster #14 3 years ago

    Interesting. I'm sure SO much work went into it :)

  • JohnnyWashnGo #15 3 years ago

    @OmagnusPrime
    I understand what you are saying - but on the PS3, the 'downloadable content' size was a shade over 800kb(i think). There is naff all in that space other than an encrypted key that will unlock the content on the disc for your system.

    Capcom are shafting this generation of gamers with their DLC policy. SFIV was taking the piss a litle bit with their pricing for accessing outfits already on the disc. This is just another example of their swift move to profiteering ways of making money. I don't doubt that they had people working on the versus code which will have cost them money. But it was included on the game disc, therefore I assume that my £40 for the game paid for everything on the disc.

    Defending their DLC strategy is only going to fuel their greed even more. They need to learn that you cannot rip people off like this.
    Edited by 1 at 09/04/09 @ 11:55

  • mikeck #16 3 years ago

    ^^agreed.

    Nothing against DLC (I work with digital game content), but it has to be implemented correctly. Nobody will have a problem with paying for additional content months down the line that adds extra elements and breathes new life into a game, but charging the consumer for content that is already on the disc is unecessary, and pretty shady, in my view.

  • Freek #17 3 years ago

    What they should have done is include it into the game on release, see if people liked it.
    Then after a few months release some paid for DLC wich contains new maps with added configurable multiplayer modes.

    First you test the waters with a freebie, then you charge for content that is actually premium.

  • OmagnusPrime #18 3 years ago

    @JohnnyWashnGo

    I'm not defending their strategy, not at all. By and large I agree that this should probably have been free. However, as a programmer who has written entire programs in less 100Kb, I will argue against the idea that they've done no work. I doubt they had to do masses of work, as the loose framework was there in the form of Mercs mode, but they would have had to program the new mode in.

    If you think 800Kb is not enough for the code framework for a new mode, well let me give you this example: I have a friend who has recently had to code an streaming media server inside 17Kb for a customer.

  • shotgun44 #19 3 years ago

    Ha, a review of 1.86MB patch that is as long as the full game review! Not complaining, just find it funny! I have yet to complete RE5 so I'll leave this for now!

  • Vice.Destroyer #20 3 years ago

    Reading the review, you get the impression that they have just tweaked a few things, as opposed to actually putting anything new into the game. Like new enemies, new ways to kill people, that sort of thing. Does anybody have any idea then why the USK, the german classification board, has refused this DLC a classification? And in effect has made it illegal to offer this DLC for sale in Germany?

    I mean, the main game is apparently not even a censored version, which Germany usually have to contend with. They have the full version and the USK maintains that they have issues with the content and they are not going to grant classification. Any ideas?

  • afray #21 3 years ago

    @OmagnusPrime +1

    There were no networked game modes in RE5 before this, right? So I assume that some sort of netcode has to be in the download somewhere. Even if you're porting in middleware that's not the easiest thing to get right.

  • OmagnusPrime #22 3 years ago

    @afray

    The main game and Mercs are both playable as 2-player online, so there's certainly netcode already there. Though the fact that these game modes support up to 4 people playing online, you're possibly correct that they'd need netcode tweaks to be able to cope with that.

  • HolyJebus #23 3 years ago

    I'm glad EG are taking a stand against greedy Publishers. I would have given it an even lower mark in protest.

  • spenner #24 3 years ago

    To have a successful online multiplayer game, you need a lot of people online at the same time. The percent of people that will a) own the game b) have bought the extras c) are online and d) can be arsed waiting around for others to come on line, is probably somewhere close to zero.

    And btw, horrible, horrible game zzzzz

  • Jasugun #25 3 years ago

    @Vice.Destroyer
    Isn't it because you have to shoot other non majini real people (2Vs2) ? Maybe there was a huge difference for the USK in shooting CPU majini and shooting non majini players?

  • sneetch #26 3 years ago

    @OmagnusPrime
    @JohnnyWashnGo

    I'm not defending their strategy, not at all. By and large I agree that this should probably have been free. However, as a programmer who has written entire programs in less 100Kb, I will argue against the idea that they've done no work. I doubt they had to do masses of work, as the loose framework was there in the form of Mercs mode, but they would have had to program the new mode in.

    If you think 800Kb is not enough for the code framework for a new mode, well let me give you this example: I have a friend who has recently had to code an streaming media server inside 17Kb for a customer.

    Indeed, when I first started in university using up 1.86 MB for a program would have been impossible! Windows needs some of that 386's 2 MB of RAM too ya know!?! :p

    (Decently-crafted) code takes up bugger-all space: it's textures, models, sounds and FMV.

    That said, coders have gotten less and less concerned with memory, most of the people I work with don't even understand why memory efficiency is even a good idea, until the damn thing stack-dumps after chewing up 4 gigs. Then it's "oh" time and I have to fix the damn thing because "you know that stuff". Damn kids, get off my lawn/code!
    Edited by 1 at 09/04/09 @ 12:48

  • Lord_Gremlin #27 3 years ago

    I'm not buying RE5 at all))) They wanna milk their fans - I'm not their fan.

  • JohnnyWashnGo #28 3 years ago

    @OmagnusPrime
    I agree that extra functionality could have been delivered in the small PS3 download for versus. In the past I have tried my hand at the old 4kb java game competition so I know how much can be achieved with so little.

    However, it doesn't feel like that is the case here. The one thing that really brings this home is the fact that in the piggyback resi 5 guidebook, the last 10 or 15 pages are devoted to the various versus modes in the game. Which to me, means that at the time of writing the guide, the versus DLC was feature complete and good enough to be played through by the writers of the guide and therefore, could have been part of the vanilla game release.

    Looked at in that way, Capcoms price tag for unlocking Versus seems like extortion.

  • redneon Verified Programmer, SUMO Digital #29 3 years ago

    @sneetch:

    "That said, coders have gotten less and less concerned with memory..."

    Application coders are becoming less and less concerned with memory but certainly not game coders (take it from one). With the advent of in-built memory management and GC into most managed languages these days they don't really need to, either. Low level concerns like that don't need to be considered when developing most applications.
    Edited by 1 at 09/04/09 @ 12:56

  • OmagnusPrime #30 3 years ago

    @sneech

    I'm a relatively young coder, but I still hugely appreciate efficient code, even more so once I started working with embedded and low-memory devices. But you're right, many people these days have little appreciation for anything vaguely resembling efficiency, seemingly thinking it's acceptable to allow hardware to hide their laziness.

    @JohnnyWashnGo

    The game mode being in the guide certainly is incriminating, but they could have based the guide content on the planned features for the mode (especially given that any screenshots could easily be faked in Mercs mode, just have one player pointing the gun at their partner player from Co-op Mercs). My gut feeling is that every unlock file I've seen has been in the range of 10-100Kb. Maybe this is just an unlock, and in which case I agree, that is a pracitise I'm not a fan of. I'm just choosing to give Capcom the benefit of the doubt when they say extra work has gone into this. Perhaps not much work, but some.

  • Chufty #31 3 years ago

    The people you should be having a go at are the people who pay for this DLC in the first place. If it didn't make them money they wouldn't do it. And as someone said already, nearly 2MB is a LOT of executable code - there are probably little or no art assets in there. Testing and balancing also needs a lot of work so there's an additional expense there.

    But it's irrelevent how much work they put into it or how much it cost them to do the extra work - the fact is it's a separate feature from that which you paid for originally. They are entitled to charge for it if they wish and it's CERTAINLY not approaching the boundaries of legality.

    Besides, a business exists only to make money. Stop being naiive, all of you.

  • Grogmonkey #32 3 years ago

    It always amuses me that gamers have suddenly become experts at what constitutes 'on the disc' and 'actually a download' based on file size alone. God bless the common sense of OmagnusPrime...

    Having said that:

    @JohnnyWashnGo

    You bring up an interesting point. However, we don't know how much access Piggyback had to the game in the development/design stages. Those pages could simply represent things that were planned, but never came to fruition. Games have to be complete a month or two before they're actually sent out to the shops, so it's entirely possible that the versus content was removed in order to make the street date. Instead of shelving it, however, they decided to offer it later as DLC, which is why Piggyback were allowed to keep it in the guide. In essence, the Piggyback guys played a post-gold version of the game that contained the extra DLC, while the retail version was winging its way to the publishers. Which would make sense, given that the guide would otherwise become quickly outdated by the introduced DLC, which I imagine Piggyback would very much not want to happen.

    Then it begs the question of how much work was required to finish any DLC, and whether it could be charged for. You could argue it should be a free update, especially if the groundwork was already laid (with the Mercenaries mode), there wasn't much to justify the price. Certainly, as an old PC gamer, I'm used to getting stuff for free. And, if the content was already on the disc, it's a bit cheeky charging extra for it. However, I don't for a second believe it was. So asking money for it isn't a great insult to the people. Whether it's TOO much money is another point entirely (which should be taken outside of the 'price/filesize' equation).

    It could still be that it's too expensive, but making that judgement based on assumptions about filesizes is asinine at best.

  • Cappy #33 3 years ago

    Considering that the main event itself was over for most people in 4-5 hours, it was a bit of a cheek ring fencing off a set of features that are there as standard in other games of this type.

    4/10 would have conveyed the message better.

  • Beek4257 #34 3 years ago

    *cough*Burnout Paradise*cough*

  • kangarootoo #35 3 years ago

    @Coin-Op

    "I don't play RE with other people anyway."

    I could have guessed that to be honest ;)

  • OmagnusPrime #36 3 years ago

    @Cappy

    "it was a bit of a cheek ring fencing off a set of features that are there as standard in other games of this type."

    Care to name these other survival horror game with a multiplayer online versus mode? Sure it's leans far more into action that the earlier entries in the series, but it's still in the same genre as titles like RE4, Dead Space, Alone in the Dark and Silent Hill, no?

    If you believe it's too much money for too little in the way of features, that's a perfectly valid point, but let's not start making things up.

  • bad09 #37 3 years ago

    I'd much rather fork out a couple of quid on the "half a game" Euro version of Outbreak (never finished it you see)...and I did! In on my own tonight so, some wine and a Resi fest tonight with a little play time on the DC and PS2 (if it will work!).

    Poke this DLC (of a very suspicious small size) the same place reboot should go Mr Capcom. One of the best games this gen, really can't believe some people are actually saying that, gamers are easy to please these days I guess....

  • Cappy #38 3 years ago

    Resident Evil 5, especially Mercenaries mode is a shooter, not a survival horror game.

  • Gurrah #39 3 years ago

    Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiichaellllllllllllllllllllll!

  • smernicki #40 3 years ago

    I love lamp

  • kangarootoo #41 3 years ago

    @OmagnusPrime

    Good posts.


    My 2 pence on the whole thing.

    Whether this is good value for money is an ENTIRELY SEPERATE ISSUE from whether the code is already on the disc or not.

    I am frankly constantly bemused by peoples' obsession with actually caring where the code is that constitutes their game.

    Would people genuinely feel better about if 60mb of data went down their phone line at some arbitrary moment? If so, can someone please explain to me why that is viewed as anything less than boarderline madness?


    I am COMPLETELY aware that this could be viewed as a cynical "we developed it at tyhe same time, but thought we could make a few more quid this way" move by Capcom. However, that has NOTHING to do with where the code lives. The very same process could have taken place, with the exact same development schedule, but Capcom could have simply made you download more data. Would that really make people feel better?


    Regardless, as OmagnusPrime has pointed out so clearly, and as so many have tried to ignore (including bizarrely the author of this review... "all anyone can do is speculate" indeed), 1.86mb is a fair amount of code space if you don't need to carry any assets. It is perfectly technically plausible that all the additional code required for this update could be included within 1.86mb.


    Like I said earlier, I am not suggesting that this deal in any way represents good value. And I also agree that if devs are starting to hold back core features so they can eek a bit more cash from us down the road, that is probably A Bad Thing (though I still fall back on the usual "if you don't like it, don't buy it" approach). What I am saying is that whether code is delivered to your console from a Bluray or your HDD should be UTTERLY irrelevant in the minds of all but the insane :)

    Edit: I have clearly just got back from a lovely holiday in Typo Town. Ce la vie.
    Edited by 1 at 09/04/09 @ 13:40

  • YobRenoops #42 3 years ago

    Aren't the Littlebigplanet Costume unlock codes about 1Mb? And they get installed with each patch.

  • HolyJebus #43 3 years ago

    @Kangarootoo

    You kinda seem to be on both sides of the fence there.

    But it seems quite obvious why people don't want the data to already be on the disc. It means that it was pretty much ready for release when the game was released. You've actually paid for the disc but the company wants you to pay extra to unlock something which is already on the disc. IMO that's crazy. And i'm not saying that this is the case for this game as it seems to be just a coding update, but for other games I see this as being unacceptable.

  • GamesConnoisseur #44 3 years ago

    I bought and downloaded the extra content and enjoyed it, sure I wont probaby be playing it month or two down the line if something else come along but I know this gonna entertain me for a while.

    Dissing people who bought downloadable content, you should be better off to be focused on the 'oh my gosh what a rip off' Namco downloadable skins or the others worse off, whilst Capcom have brought us hours of multiplaying enjoyment.

    I agree that should have been on the disc and trying to do a boycott is just never gonna work, if you felt really strongly then darn go and email capcom directly! People should be able to decide for themselves if they felt it would be justifable for them to purchase this content and I m standing up and saying aye.

    Simply cos I enjoyed every hours of RE5 so far, its one of the highlight of 2009 for me and yes come under a lot of criticisms but sometimes unfairly I felt. People's biggest issue seem to be the 'stop and shoot' antiquated feature, real life people dont 'run and gun' however after slight adjusting period it just becomes second nature.

    Still ....dont like it dont buy it.... but those who do should be respected for their decision to do it.

  • Jasugun #45 3 years ago

    It seems pretty obvious to me that the whole RE5 game then its DLCs are cash-ins.
    Think you are Capcom. You have the Resident Evil IP and you know the name guarantees some solid sales. You also know for sure, looking back at the past couple of years and more, that survival horrors sell less than more action oriented games. You take RE4, give it some more action, divide into chapters so it's quick to step in and out, do not work too hard on the mechanics, confident that you are that the RE name and some rock solid graphics will help people forget the issue, give it a rock solid marketing campaign, add one online mode as DLC, and you got RE5, which hopefully will get some big cash.
    Edited by 1 at 09/04/09 @ 14:09

  • kangarootoo #46 3 years ago

    @HolyJebus

    I'm not so much dancing around the fance, as much as I am trying to break the discussion down into its true parts. Far too often we squish all the issues into one, and people end up disagreeing when they are not even thinking about the same thing.

    I'm just an ambassador for good debate. My own opinion on the matter isn't so important I think :)


    "You've actually paid for the disc but the company wants you to pay extra to unlock something which is already on the disc"

    /engage pedant engine

    Technically you haven't paid for the disc. Actually, to be more specific. You have paid for the physical disc (the plastic and metal and so on), but you haven't bought the content that is on it. The content still very much belongs to the publisher and the developer.

    You have a bought a RIGHT TO USE whatever content the publisher has decided is covered by that agreement (which isn't necessarily ALL of the content that happens to be on the disc). Putting the content you HAVE licensed the use of on the disc is just a sensible way of facilitating your access to it.


    I fully accept that I am up to my ass in pedantry here, but again I am just trying to break the debate down into its component parts. What people are actually annoyed about is the apparent nickel-and-diming that Capcom appear to be angaged in. And on that I AGREE WITH THEM. I am simply stating that where the data lives before it gets loaded into the memory of your 360 or PS3 has got bugger all to do with anything.


    @GamesConnoisseur

    +1

  • Darren #47 3 years ago

    Well I'm always deeply suspicious of publishers who announce DLC to come out within weeks of their games' release BEFORE said games have even been released, as Capcom did with RE5, so I wouldn't be at all suprised to know that RE5's Versus mode is actually on the disc. Not that I was interested in it anyway. This is completely different from, say, Rockstar announcing the Lost and Damned DLC pre-GTA IV's release and then releasing a substantial and excellent piece of DLC almost a year later.

    I'd imagine many developers now sit down and discuss which parts of the game will go on the disc and which bits will be sold as DLC later on. They need to do this so they can build support for the DLC into the game admittedly but I'm pretty sure some content is deliberately withheld from the finished game to be sold as DLC later because that's a crafty way to make a bit of extra cash for little or no extra work. I'm not saying everyone does this but it seems like there's an alarming number of publishers that do. EA, Namco and Capcom for example.

    Thankfully, we don't have to buy these things if we don't want them - of late I seem to buying less and less DLC because its either poor quality or poor value - but it still doesn't stop it feeling sometimes like you're being short-charged with the main game.

  • HolyJebus #48 3 years ago

    @ Kangarootoo

    That's fair enough but I don't think anyone really cares where the new data comes from, they just care about when it was ready. If it's on the disc to be unlocked then it was ready for the games release and should have been included with the game. I know we can get into all budget talk and whatnot, but I couldn't be arsed :)

  • dk0 #49 3 years ago

    Excellent job avoiding the spoilers. Shame about the screenshot of Wesker and Jill.

  • Grogmonkey #50 3 years ago

    Why, if it was on the disc, should it be included with the game? Just because it was ready in time? What if it was ready in time, but was always meant to be offered as DLC, and the mere fact it was on the disc was to save the consumer (ie: you) from having to download masses of information in order to access it (for instance, if the game was completed ahead of schedule. As unlikely as that would be...)? If the versus mode was on the disc, but revolutionised gaming and offered 100 hours of extra content, would you still complain about it? Would you still expect it to be included with the original game?

    I'm 100% with kangarootoo on this. Location of data has nothing to do with anything.

    The only questions that need to be asked are: "Is this any good?" and "If it is any good, is it worth the money offered?" That's it.

  • sneetch #51 3 years ago

    @redneon
    @sneetch:

    "That said, coders have gotten less and less concerned with memory..."

    Application coders are becoming less and less concerned with memory but certainly not game coders (take it from one). With the advent of in-built memory management and GC into most managed languages these days they don't really need to, either. Low level concerns like that don't need to be considered when developing most applications.

    Well yes, people who code for console and other devices with limited memory have little enough wiggle-room so therefore they can't be wasteful but, in my experience, in-built memory management and GC have just made people think they don't need to worry about memory management which is the main reason why simple applications end up either using ridiculous amounts of memory or simply leaking memory and is precisely what I was talking about. Knowing how the memory management or GC works is enough to avoid most of those problems.

    Whether or not you need to be concerned does, of course, depend on the application you're developing but as the vast majority of developers in the world are developing applications rather than games and those applications are increasingly wasteful of resources I stand by my statement. :)

  • actionfitz #52 3 years ago

    LOUD NOISES!!

    oh and screw you capcom. Online co-op is all the multiplayer I need or want for this game until you give us 'Dead Rising - like' controls.
    havent finished it yet, refuse to play it single player, have to wait for my brother to have free time too so we can finish it :p

  • kangarootoo #53 3 years ago

    @dk0

    A friend of mine avoids reading articles about certain games or films if he adamantly wants to avoid any risk whatsoever of a spoiler.

    Seems like a fair plan to me.

  • sneetch #54 3 years ago

    @OmagnusPrime
    @sneech

    I'm a relatively young coder, but I still hugely appreciate efficient code, even more so once I started working with embedded and low-memory devices. But you're right, many people these days have little appreciation for anything vaguely resembling efficiency, seemingly thinking it's acceptable to allow hardware to hide their laziness.

    Glad to see I'm not the only one who thinks that: I thought I was just turning into an increasingly grumpy old man, now I see that it's not just my age-related grumpiness. ;)

    I've been developing software for over 13 years now and the quality of the code I've seen produced by my co-workers ranges fantastically, some code absolute travesties, others truly get what it means to develop code and design and develop some beautiful work, which then gets shoe-horned/integrated into the travesties forming this hideous mish-mash.

    So while redneon is undoubtedly right that people in the games industry (especially console developers) are more cautious about their memory usage I don't think there's some sort of universal law that the game industry produces more efficient code than the more boring business side: I dare say a fair share of hacking occurs (and not the good meaning of hack, the bad one) the terrible quality of a lot of launches would support that.
    Edited by 1 at 09/04/09 @ 15:12

  • kangarootoo #55 3 years ago

    @Grogmonkey

    "The only questions that need to be asked are: "Is this any good?" and "If it is any good, is it worth the money offered?" That's it."

    Holy cow. Its like I've been cloned :D



    And can people stop with the Anchorman quotes. The joke is old, its tired, let it sleep so it can manage to stay awake through Emmerdale.

  • OmagnusPrime #56 3 years ago

    Even though we've pretty well covered that location isn't important (+1 to both kangarootoo and Grogmonkey), one thing I wanted to point out: even if the content was on the disc, that doesn't mean it was ready for release. It may have been 99% there, but required bug fixes or additional work to finish off. This doesn't mean that no work was required, or that it isn't worth your money.

    It amuses me that Capcom could have saved themselves all this nonsense just by waiting until the game was released to announce that they were working on DLC. Like it or not DLC is part of the way the gaming industry works now, and any sensible company will start planning and working on DLC before the actual game hits retail shelves (not least of all because the game has to go gold and be mass-produced some time before we as consumers ever see copies), but just because they started working on it before you got to play the game doesn't entitle you to the work for free.

    To echo the sentiment again: The only questions that need to be asked are: "Is this any good?" and "If it is any good, is it worth the money offered?" That's it.

  • darc #57 3 years ago

    Hey this is a convenient opportunity to ask a question about RE5 - was there a bug in the demo that made it borderline unplayable? It seemed like every time I tried to equip ammo, I'd get stuck in this loop where the game would insist I was trying to trade equipment with the partner. I thought it was me, but then watched a friend have the same difficulty. Frustrating enough to keep me from buying the game. Did I miss some subtlety in the controls, or was this a legitimate issue - and is it present in the commercial game?

  • Stoatboy #58 3 years ago

    @Darren re: "Well I'm always deeply suspicious of publishers who announce DLC to come out within weeks of their games' release BEFORE said games have even been released, as Capcom did with RE5, so I wouldn't be at all suprised to know that RE5's Versus mode is actually on the disc."

    You've got to understand how games are staffed during development to realise why this happens. Games start out with a skeleton crew that get things up and running. They ramp up to full production with a full set of staff until they hit a "content-complete" milestone, at which point they suddenly have a shedload of staff that aren't really needed anymore. They just need enough people to fix bugs and add polish. So you either need another project to move them on to, or you could - you know - get 'em to do more of the same. That's why DLC is so attractive for developers - they find themseleves at the arse-end of a project with a whole bunch of staff with nowhere to go and nothing to do. An add-on for a project they're already familiar with is ideal. So, chances are the DLC gets started whilst the game is still being finished, and since it's likely a much smaller project will be ready much quicker, require less testing, and have fewer problems going through the submission process. Net result is DLC ready shortly after game launch. Looks cynical to the consumer, makes sound business sense to the developer.

  • rudedudejude #59 3 years ago

    Why are people bitching about file sizes? Back in the day we used to Spend £30 on a 10byte pacman game :p

  • ronuds #60 3 years ago

    I'm baffled by people defending this. When it happens again, we'll know who to blame! :p

    Anyhow, if enough people pass on this, then there won't be any point in buying because there won't be anybody to play against.

  • ronuds #61 3 years ago

    For me the issue isn't so much that the content's on the disc already. EA's been doing that nonsense for years - and it makes sense to publishers, as they avoid the extra charges of putting DLC up on PSN and XBL.

    For me the issue is more about charging for content that 99.9% of games come with out of the box. THAT is exploitation.

  • FenderMaster #62 3 years ago

    Capcom can fuck off, I'm saving my money for the Valkyria Chronicles DLC...

  • sweetcheeks #63 3 years ago

    arsenal will beat chelsea to win the champions league,
    i have forseen it

  • Stardusted #64 3 years ago

    Actually, no matter if the content is already on the disc, Capcom is written on my black list for the way they try to milk us, customers.
    And to those who defend such actions, it won't be long till they charge you for every new patch of X or Y game no matter if all it does is fix bugs.

    DLC has an ugly side. I guess whoever has been a gamer for quite a while, so that he can remember how things were before the whole DLC hype, understands the bad things that come along with the good ones. As a customer, I will do my duty and not buy anything that promotes such tactics.

  • kangarootoo #65 3 years ago

    @ronuds

    "THAT is exploitation."

    I agree that its not good practice, but its not exploitation.

    If this extra feature had never been released, loads of players would be perfectly happy with the game that they took home on purchase day.

    If you don't like the pricing of this feature, my advice is pretend it doesn't exist. Exploitation indeed.

  • FenderMaster #66 3 years ago

    thinking about it now though...

    RE 5 was only 40 Euro in my local gamestop... way below the 60 average...

    So I guess you could say, yeah this should have been on the disc, but because it wasn't they cut the price... which I suppose is more than fair....


    60 Euro for RE 5 with Multiplayer?

    or

    40 Euro for RE 5 without multiplayer + 4 Euro extra for multiplayer?

    yeah, I think I prefer it the way it is!

  • Tomo #67 3 years ago

    "For a few quid you'll get a fair bit of enjoyment, but the fact remains that there's a putrid whiff of exploitation about this one."

    Very nicely put!

  • afghan_jones #68 3 years ago

    Its awful. Truely awful. Terrible matching, really shonky menus dumping you back to the beginning if you inevitably fail to match using the quick match function. the actual mechanics are terrible as you cant party up or join with friends which is a shame as it could have been a laugh 2 vs2 with mates.

    Plus if the opposition have unlocked other characters you are basically fucked from the off.

    Really poor stuff. the worst DLC I have paid for in a long time. I have buyers remorse....

  • pac666 #69 3 years ago

    Loved the main game but this really has a sour taste to it.

  • Lobster #70 3 years ago

    I like how the article takes care not to spoil who the other Mercenaries characters are, then on the same page has a single screenshot showing BOTH of them, nice and clear. Aces!

  • coolbritannia #71 3 years ago

    i concur with the fuck you capcom comments. this stopped me buying resi 5, so fuck you capcom.

  • bad09 #72 3 years ago

    @ CountFapula

    "Kanga, you made some great points for sure, but at the end of the day, paying for a game should mean you get EVERYTHING on the disc. You wouldn't pay for a car and find it has no engine, would you? "

    The problem is the entertainment industry (not just the games industry) have latched on to this "physical" thing. You pay for the disc and box, the game/movie/music is THEIRS (No that's not true - the music biz is getting it's act together actually). They want to dictate how/when/where/ you use it and how much you pay. Therefore it's perfectly fine to sell you "patches" like this to unlock modes.

    Quite frankly (and even tho I also shamefully took the bait a couple of times - SF4, DS and a couple of LBP costumes) this "whoring" of game modes (which used to be....you know...IN THE GAME) and costumes (which used to be....you know...UNLOCKED IN THE GAME) is disgusting and the more I see it plastered on the online stores the more I switch off....you know...the online stores..


  • HazySpy #73 3 years ago

    They should have either released this mode for free or made it just available in a patch.
    I pity the fool who wastes their money on this. :)

  • VMerken #74 3 years ago

    What annoys me, is that they inject the Achievements/Trophies into Resident Evil 5 for *everyone*, even those who aren't going to get the DLC. Really nice, I had almost all the trophies, now I'm back to 69% because new ones are added which I won't be able to unlock unless I (a) pay yearly subscription fees for online play and sacrifice some M$Points (not going to happen) or (b) put my credit card info up for grabs on PSN (not going to happen either).

    If you didn't get the DLC, the corresponding Trophies/Achievements shouldn't be visible, period.

  • local_celebrity #75 3 years ago

    DLC for this game is like polishing a turd. Capcom should either take a beginner course in controls, or just play Dead Space.

  • redneon Verified Programmer, SUMO Digital #76 3 years ago

    @sneetch:

    "which is the main reason why simple applications end up either using ridiculous amounts of memory or simply leaking memory"

    If you're coding in a managed language with GC and it's leaking memory then there's a real problem ;)

  • AOFanboi #77 3 years ago

    Eurogamer readers in "discussing a review number" shocker.

  • floppylobster #78 3 years ago

    I'm not sure whether or not the content was on this disc is the issue.

    I think people are using this (validly) to explore the line between genuine downloads that are worth paying for and lazy cash-ins. I've never played RE5 (except for the demo) so I cant comment on this example but I have paid for some good value downloaded content and I have been ripped off.

    We can't return it if we don't like it and we can't sell it on, so there are problems when the content is not perceived to be 'worth it'. And that, I think, is the issue here.

  • Ryze #79 3 years ago

    This is all done to discourage trade-ins - to keep the game DVD in the buyers ownership for as long as possible. It'd be nice if they didn't charge, and did what Criterion do, but even they now have to charge.

    It all depends on your game's budget, I suppose.

    I see - from a business perspective exactly why you'd do this. It will stop many people from trading in the game ala Devil May Cry 4 or Ninja Gaiden II, once they've finished the main campaign.

  • Ryze #80 3 years ago

    They should have released it for free, though. Would have been more effective.

  • napalm68 #81 3 years ago

    yeah can't see the point of a real player on real player shooter where your freaking feet are nailed to the ground.

    Seriously, if Re6 has the same old tired stand and attack controls I will not be getting it. I'm sick of it. It was OK with the prerendered cinematic old games but in 3d shooter world, just don't waste my fucking time.

  • itsfuzzy #82 3 years ago

    Time to wipe my arse with my custom made Capcom toilet paper

  • muscleblade #83 3 years ago

    Played this quite a bit now. Must say i love it. It makes the andrenaline go way up. Gears 2 doesnt do that to me. And you dont know the outcome of a match until the game is over. I hate that some people leave in the middle of a match and the game ends. Capcom should fix this. I dont understand why its possible for the host to kick people out of the lobby in ranked matches either. Want to play with your friends - play player matches then.
    Edited by 1 at 14/04/09 @ 08:54

  • rashy #84 3 years ago

    I have to ask after the darkfall inaccurate review, that was largly written on bias, and with disputes about the reviewer actually playing the game for any length of time can I trust this review as truth? or is this review actually written by someone with an interest in the product or an opposing one?