Resident Evil 5: Versus Comments by Kristan Reed

Wallet says No.

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

But the gist of it is "no"

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

@ Coin-Op

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

looks like the EG gods heard you lads..

and my wallet also says "ii-E".

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

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

Its stupid that they expect money for this.

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.

Wallet has already said "No thanks" to RE5.

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.

Let's get ready to angry

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

I love Brick Tamland :)

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

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

@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.

I felt the same over the Bioshock challenge rooms, you paid for a 200k file to "unlock" the rooms on the BD.

Utterly nasty way to do business.

This practice of releasing content on a disc YOU PAID FOR, and only allowing you to play it when you pay for it again seems to me, to be illegal surely?

It should be stomped out promptly.

^^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.

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.

@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.

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!

Controversy time: I bought it AND ENJOYED IT. Shock! Horror!

Mind you, I haven't played the mercenaries mode yet, so am unaware of how much I'm being ripped off. I do get my arse handed to me on a plate by players who have access to unlocked weaponry, which is annoying - and the server select stuff is all a bit shitly done, but from a dip-in, dip-out standpoint it's actually rather fun.

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?

@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.

@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.

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

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

@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?

*cough*ripoff*cough*

@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!

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

@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.

@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.

@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.

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.

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.

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.

*cough*Burnout Paradise*cough*

@Coin-Op

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

I could have guessed that to be honest ;)

@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.

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....

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

Miiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiichaellllllllllllllllllllll!

I love lamp

@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.

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

@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.

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.

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.

@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

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.