Why would a company release DLC info BEFORE a game is even released? Are they trying to get the masses in a tizzy or are they merely hyping a feature that will extend the play time of their latest game?
Resident Evil 5’s DLC package was announced last week, and I got a little riled up. Well, I apparently wasn’t the only pissed off fanboy, because the Internets were ablaze on the issue to such an extent that Capcom wheeled out Christian Svensson, vice president of Strategic Planning & Business Development for Capcom, to quiet the masses in the Capcom forum (what?) and assure everyone of Capcom’s noble intentions.
Or maybe he didn’t. Take a gander at what this joker had to say, after the jump.
If you’re interested in reading his exact quotes, they’ve been re-printed here and here. His basic take was that the DLC has a separate budget and was in development for months before the release of the main game. Here’s the main quote that got me riled up:
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.
Um… Hey Christian, that’s not why people are pissed. People are pissed because you’re going to charge them ANOTHER 5 bucks to play your multiplayer offerings. We want to play your game. We want to spend 60 bucks for your game. All we ask is that you don’t nickel and dime us. Give us the whole game. Give us the single player AND multiplayer for 60 bucks. Is that too much to ask?
What’s more interesting is what he DIDN’T say. Check it out on page 2.
CONTINUE TO PAGE: 1 2
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
“why they even need to charge for it.”
Because they want more money for something that’s not deserving of extra…
but don’t worry all earning go directly to the amazingly generous charity “the get capcom employee’s a new car & vacation fund”
I think they have a point. If the game never indended on having online support, and they add it and want to charge for it, let them.
If people are unhappy about it then they need to not buy it and leverage their powers as consumers. That will send a far clearer message than any sabre rattling on various blogs and websites will do.
Digital Ruse, You honestly believe they never intended to have multiplayer in RE5? How is it right to charge people more money for the complete game experience? I paid my money and I want the full game for the price I paid.
They may not have planned it for the “gold” release, no. All things being equal, and innocence before guilt, you have to assume this is the case and take it in good faith. If there was some hard proof of malicious intent to fool the consumer into buying a product missing a feature only to charge them for that feature later on, then Lono should start a lawsuit and retire on the riches from it.
Unless you have been in a software development industry I don’t think it is entirely fair to gather pitchforks and torches. Many companies (two I have worked for) have dev cycles that overlap one another. While the main title may have been pushed back, some of the DLC could have been in parallel development. The timing is unfortunate, but coincidental based on the information that is available to us.
OR
If you feel so strongly that Capcom has wronged you stop buying their products. Encourage others to stop buying their products. They will either fold under the financial pressure of your movement, or they will keep on keeping on.
Don’t post an indignant comment on a game blog and hope for traction.
I could totally stroke you in print for this article.
@Digitial Ruse: Ever heard of the Bad Company Boycott? Yeeeaaahhh….
You’re right. If at first you don’t succeed, just give up.
If Capcom had something to hide, I have a feeling that they just would have said nothing. The fact that they came out and tried to offer what is, IMHO, a reasonable explanation of parallel development seems to imply some honesty having worked for a software development company.
Could they throw their fans/customers a bone and offer it for free? Sure. They didn’t. I don’t think this artificial sense of entitlement that everyone is parading around is going to help the process either way.
I know I personally wasn’t looking forward to competitive multiplayer when it came to RE5, and having it made available to me via DLC does not increase my eagerness to try it.
@digital ruse: “artificial sense of entitlement” Are you fraking kidding me? Wow.
So, you’re telling me that after I spend 60 bucks for a game, I’m an ass for expecting to be able to PLAY EVERYTHING ON THE DISK THAT I JUST BOUGHT?
The multiplayer modes are in the gawddamn Prima cheat books for fukssakes.
Wow. People never stop amazing me. Keep your head in the sand Digital Ruse. I’ll keep fighting the good fight for you, even if you couldn’t be more wrong.
No wait… IIRC wasn’t your boycott a “success”?
http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/index.php/2008/04/breaking-news-boycott-successful.html
It was. Guess leaving comments on a video game blog works sometimes, eh Digital Ruse?
Since when is the Prima strategy guide the end all be all for evidence of malicious intent? Who is to say Prima wasn’t provided with the gold release, as well as potential DLC to make their guide more complete? You don’t know that and continue to premise your arguments with assumptions and not facts.
What am I saying though? You obviously have access to the design doc, road map, and complete disc map to know that the content you are so loudly beating your chest about was already on there? No, you don’t.
All you DO know is that it is being offered post release via, DLC. Which proves… nothing.
If it makes you feel better to be dismissive of my opinion by attempting to marginalize my perception and intelligence, then by all means, continue. It doesn’t make you anymore right.
A “comment” is what you and I are doing.
An article to start a boycott movement similar to Bad Company has not been posted, AFAIK.
I don’t know if this news site is “reputable” enough for you, but a quick google search pulled a couple of articles where Capcom says the new mode is not on the disc.
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=210655
Relevant quote:
“Although Versus mode makes use of the assets that exist in the game, the functionality is not currently in the game and is above and beyond the initial scope of Resident Evil 5,” Capcom told us.
@Digital Ruse: You are confused. There is no right or wrong. The question is to what extent are you willing to be exploited? I’m not saying I’m right, I’m saying I won’t be exploited and I’ll use this site to get on my soap box and bitch.
As to whether it is on the disc or not, it doesn’t matter, I’m still being charged for the multiplayer version of the game that I paid 60 bucks for and being told that I’ll have to pay extra before the game even comes out. My point all along is that it should be in the game for an even 60 bucks.
This isn’t about being right or wrong. Go pay your 5 bucks. While you’re at it, pick up some new outfits for Street Fighter IV. Then make sure to go buy all of the new cars for Burnout Paradise and finally, go buy the extra endings for Prince of Persia and Tomb Raider…
Don’t be a lamb. Don’t follow the herd.
Digital Ruse get a life. You should stop arguing about things with people who disagree with you all for the sake of arguing. I believe (key word no facts) that this DC is corporate money milking. Online multilayer is a feature that is in many games even when it is not necessary or fun. They put it in to put it in. The type of game play in this DC is very basic. Not worth $5. Capcom condemns itself by Svensson statement about how it’s already worth more then the $60 it is.
Is the Multiplayer even GOOD? I mean, a Resident Evil multiplayer doesn’t sound great to me, but that may be because I don’t have a huge liking to RE in the first place…
But I bet it’s not good enough to deserve additional charge! this is truly a dickmove from Capcom’s side.
There, there Lono… you are so cute when you resort to ad hominems.
I am not being exploited, because I don’t intend to buy it. Actually, I am pretty sure I said it in one of my comments… where was it… Oh yes!
“I know I personally wasn’t looking forward to competitive multiplayer when it came to RE5, and having it made available to me via DLC does not increase my eagerness to try it.”
And wait a sec… it doesn’t matter if it was already on the disc? But… but… you just said…
“What Svensson didn’t say was whether the content already exists on the disk and to what extent this content could have appeared in the initial offering or why they even need to charge for it.”
So… is it important, or isn’t it? You have confused me, because it seems like it was important enough to mention it in your rant. Also, there are other news outlets that are reporting that Capcom has clarified saying the content is not already on the disc. I know that doesn’t matter now… but I thought I would mention it.
If this is just your opinion that you FEEL you are being exploited… then meh… short of you having a personal epiphany, there is nothing anyone can say short of having Capcom making it free. But don’t disguise it as malicious intent in the hopes of rallying people to your cause. That just seems disingenuous.
Also, I passed my wisdom check (I roll 20s) and see through your Illusion Spell to cloud this discussion with other cases of DLC already being on the disc and unlocked. In both of those cases I think the publishers were wrong in what they did.
I am no lamb, sir. In fact, I find it is the sheep I am so often up against. (<3 Housemartins)
@S.T.A.N.
“Digital Ruse get a life.”
I’m scared, you first.
“You should stop arguing about things with people who disagree with you all for the sake of arguing.”
I am discussing this with whoever wants to discuss it. You are free to not participate. But since you are here…
“Online multilayer is a feature that is in many games even when it is not necessary or fun. They put it in to put it in. The type of game play in this DC is very basic.”
Basic how? By what standard? Who defines these basic sorts of features? Is it easy to implement? So basic that it has been in every previous incarnation of RE?
“Not worth $5.”
You opinion. Noted. Don’t buy it.
“Capcom condemns itself by Svensson statement about how it’s already worth more then the $60 it is.”
His opinion. Noted. Meaningless.
@Digitalruse: I never said YOU were being exploited. The statement was a general one, but since you are such a wordsmith, I would have thought you would understand that…
At the end of the day, is charging $$$ for an extra feature to extend the life of a game cool? Sure, I’m all for a map pack here or there, as long as a company works on it after it has completed its main game. Why? Because I think it’s a bit ridiculous to simultaneously work on two parts of a game and then sell them separately, when the content is already on the disc (and your assertions to the contrary didn’t include a link), or if it is an extra mode that is sold immediately after a game is launched, which still smacks of opportunism.
I guess I just expect more. I refuse to lay down on this.
So am I the only one who saw this sort of thing coming? Game prices have been rising on average since games have existed, along with their complexity. They started out at, what? 20 bucks? Now games are averaging about 60 bucks, right? I don’t understand how it is assumed that games will stop rising in price from now on yet still increase in complexity. Perhaps charging for the complete game via DLC is the new way to sell to the minimum-wage teenager AND the bachelor with substantial disposable income.
Since it seems like companies have been charging for DLC expansions for games for a little while now, I’m not sure how CAPCOM’s priced DLC is at all exploitation. If you don’t think you’d like online multiplayer in a game, you don’t have to spend the money to buy it. If you have no idea whether you’d like it or not, isn’t that why you consult reviews? Wouldn’t it be MORE of an exploitation if they forced you to buy the online content by charging $65 for the game and including it?
Sorry guys but I tend to agree with Digital Ruse here. *puts on flame-proof helmet*
Ok. So what other games have charged for online multiplayer ? When has this ever happened before?
Your statement was:
“The question is to what extent are you willing to be exploited?”
The pronoun ‘you’ has a pretty explicit meaning… wordsmith or not. I sought to clarify my position if I had not been clear that I don’t intend to be the subject of said exploit.
I can’t seem to post links in the comments… I have tried 3 times now, and every time it just never appears. Or I get an error saying I am making a duplicate entry. o_O
I posted one of the links in the forum post for this article. It looks like it posted fine there.
I can understand many people having bogeyman assumptions concerning the timing of the release of the DLC, and maybe someone at Capcom could have been smarter about sitting on the DLC until the game had some time to ferment. Of course, if they did give Prima a preview of their multiplayer while it was in development, I could understand how they would feel pressure from game guides to release the content so people weren’t all, “Huh?”
I think at this point, from a PR perspective, Capcom needs to be more transparent about the whole thing. Start to finish. If at the end of that, they feel they need to offer a concession of making the DLC free? Sure, they could. One would hope that all those up in arms would remember the gesture the next time this all seems suspicious.
And now, I go into a migrane induced coma. (Sometimes reading a computer helps them… I think I over did it this time.)
An excellent discussion regardless, Lono.
Best
-Jodon
The funny thing is, had Capcom announced and released this 1 month from now, no one would care, they would assume they started on this after the release of the game, and would be fine with it. Would we?
This is kinda like if Killzone was released as a singleplayer only game, and offered multiplayer for an additional charge. The ones who only wanted the singleplayer wouldn’t care, but the multiplayer guys (there is a lot of them) would feel ripped off. If Guerrilla made the Killzone 2 multiplayer that good and deep, and released it with the game without additional charge, why the hell can’t Capcom release this little tacked on multiplayer with the game too? It’s like they want to piss people off, most game designers know gamers, and it’s not like they didn’t see this coming. Someone at the office must have said
“hey, wouldn’t this make people feel ripped off?”
“SHUT UP! MORE MONEY!!”
That is my point of view…
Yeah yeah, noted, meaningless.
Oh noes, I am the customer, Capcom should do what they can to please the freakin customer they make money of!!
@Lono; I’m implying that games including multiplayer with the disc are already charging for multiplayer, since that is part of the entire package. There is nothing on a disc that is “free” if you have to pay for the disc to get it. The same can be said of DLC expansions, even if they are free to download, since you need the disc which you have purchased in order to use them.
Your statement was:
“The question is to what extent are you willing to be exploited?”
The pronoun ‘you’ has a pretty explicit meaning… wordsmith or not. I sought to clarify my position if I had not been clear that I don’t intend to be the subject of said exploit.
I can’t seem to post links in the comments… I have tried 3 times now, and every time it just never appears. Or I get an error saying I am making a duplicate entry. o_O
I posted one of the links in the forum post for this article. It looks like it posted fine there.
I can understand many people having bogeyman assumptions concerning the timing of the release of the DLC, and maybe someone at Capcom could have been smarter about sitting on the DLC until the game had some time to ferment. Of course, if they did give Prima a preview of their multiplayer while it was in development, I could understand how they would feel pressure from game guides to release the content so people weren’t all, “Huh?”
From a PR standpoint, I think Capcom needs to just be fully transparent (why they weren’t to begin with? Who knows.) about the whole process, start to finish. And, if in the end, they want to offer the DLC for free as a concession? Good on them.
If you’ll excuse me now, I have to enter a migrane induced coma. (Sometimes working on a computer helps them… I think I over did it this time.)
Regardless, thank you for the engaging discussion, Lono.
Best
-Jodon
Links are usually disallowed. I’ll go and post your links. hang on.
@Lono: I agree with you about the RE5 mp dlc but I do not agree with you on putting Burnout into this category. The first 3-5 updates to that game which included some cars and the addition of motorcycles as well as other stuff I really don’t want to research was all free.
Currently you only have to pay for 5 normal cars (3 of which are gimmick pop culture cars which only people who care about the movie/tv show it is from will buy) and the toy cars(which at this point I see no point in) which to my knowledge(unlike the RE5 dlc) is not required to play the game and came out a year after the game did.
The extra online stuff you have to pay for seems ok by you due to your comment “I could see it being okay, if there was the basic multiplayer game and then they wanted to charge for add-ons later.” which is what the mp additions were, an addon to an already good mp experience.
The only other item they have up besides gamerpics/themes is the new island which is supposed to be a full expansion to the game so for me I think Burnout is one of the few games doing dlc right with the only arguement against them being they are overcharging for the 3 gimmick cars.
this is dumb. It’s a fiver for crying out loud! It’s not even that much money. The reason i’ve heard as to why this is DLC is becasue the PS3 version is getting more DLC, appreantly the 360 version of the game couldn’t have it on the disc becasue it wouldn’t fit on the game and for Capcom to charge the extra fiver onto the game without the extra content there would seem criminal.
Basically PS3 is getting more trophies and more content including Slayer, Team Slayer, Survivor, Team Survivor on top of the duel mode. Look here for the information Lono http://sarcasticgamer.com/wp/index.php/2009/03/capcom-calls-bullsht-on-their-bullsht.html/2
I don’t hate you. I just don’t see why you didn’t except a business to do what a business does best. Screw you over for as much money as it can.
Sorry Wrong Link >_<.
And to show my support for capcom i’ll annoce it in the same way by saying that i regret to inform you that mistakes were made in the form of mistakes……^_^
I think Viking hit the nail on the head. I’d be amazed if a lot of companies don’t now withhold some of the work from the final release, then put it out as DLC a few weeks later. People assume it’s extra content that they’ve worked on since, happily pay up for it and we don’t have arguments like this one.
Perhaps Capcom are merely the ones being honest about it. (That wasn’t a justification by the way…)
I find myself agreeing and disagreeing with @Lono at the same time. Konami already found out that attempting to release a seperate multiplayer game at the same time as a single player game garners a tidal wave of hate back at the developer and publisher. In their case they listened and MGO went from a seperate product to being included as part of MG4. Capcom however seem to have done the opposite. Konami were very open about the fact that MGO was seperate, whereas people found the multiplayer in RE5 through existing Achievements and then Capcom owned up. Which brings up another question. If the multiplayer does not exist on the disk, then why do the Achievements, seen as you can add them later with the DLC?
On the other hand maybe if publishers try to get people t0 pay for these and they don’t, then the developers will hopefully stop wasting dev time on producing multiplayer add-ons for games that should be left as single player only. I think 2 good examples of this are The Darkness and Bioshock. Several reviews complained about the mediocre multiplayer in The Darkness and suggested that most people would not even play it. On the hand they praised Bioshock for not wasting time on multiplayer and focusing on making it the best single player experience they could. I am not suggesting that the single player content of The Darkness and Bioshock are the same, but maybe they could have been if the multiplayer was discarded.
@Timewarp : I have to point out that RE5 is less than 7GB on the Xbox 360 (if my Googling serves me well). Unless the DLC is the largest that has been released on any of the platforms then it could have easily fit on the 2GB free on the DVD. So if Capcom really said that it is my turn to call bullsh!t.
@Lee_The_Sarge: From what MS said about the install to HD the largest amount of gamedata that can be on a 360 disc is 6.5gb as far as what they do with the rest I have no clue.
@Johndg: I had not heard that before but it appears you are correct. It seems the largest install you can do is 6.8GB based on a chart I found. It still does not however explain why they are charging for it. Plenty of content has been released free of charge as DLC if space was the only issue.
Lono is 100% right. Think about NFS Carbon. The DLC was already on the disk, but you had to pay to unlock it. Total BS!
@Jack: In the case of Carbon the dlc was the extra cars that came with the CE so you paid the same either way.
wow heated debate FTW!
i think capcom is bullshiting the buyers. theyre not coming out and saying its not on the disc already theyre just bullshiting people saying “these multiplayer versions arent in the scope of the game”. what the fuck is the scope of the game. theyre rippin people off.
@Digital Ruse:
you sir have just made my day.
nothing against any one, but you reasoning, attitude and facts based conversation just amazed me.
“Basic how? By what standard? Who defines these basic sorts of features? Is it easy to implement? So basic that it has been in every previous incarnation of RE?”
this is exactly the one thing i put in mind when i first read Lano’s rant about the DLC.
Beside, really now, if any one didnt like it, just dont get it. this is not hiding my head in the sand , its just not my fight.
if someone can really change, and save, the video gaming world by saving 5$, then so be it. To me, it does not worth the fight or the money.
but hey, thats me!
The fact that Capcom felt that they needed to explain themselves proves that “bitching” on a blog does something. I was going to buy RE5… but after they said that they were going to charge for THE FRICKIN’ MULTIPLAYER, I decided I’ll just rent it.. or maybe I should buy it used? Yeah I’ll do that. Capcom’s not getting my money. Any developer that does that won’t get my money. Why do I get the feeling that if DLC didn’t exist on consoles, RE5 would have shipped with multiplayer modes? Yes… let me “bitch about it on a blog” and talk about it. It’s by actually doing something about it that you can change things.
Good article. I agree with you that the simplistic “don’t like it, don’t buy it” argument is a little narrowminded – sure, consumers can express their distaste by withholding their cash, but if they’re in the minority then all that’s going to happen is they’ll miss out on content while other consumers are getting fleeced and capcom rolls in the dosh.
Problem is that for a lot of dlc to be commercially viable you have to have it completed (or at least well in production) before the game itself ships. New levels (be they mp or sp) or features like online mp can take a loooong time to build up to an adequate level of quality… if your dlc doesn’t come out for a year after your game then a lot of consumers will have moved on. i know this happened with the last warhawk expansion, which didn’t sell all that well despite positive reception from press and the hardcore warhawk community. also, looking at the number of people playing metal gear online nowadays i have to wonder how much money konami will recoup from the upcoming “scene” expansion pack… sure, they’ll probably turn a profit but if it had been timed to come out a few months ago when the game was still hot they probably could’ve done a lot better. getting your dlc done before your game ships allows developers to time these moves a lot better.
is that kind of strategic timing cynical or exploitative? In some ways that’s in the eye of the beholder – we’ve sort of become used to paying for map packs for multiplayer games so we don’t question it too much when it happens. Ditto add on content for rpgs (although obviously there are limits there too – recall the oblivion horse armour debacle). However, when RE5 comes out with paying for multiplayer it seems a little rough… we usually get that for free after all. And capcom didn’t help the situation by *heavily* hyping this aspect of the game in their press days. If your going to tout a feature as a selling point of your game then make sure that feature is *in* the game.
Thing is, when it comes to the timing of it – releasing the DLC before the game comes out – would we consumer-types have been any happier if capcom sat on the content for a few weeks, to maybe make it at least *look* like they’d been putting in some work on the dlc seperate from the main game? Funny thing is we probably would’ve been a little bit less resentful, even though the content still would’ve been done day and date the game shipped. It’s hard to say if capcom have been especially cynical with this DLC move (ie. more exploitative than other dlc-promoting developers), but I think that on a public relations level it’s been handled very badly – this just LOOKS bad, it’s all out in the open with a move like this.
As well as enhancing strategic release opportunities, getting dlc done while the game is in full production also makes a lot more sense from a production perspective. Because of your internal economies of scale going on when the full game is in development – you’ve already got your team up and running – the marginal costs of churning out just one more level are a lot less than they are if you’re trying to put together some content with just a couple of people (your level-making “production line” has less opportunities for specialization, knowledge pooling etc etc). Similarly, but from a management perspective, keeping a small group of people on after a game has shipped to make levels or whatever can fragment your studio and take focus away from your next major project.
I totally get why DLC strikes a lot of gamers as cynical – it’s like a kind of an after-sale tax, an expense in the fine print. Moreover, dlc levels can often fragment a gaming community: suddenly you’ve got to set up cod4 games for people with the pack, without the pack etc etc. At the same time, there are situations where it legitimately allows developers to add content that would otherwise not have been made because it truly wasn’t commercially viable. Thing is, as gamers we’re always on the outside the economics of these decisions, and we’re inclined to expect the worst (part of the not entirely unjustified generalised fear of faceless corporations etc etc). I suppose the DLC issue is just a big complicated mess really.
Good thing RE5 is so mediocre
(kidding, just thought it’d be fun to end on some flamebait)
@kadare: I agree with you on most of that. A lot of people seem to forget that making content for games does cost money. This goes along with what I said before… that games are and have been increasing in complexity and therefore price since games first existed (even with expanding technology.) It also follows that if CAPCOM charges more for a game than it is worth, it will receive lower revenues AND profits than it otherwise should. This isn’t unethical – it’s just poor business.
I don’t agree with saying that the DLC is like an “after-sales tax,” since it is not mandatory to pay for it after buying the disc.
But yes, charging for DLC does create a situation of the “haves” and “have-nots,” but this is a situation that exists in every day life, with just about anything (certainly anything that is sold for a price.) If they upped the price to $65 to justify putting in the multiplayer content in RE5, everyone with the game would be the “haves” and anyone who decided $60 was fine but $65 was too much would be the among the “have-nots.”
I think most people see this blindly as some big corporation trying to wring out another couple of bucks from them. Would you rather have CAPCOM take huge losses by undercutting the prices of their games and be deprived of quality, higher budget games in the future? If they did that continually, they’d simply go out of business.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m no CAPCOM fanboy. I just see no reason to avoid logic in favor of popular opinion.
This is rediculous.
People don’t pay for part of a game they should get anyways. People pay for the whole thing.
It’s like if you buy a car. You expect the car to work but you go to drive it and find it doesn’t have a steering wheel or you’re missing your back right wheel. You’ll be pissed and will want you’re money back and when you go back and complain they tell you that they hadn’t made the steering wheel or back wheel at the same time as the car and that they’ll sell it to you for whatever amount of $$$ it’s completely rediculous and this shouldn’t have happened in the first place.
Kinda pissed,
zinc136
I agree with your car example, but I don’t think the analogy works in this case.
RE stands on its own. If you miss out on the multiplayer feature (i.e. don’t buy it), you’re not going to be missing out on much. It’s not integral like a steering wheel is to a car.
The series never really lent itself to competitive multiplayer, anyways. It’s going to be interesting to see what people say about it when it’s released.
This is all my personal opinion, of course.
Kudos to Digital Ruse and kadare for the awesome discussion and keeping it civil.
@zinc136:
ummmmm, i dont think so that the multi player mode in RE5 is like the steering wheel in a car!
its more like an air bag for the passenger seat.
think about it a bit and you would know what i mean.
@dark-animus: So… when you get red rings of death on RE5, player 2’s controller will deploy a safety shield in case the system explodes?
@BasharTeg6:
lol, not exactly my point, but you made me laugh.
what i meant was, this DLC is totally unimportant in a game like RE.
any way, i have never cared about the terrifying red ring of death, but than again, what i have is not a sh.. sorry, Microsoft product!
I am more suprised they did this on RE5 and not on SF4’s online. Cos that would’ve made a few serious bucks. And a few gamers getting pitchforks. So put that in reflective.
I’m totally happy with RE5. Didn’t ever want Vs. So it’s just as good as not existing.
It’s kinda obvious that Capcom are not handling their DLC well right now, and have a lot to learn from the western market.
It’s ok to buy a gold gun, furniture, clothes, a new stage/map, even a new song. But not a VS mode? Course not. It’s a darn extra game mode. That’s worth money. It just isn’t getting mine. That’s all.