I still love you Capcom. You make great portable Zelda games.

My question is, how much does the downloadable content to enable multiplayer cost? I mean, if it's $10 to play your friends, that's not such a big deal. But if it's $40, then yeah, that's a pretty dick move on Capcom's part.

Of course this is BS. They are putting out a complete product with plans in the future to expand on it. If people can buy 33 damn different expansion packs for the Sims, they can buy RE5 and then some expansion content for it later.

It all depeneds on what you like in a game and by the way I am still getting RE5, lets shoot some zombies. Maybe someone could make a downloadable add on to add mr Svensson to the list of unlockable mercenary missions.

If what he is saying it true -- that multiplayer was not planned, and is not on the disc -- then he is right. It had to be programmed later and at additional cost.

If it turns out that the download is just to unlock data on the disc, as is the case with Street Fighter IV's alternate costumes, then his pants are on fire.

Personally, I wouldn't buy Resident Evil 5 based on this extra content. RE games have always been about survival and horror, not multiplayer action.

If I buy a game, I should get the WHOLE game. If you want to release expansion packs later (new levels, weapons, characters, etc.) then fine, and if I deem worthy Ill bite. But something like multi-player capability?! My god man, that's a core part of a game.

Sure it's BS... Capcom's saying it. Hell, if any company could tack on over a trillion different bits of DLC and charge you crazy amounts for it, don't you think they would?

Thank goodness I never got into Resident Evil. xD

some video gamers bitch about paying for anything. that's why game piracy is so prevelent

i'll echo G4 hosts Sessler and Pereira on RE5: You can't MOVE while SHOOTING?!?!?!??? instantly, for me, at least, that takes away any "$60 value" by creating a negative fun quotient.

This is the problem with DLC. What DLC should be is a way to inject new life into an old game by adding content that was either brainstormed afterwards or could not fit on the original disc. (Rock Band and Guitar Hero's song packs are examples of DLC done right).

What Capcom has done is bring forth game content that 1. Came out day and date with the disc, meaning the content was thought of beforehand; 2. brought content that is usually included on a game disc, which means that it is quite possible - esp in the age of blu-ray - that consumers are not getting DLC, but an 'unlock' key for information already on the disc.

And Christian S needs to go back to charm school. Our discretionary gaming dollars are dwindling; we don't need to be insulted.

Uh, this is Consumerist.com - you know how this poll will turn out, no? Forget the DLC, a goodly number of people here probably think the game itself should be provided to them for nothing.

@Roclawzi:

But why release a game and then less than a week later charge you for downloadable content? Why not just include everything in the finished product instead of raping everyone a second time? The game is 60$ and not a lot of people can afford it now, much less another 10$ for something that could theoretically been shipped in the game itself with a little more elbow grease and less greed.

@superbug: excellent point. if the content is already on the disc, then i call foul play. however, if you're actually downloading the code to make multiplayer doable, then you can pay for it.

I'm calling BS on this as well. I am an avid gamer and often not a big fan of dlc that comes because a game shipped in an incomplete state but what the Capcom rep says is 100% correct. RE5 shipped as a complete package and is quite an impressive game. The additional dlc is an extension of that. Like he says, if you don't want it then don't buy it. Yes, it would be nice to get new content for free but not every company does that. At least Capcom send out a complete product initially unlike some companies.

@zibby: Except that BS is winning. Consumerist readers aren't the mindless drones some people make us out to be.

The game, for some reason, is 69.99 here as opposed to 59.99... like EVERY OTHER GAME. Then they hold out on multiplayer so they can nickel and dime us for that too? RE5 is not worth $75. Especially since it's just RE4 in Africa. No updates/improvements to the controls... which now feel dated.

For $75, I could get a few older games, which are much better.

@NightSteel:

Nothing Xbox Live Takes cares of the servers if your a member of Xbox Live basically they have and own the servers that you pay for monthly.

Your poll is unclear and misleading.
Based on the comments, I believe most of the people who chose 'BS' believe they are coming in on the side of the consumer.
I had to stop and think about what I was choosing.
You might want to rethink that...

@Patrick Henry: Yeah. I don't think most would have minded a $5 multiplayer expansion if it were released down the line. Sort of a "Hey, look what we added!" In that respect it's added value to the title.

But right out of the box? It seems more like they cut content intended for players at launch, then slapped a price tag on it to weasel out an extra $5.

Gotta say, though, that games don't get developed "like that." There's no way a week after the game went gold they implemented a new game mode and let that go "gold" for downloadable content. No way at all.

Software is a monster of planning and time. On top of that, game software in particular is notorious for being hairy and brittle so the real BS is that the game wasn't built from the start to support this new gameplay mode.

This is basically like all those airline fees. Want to travel with a bag? Yeah, we built the plane with a baggage compartment and we used to let you bring luggage for free but now we're going to charge you for what you're supposed to get. Remember those headsets we'd give out to you during the flight to listen to our music stations? Well, now it's a fee to rent and another fee to take with you.

It's just another way to lie about the cost of a game and trick you into thinking you're getting a deal.

I totally agree with him, Resident Evil 5 is one of the best games I've played on the PS3 and it is totally worth the $60. I probably won't get the multiplayer dlc but I don't have any problem with them charging for the extra work and costs associated with it. I'm glad the creators of Street Fighter didn't take it lying down.

I'm not an RE fan, but it is Capcom's game and they should be able to do what they want with it. If Capcom decides to devote more manpower and money in developers and stuff to work on the game after it's release then of course they should be able to charge more because they had to pay more people to make the extra content. If the game was awful, and 4 hours long or something I could see the legit issue, but from everything I've heard the Game that shipped on the disc is pretty damn good. As the guy said, if you don't like it then don't buy it, if enough people do that(which they won't) then for the next RE5 game they won't have extra content available.

Well, I have to agree with the Capcom executive. Anyone who bought the game before the multiplayer online support was added knew exactly what they were getting and paid a price they were willing to pay. To expect Capcom to give them more without paying more is BS.

And let's face it, there is no consumer issue here. The complaints that the users want more for free are not based on any contract, promise or law. They're just based on, "I want more and I refuse to pay for it." How are giving greedy customers a voice to air their greedy complaints a consumer issue?!

I don't see why anyone would want to buy this sorry excuse for a next gen game anyway. I played the demo on my PS3 and didn't even finish the demo it was so bad...I deleted this garbage from my harddrive shortly thereafter.

I've also now refused to buy anything from publishers the day it is released unless it is first party. This BS with timed exlusives..even demos...has got to stop. If I buy a multiplatform game...I buy it used...on eBay. There is no excuse for these garbage games on the next gen console. These bad multiplatform ports are ruining gaming for next gen on the PS3 and PC. I refuse to directly support publishers anymore with their crappy ports.

Yeah, and the poll is kinda confusing.

@Nitrokart: That they do.

Remember in the software industry it takes time to go from a gold product (releasable) to it actually being released-esp if there are disc's involved. I would bet they had a gold version of RE5 and set it to the final testing/cd production (which with the software company I work for can be 2 months easy). Then they started working on the multi-player which being downloadable didn't need as much time between finished product and available to consumers espcially since you probably do not need to run the full gauntlet of tests against it as you would the major product release.

A couple of quick hits that this post is missing...

- The main reason for the backlash is that this is being announced the WEEK OF RELEASE. Which means it is VERY likely that this content could have/should have been included in the retail package.

- Capcom is the industry leader in bullshit DLC. They recently have been releasing "costume packs" for SFIV that are already included on the game disc, but are locked until you pay extra. Bullshit.

- Your poll is really bad, you should change it. Like others have said, it is very confusing.

@Bearded Rapper even though the whole Joaquin Phoenix thing ...: they're still short of Namco, which wants over $120 to unlock everything on the Ace Combat 6 or Beautiful Katamari discs.

The real issue here is that Capcom is esentially "Patching" RE5 and adding a new feature to the game which didn't make it into the final release version of the product on store shelves and asking people to pay $5.00 for it.

This is setting a bit of a precident for other titles, will we have to pay $5.00 for game patches that fix critical bugs? Or will this only be used for "special" features which were cut before release then re added later?

Capcom could've avoided the whole situation by adding in some content along with the patch. A few new maps (after all single player maps typically aren't designed with multiplayer in mind) which were designed for single & VS mode. Which could've been bundled in with the patch.

I'm also pondering the idea of maybe the additional online capabilities couldn't fit on the XBOX disc and therefore they are pandering the content as 'bonus' features. Maybe that was the continued hold-up for releasing the game. Why else would it be available RIGHT NOW?

Special modes, costume and hidden items used to be standard features. Now, some of these are being left out INTENTIONALLY just to be sold later as DLC.
Capcom did the same with SFIV with extra costumes. These costumes were already on the disc and buying them would simply unlock them.
Its hard to judge which content justifies paying extra for but in my opinion anything that is available the day of the release was left out.

Resident Evil did not start out as a multiplayer game, and as far as I know the only modes that have been traditionally available are Co-Op.

I think this is perfectly acceptable. If they started the franchise with multiplayer and then took it out to charge extra, then call shenanigans, otherwise its extra content just like an expansion pack and they have every right to charge for it.

That is one guy who plans on staying with the company just long enough to get his bonus and get out. He obviously has not concern for the customer or the long-term health of his company. He is also immature.

@zibby: I would argue that consumers only what what they have paid for, and rightly so.

I sure don't expect to get something without giving something.

What this appears to be is a money grab by withholding a feature that could have been included from the start. Indeed, having a paid for game mode release as downloadable content on the very day your game comes out seems like a big poke in the eye, while reaching for the wallet.

About charging for unlockables, Capcom already included tons of unlockables in the game as sold, probably more than any resident evil before it. Extra costumes, extra guns, extra modes. All this on top of already a beautiful and well designed game. They definitely went above and beyond most current gen games that only allow you to unlock "concept art".

@Raekwon: When the paid-for game mode is released on the same day as the game, I'd say it's not the complete game.

I do believe that this Capcom rep is right though, if you don't like it, don't buy it.

Vote with your dollars, as always.

I keep reading things like they "should have" included it. The game as released is complete (bad or good) and playable. You are owed nothing more per what is being promised, a game, complete, and playable. How and what they decide to add/offer as extra content, whether it was finished before release or not, is up to the manufacturer. Just because it was done does not obligate them to provide it to you free. If it was a patch to bring the product to functioning status, sure, but that isn't the case.

To me, this whole issue is somewhat analogous to extra content on different DVD packages. It's often all complete at the time of initial release, but, the set with the extras costs me more. They don't owe it to me at the same price as the bare bones, movie only offering. If I want the extras, I decide if it's worth it to me. I'm not entitled to it. I see this feeling of entitlement more and more in our society. As some others have said, if you don't think it's "right" or "fair", then vote with your $.

@Kensuke Nakamura:

What extra work? It was made during the normal course of game development, was held back and released as paid-for content the same day the game came out.

@Raekwon: The day is long, my friend. And I think the poll choices could have been worded a little better.

The complaints are BS. Where does it say every game must include multi-player mode?

The only voice a big corp like that is going to hear comes from George Washington... If you don't like their business practices, show them by not buying their product.
Sometimes Southpark really gets it right... Check out the walmart episode if you're not already familiar with it.

OK, they can do what they want with their game, and privately, they can call the customers whiners as much as they want.

But, as a company, don't publicly bitch about them. Seriously, you just look like an ass.

I agree with CapCom. When I buy something, I don't believe I'm entitled to the upgrades. This is silly.

This isn't presented in a very balanced manner. Of particular value to this discussion are the portions of the statement about how the downloaded content is budgeted and developed separately from the main release. From the forum quoted by this article's source:
"Secondly, whenever we do PDLC, that content exists with its own budgets, it's own profit and loss analysis with its own forecasts. If it didn't, that extra content wouldn't have been put into production, because it did not fit within the production budget of the base product.

The content that is shipping in the full game exists within its own budget. The content shipping afterward (regardless of how close to release it is... because the goal IS to have it release relatively closely to the base product's release) exists within its own budget. To try and have it release in a timeframe that is relatively close to the initial release, development starts well before the base product is on the shelves. There's no other way to keep it within 3 to 6 weeks of the initial release (which is the goal)."

The way you presented it here was to suggest that the Business Development VP was dismissing gamer complaints as BS for the fact that they hadn't realized that they were being sold only half of the true product, whereas the omitted portion of the quote show that the paid download is indeed a separate product to be purchased separately.

It's chintzy, sure, but the fact is everyone who paid $60 got everything they were promised on the box. I'm not a gamer, but arent' there several online shootemups you can participate in? If a shootemup game doesn't come with multiplayer, can't you just pass it over for a title that does? Is this particular shootemup THAT much better?

Capcom is also going to be charging for multiplayer on the Wii when Monster Hunter comes out. The prices are insane too, 2000 Wii points for a 90 day play ticket (thats 20$ + tax for 90 days of play time). Needless to say that is a game I will NOT be buying, and I expect to see it in the bargin bin soon. From what I hear Monster Hunter pretty much requires you to play with friends to get through it though, its not playable as a single player game. Even if you pay the money you are not guaranteed to find any opponents to play with, if there is no one on when you are, you are screwed. The series doesn't have that many fans in the US either, the Japanese people will buy into this but US fans will leave it in the dust.

I do not support any kind of pay-for-play structure in video games (other than paying for the original disc or cartridge yourself), you should not have to pay for stuff that should have been in the game from the very beginning. Thankfully I don't have a Xbox360 or PS3 so I don't have to worry about things like this. If the industry keeps going this way then its back to old games I go!

@SynMonger: As long as people have the information in advance, they can decide what it is or isn't worth to them. No freebie, but no foul either. Now, in a case where DLC was promised prior to release and then never delivered...I would say that's a legitimate beef as people may have made a purchasing decision based on bad information. Motorstorm: Pacific Rift would be a good example.

I certainly don't think the majority of people here expect to get the product for free - note that "a goodly number" is vague, and deliberately so - but after reading a few years worth of Consumerist arguments about tipping, piracy, etc. I think I'll stand by the statement.

Honestly, I'm not even close to being in touch with video gaming enough to judge whether people should still be paying extra to play online.

Would it be different if the content were in the game but the game cost more? This is a serious question here. I've never played a console game online.