It's right there - "Capcom defended itself to IGN by saying they still required extra resources to develop the versus mode functionality,so it's justified in charging extra." I don't see how this is at ALL confusing. People that think this should be free are self centered folks with entitlement issues.

They shipped a game, that with no extras, was a full experience. They put MORE than that on the disc, and they want you to pay for the additional development time involved in creating it.

The only difference between this and "real" dlc is that they've saved folks hard drive space and time spent downloading dlc.

Maybe "resident evil" is the nickname of the marketing department.

You've got it waaaaayyyyyyyy wrong - lemme drop some education bombs here.

The netcode to connect two players to one another is on the disc - it's used to connect players for co-op play in the campaign mode. The art assets and level designs are also already on the disc, as they are used in both the story mode, and the mercenaries mode. The 1.86 mb download you're paying for contains brand new code - the code for the new multiplayer modes you're purchasing. 1.86 MB is a very reasonable size for the executable code, given that it doesn't come with any new art assets, or any new netcode. It's just the code for the two new multiplayer modes.

Now, is $5 a fair price for the two new multiplayer modes? Not really. With no new maps, and no new art assets, you're not really getting much for what you're paying. Just to be clear, you are not, I repeat, NOT paying for code already on the disc. The new MP modes do use assets already on the disc, but the modes themselves are not already on the disc. If you want to attack capcom for overpricing this content, be my guest. Don't generate hate towards capcom for a crime they didn't commit. Expect more info on this DLC to show up on [checkyourhud.com] within the next 24 hrs.

I guess I'm not seeing a real problem. Is this a game mode most people will want? Or is it a mode only certain people (maybe people willing to pay $5.00 for the extra gaming experience) will want?

I have AT&T Uverse. My service includes hundreds of channel offerings...but there are more available without the need to upgrade my equipment - the only thing I need to do is willingly pay more $$$ for that additional content.

@Jakuub:

Wrong. This is money-grabbing at its worst; versus modes are an accepted part of the standard pricing of games. If consumers allow this, they can expect it to happen again, and the overall value of games will be lowered as versus modes become a luxury expected to command a premium.

It hurts the overall game experience because it limits the number of online players to interact with, and worse than that it's prostituting the loyalty of customers for five dollars a trick.

@Jakuub: Having developed software for more of my career than I would have liked, I don't think most people realize how much effort goes into creating a game or a piece of software.

It seems that the issue most people have is that the content was included on the disc but not accessible. If it was sold as a separate disc, even for more money, I don't think there would be as much "backlash."

Anyway, the game is fully functional and enjoyable as is. It's not like they held the ending hostage, making people pay to finish the game. It's an additional mode, and like so many other games out there, you have to pay for extra modes above the base game content.

I understand you're line of thought and how you got to where you are now but this IS a rippoff.

The thing you're forgetting is that with DLC, developers now have the ability to take things out of the game that were constructed alongside the 'main' game and charge extra for it (It's a fact that this is what Capcom did considering the information leak through the PS3 and the size of the DLC --> ~2 MB).

There was NO additional development time involved in creating it. If you would have continued your research on the several statements made by Capcom, you would realize that their defense/claims are 100% BS.

Before you boldly declare that the people who are complaining are self centered, make sure you completely understand what you're talking about. From the sound of your comment I'm going to go ahead and guess you're not a gamer.

@Jakuub:

I call BS on that argument. If they had this in mind all along, then I'd argue that they should have included a note on the product packaging to that effect: "Not all game content is accessible on purchase. Additional play modes may require additional fees/online purchases."

Meanwhile, Valve constantly adds new content NOT shipped with the original game at no additional cost to their customers. As a consumer, guess which publishing model I prefer?

@What The Geek: Kudos to you.

This game already cost 60 dollars. I guess if you want to buy complete games now, they cost $65. I wish they would just have that cost up front and unlocked when I buy the game.

@What The Geek: The 1.86 mb of code is just a menu patch to access code that's already on the disc. You are paying for what is already on the disc.

@R3PUBLIC0N: Gaming as a whole, IS a luxury that should command a premium. You don't need a multiplayer mode to fully enjoy a game, and VS modes need not define a game's real "playability." Look at one of the best game series ever - The Legend of Zelda - which has absolutely no multiplayer support (handheld versions excluded).

To be perfectly honest, if you want real "interaction," go outside! :)

This is hilarious. I still remember the post asking whether it was fair to charge for this add-on having released the game so soon. Strangely enough, most here said people should shut up and pay up if they want the extra content. Only to find out this "add-on" is on the same disc as the game. Capcom...you SUCK!

This, unfortunately, has become standard practice in the games industry. Really, the fact that the content is already on the disc is a moot point. The bigger problem is that more and more companies are beginning to leave content out of the original release in order to sell later as DLC. This not only squeezes more money out of the consumer, it also vastly limits the resale value of the game itself.

Of course, there are some companies, notably Valve, who still continue to release extra content for their games free.

I guess I still don't see the problem. Anyone who bought the game before the multiplayer online support was offered, knew exactly what they were getting and paid a price they were willing to pay. No one was ripped off and everyone got exactly what they paid for.

The fact that the extra feature was already on the disc doesn't really change anything. Plenty of other software companies do the same thing, e.g., PowerDVD and Nero. If you want to add features to those programs, you buy serial numbers from the companies and use them to unlock the features. And just to stress this point, they're already installed on your system, you're not paying for the software, you're merely paying to unlock them.

I don't see how this is any different. You bought the product you were willing to pay for, now the company wants to sell a different feature. It was never promised to you, so there is no valid expectation on your part to demand it for free. You simply have the choice, buy it or don't. But I see no basis to complain.

@silver-bolt: You're flat out wrong - the 1.86mb contains the menu patch, and the code for setting up the new MP modes. The modes are not there already. As I said before, the netcode and the art assets are there, but these two modes are NOT on the disc in any way shape or form.

To put it into perspective, the executable file for most 360 games runs between 10 and 20 MB. The remaining gigs and gigs of data on the disc consists mostly of art assets, and audio files.

It may not sound like much, but the change from a 2-player online system to a 4-player online system is actually very significant. I have no doubt that considerable extra development time was required to get such a system working.

It's not just an 'unlock code' the fact it's 2mb should be enough indication. 2mb is a *lot* of code.

Is the extra effort worth $5? Well, that's the buyers choice.

Finally, how did:

"Versus mode represents content that was created outside the scope of the original design of Resident Evil 5. This is an all new mode that required additional resources to create, not to mention the additional bandwidth costs."

Turn into:

"Capcom had to develop the versus mode functionality in tandem with the rest of the game, test it at the same time as the rest of the game, and package it with the rest of the game. It's not in any way new creative content"

This is misrepresentation in my opinion.

@supercereal: To address your points, you're right that computer games are luxuries. But as stated in a previous comment, the way this content was packaged can best be described as deceptive. Shipping locked content on a disc paid for in full by the consumer is deceptive.

I thought of single-player only games before I made my comment but didn't mention them because these games were designed with only single player in mind. In the case of Resident Evil 5, it's clear from the evidence (that the content exists and was ready from ship date) that the multiplayer was meant to be part of the full game experience.

More to your point, you don't get to decide how I fully enjoy a game, so nuts to you. Same goes to deciding how I enjoy my life, and if you must know I barbecued outside today with some friends.

@What The Geek: That's interesting and is news to me. But on the other hand, would it really have been that difficult to ship that code on the disc? It's still a cash grab.

@R3PUBLIC0N: Oh, believe me - I agree completely that it's a cash grab - but if the code wasn't done when the game was, then why put it on the disc? Again, I'm not saying it's worth the $5, just saying that all this "it's on the disc!!!1!!!1!!!11!!!one!!!eleven!!!!" nonsense needs to stop.

You aren't getting much for your $5, and that sucks.

@What The Geek: I want to believe you, but rather than posting a source to this information, you just hawk your blog. Back yourself up.

Think of it this way. They are allowing people who dont want these modes not to pay for it. Similar to how all retail disks for windows Vista are idetical regardless of version, the price is differnt. If people dont want to use the features in ultimate, they dont have to pay for it. Microsoft built those features, and those who want to use them will pay extra for it.

@taybay: I write for a gaming blog. I talk to industry people. Do you do either of those things?

Have I looked at the source code? No - no one has other than capcom employees. All I'm saying is that based on my knowledge of, and experience with the gaming industry, the file size is consistent with the content provided. An unlock code would clock in at 108K - you see a lot of those on XBL.

If it was just a key to unlock the content, it would be 108.6kb. Why 108? because its already been proven that that is the smallest size of data that XBL can send, and has been used 100s of times in the past by companies to unlock content already on disks.

1.6MEGS is actually alot of physical code. All the assets like textures etc are on the disk, hence why the update is small, its mostly just info about how the game uses said assets to form a multiplayer mode, and 2megs is quiet realistic.

If you dont believe me, google 108kb and xbox live and you will see that if the code was 108kb it would be a simple "unlock".

@GMFish: Right. It seems that if Capcom never offered this new feature, people would still be happy with what they had and no one would be complaining.

The Nero/shareware analogy is a good one. You get what you paid for and you got what you expected, even though the software has the potential to do more.

So now fat nerds everywhere will have to sacrifice a trip to Taco Bell in order to play part of their little game. Why isn't CNN covering this?

@supercereal: As someone who has also developed software for many moons, freelance for many of them, I can relate that some people would have massive sticker shock on the cost of development.

BUT

For games the majority of the development costs are in asset creation, that is, textures, models, levels, scripting... the game core, graphics engine, sound engine, playing environment, even asset management tools are all pretty much tweaked versions of CORE game components that are shared by many titles within a development house. Which means multiplayer functionality in a network core, or using the appropriate code abstraction that enables players be local to the game or a networked player on another instance of the game. If you've ever had to roll that sort of thing from scratch you'd know that this is something you have to plan out early or it's an exponential nightmare to get right. Whole middleware suites exist just to make it easier, and even then it's still not just a plug and play.

That kind of development isn't cheap, but it's a drop in the bucket since it falls into the software engineering/programming. BUT that code is THERE and the forward thinking HAS to be done. Therefore, the work involved was already invested when they shipped RTM. The honest thing would be to charge a price for the product that fairly represents the investment involved, not to ask for more money to enable what was already done.

Reminds me of airline fees.

@What The Geek: "An unlock code would clock in at 108K"

The Rock Band Song Exporter License (to export RB1 to RB2) weighs in at 672KB.

That's still significantly smaller than 1.86MB when it comes to executable code, but it's a whole lot bigger than your 108KB.

@What The Geek: I'm going to agree with you. why would an unlock code take more than 1-200k. I've seen it with the burnout patches. One thing I'm interested to know is where the IGN writer got their information from. That's a pretty bold statement, with very little information backing it. Game site writers are not always 100% factual.

@shadydentist: Which is why, for my zombie killing dollar, I'm going to get Left 4 Dead instead of Resident Evil.

@Daniel Lew: Sure is - it's also different than a standard unlock code.

@Jakuub: The point of this was to create a deceptively low price point@Daniel Lew: Also factor in how insanely long any of the legalese on a license could be. Especially with music licensing issues, you could be looking at a massive text file with formatting for people to blindly click "agree" to.

It does suck that there is a trend to put extra content that is light on the content and charge for it; however, on the other side of the coin, it gives the companies more opportunity to getting something back from their games, when the customers buy the discs second hand. I tend to buy most of my video games used, since I lack the funds to buy everything new, so the people that made the game don't get my purchase counted. Though, when I buy the content online, like GTA IV's Lost and the Damned episode, they get some of my money to make more kick ass stuff. Though for GTA IV's sake I am buying the main game for 60 bucks, and the two episodes for 20 bucks a pop, which adds up to 100 bucks... Though based on their first DLC it had a lot of content in it, so I'm sure the next one well as well.

@skizsrodt:

touché

@What The Geek: I wasn't going to say anything, but the fact that you keep hammering away at this has me in hysterics.

We ripped RE5 a few weeks before it's release to our dev server and had it emulating in both single, multi, and dev mode by just re drawing the menu parameters and opening up the scrum headers. You are not downloading any new "multiplayer setup code" with the patch. Those "industry people" you purportedly consort with are either imaginary or lying to you.

Either way, the simple claim that "no one has [looked at the source code] other than capcom employees" is so outrageous that it pretty much kills your credibility.

While i do agree from a logical perspective they should have raised the original price of the title to include this is very fair overall. Here is why:

1) First of all it's capitalism. They can charge what they want and if you don't like it... tough... Isn't that what they tell us?

2) Didn't we just read on the gawker network that you have to sell 1 million titles to turn a profit? Let's face it most of these games are putting companies in the red and they are being carried by the huge seller.

3) Just like Starcraft will come in 3 versions, if something is good enough people will pay for it. Starcraft is such an amazing game that i have no problem eventually buying 3 seperate versions.

4) Realistically charging a 1 time $5 fee for something you want is no different than MS Gold charging you 7 a month. If you use it enough it will be worth it. They have to compensate RnD somehow be either raising the price of the game or only charging those who will use it.

This concept is similar to IBM's Capacity on Demand features that they ship in their high-end servers. It works something like this:

1. You buy a Power 595 with 8 5 Ghz Power6 processors and 128 GB of RAM.
2. IBM ships you a Power 595 that physically contains 64 processors and 1 TB of RAM, but with only 8 processors and 128 GB enabled. The rest is protected by some fancy encryption (and since you paid millions of dollars for this mission-critical server, you don't want to piss off IBM by trying to circumvent it)
3. When you decide you need some more capacity, you get IBM on the line, fork over some money, and they give you a code to unlock the features that are already physically inside your machine.

Presumably, I knew what I was buying when I bought the game, so I don't have a problem with them providing the additional content on the disk already. It saves some download time and hard disk space.

@Piaculum: Look, if you have the code available to look at, I'm more than willing to take a look, and if you're telling the truth, I'll gladly publicize the results. Everyone I've spoken with tells me that 1.86mb is an appropriate file size for the content made available in this DLC. If you can prove otherwise, please, provide the info for me to look at - I'd love to see it.

Also, there's no reason to be combative about this issue. All I've said is that every programmer I've spoken with in the video game industry has indicated that the file size is appropriate for a secondary executable piece of code that doesn't contain any new art assets. I don't claim to have the inside scoop from capcom - just that the file size and the content delivered jive with one another. To be clear, I still think it's a rip off, and I still think Capcom should have provided more content for the price.

If you care to put your money where your mouth is, I can be reached at mike@checkyourhud.com

@R3PUBLIC0N: Versus modes are not an accepted part of Resident Evil games. I mean, if it was a sports game or a fighting game, I might be a little peeved if the versus modes were extra, but seriously, Resident Evil? Is there a game out that got a longer history as a "playable movie" type?

@R3PUBLIC0N: Shipping locked content on a disc paid for in full by the consumer is deceptive.

How is it deceptive? Did you buy RE5 thinking you were getting multiplayer? Do you usually know what's on a disc based on any statement made by the publisher? Did you know about Hot Coffee before nerds identified its existence on the disk?

It's clear from the evidence (that the content exists and was ready from ship date) that the multiplayer was meant to be part of the full game experience.

I don't think it is clear at all. Was multiplayer advertised as a part of the the game experience? No? Then it was not meant to be.

You may have an idea of what the "full" experience is and that's fine, but if it wasn't promised as a feature in the initial purchase price, then you're out of luck.

I think a critical thing to realize is that when you are buying software you are being a license to use the software that they say you can. Who cares if they put another game on the disc. Its not the thing you payed for at the counter. You paid for the license to play RE5 original, the content promised on the box. Then you must purchase another license to use their additional product, VS mode.

Also if what others are saying is true, and it does indeed include the actual coding for the VS mode, then there is no problem.

I do agree its expensive for what it is. However if that is the case don't buy it. Remember items price points are based on Supply Demand curves. If the demand lowers due to preference, the cost and supply will decrease.

P.S. In the VS mode can you move while shooting? Cause otherwise... LAME!

@khiltd:

I honestly hope your hands get cut off in a freak accident so i dont have to read your posts anymore. Nothing personal.

@Scazza: Explain why the DLC is ~300 KB on the PS3, please. It's likely 1.6MB of a new Versus menu.

@Michael Belisle: I can't agree with that at all. Do car dealers tell you you're getting car keys for the car you're buying? Why not sell you a locked vehicle and the key for an extra $500? Or I could make sell you a large pizza and charge you extra for that one slice I cut out and left back in the kitchen. I never said the thing wouldn't be missing a piece.

The problem with all this is intent. We have no way of knowing what their initial plans really were and they aren't going to tell anyone now. All people will get will be explanations backing up their decision to charge for the content. The way it looks it IS deceptive because of their past business practices and their current reasons for the charges. It's like finding a kid with his hand in the cookie jar.

As for Hot Coffee... that was never meant to be played and when it was unlocked it was free.

@What The Geek: I have to agree with What the Geek. I just looked at a project I happened to have open and 5k lines of C# code came out to be 185kb when compiled. I realize this is a fairly apples to oranges comparison, but it at least gives a rough idea of how small compiled code can be.

Now it's also possible Capcom just padded the file size so it looks more substantial to combat the negative publicity they've been getting...

@Michael Belisle:
That IBM Capacity on Demand sounds like a total ripoff. Why would you pay millions for hardware only to need unlock codes to make it go to its full potential?

I'm amused by what people consider acceptable and unacceptable in DLC. If we're complaining that Capcom allegedly shipped this code on the disc, does that mean that it would have been ok if Capcom had the code ready to go but made you download it (which is apparently what actually happened)? If that's no ok, would it have been ok if Capcom wrote the additional multiplayer mode after release, then charged for it? I'm getting the impression that some people think it's alright to charge for content created after release, but not for content created before release. Why? It requires the same number of man-hours of effort. The release date is an artificial dividing line.

How about this - why don't we all just decide if the content is worth the money and choose whether to buy it based on that? Vote with your money - it's the best way to make your opinion known. And if you really find the whole idea so distasteful, don't buy the main game. Deprive them of $60 instead of just $5.

Unfortunately for the people who whine about this stuff, there are plenty of people who are willing to pay the $5 because of the amount of enjoyment they get out of the game.

@Herbz: Because it reduces the initial acquisition cost. Think of it like layaway, except you store the hardware in your own machine, ready to go at a moment's notice (and even without rebooting).

Or you might only need 128 GB of RAM except during end-of-year processing, so you could save money by enabling the necessary capacity for one week out of the year. Then it's kind of like pay-as-you-go.

Seems shady. Just make it all playable and charge the extra $5 for it. People who really want the game will spend the extra money and be fine with it. Why use trickery?