Capcom: Moaning about RE5 DLC charges is “bullshit”

Monday, 16th March 2009 20:20 GMT By Patrick Garratt


Someone appears to have got out of bed the wrong side this morning.

Capcom US biz dev boss Christian Svensson has written on the company’s forums that complaining about charges for Resident Evil 5′s Versus DLC is “bullshit”.

“This is the part where I get to say ‘BS’,” he said.

“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.

“Prior to the announcement of the Versus mode, no one complained they weren’t getting their money’s worth with the initial release because it packs TONS of value because it is an amazing game. So if people were already satisfied with what the package had, when we offer MORE, why is it people feel they’ve been somehow cheated?”

Further, Svensson told fans to simply not buy the content if they felt hard done by.

“If you don’t find value in our secondary offerings, the choice is simple, don’t purchase it,” he added.

“If you do find it valuable (and we hope you do) please do buy it and enjoy it.”

The patch, costing $4.99 on PSN, or 400 MS Points, adds two Versus modes, namely Slayer and Survivor.

It’s releasing in the West in a “few weeks”.

Thanks, Kotaku.



  1. DarkElfa

    First off I’d like to begin by saying go and fuck yourself Christian Svensson. Second, what you fail to realize is how the consumers view this kind of crap. You see, in days gone by you bought a game and got everything included. Now however, the big push is in releasing a game for the same price you used to release for and then show all the extra crap you made for the game but have decided to charge for. How does anyone who buys your extra cost versus mode know how many other people will buy it?! Nothing like paying 5 bucks for versus and find out that you and 3 other guys are all the versus there will be. Unlikely, sure, but a valid argument nonetheless.

    The major point here though is the recent trend towards selling games a la cart. Sure, I get it. If you want extra cheese it will cost 20 cents more, but its easy to envision a future where you still pay 50 bucks for the primary game and then end up spending 20 a month for online, 5 to 10 bucks per map release, extra characters, new cars and such until you’ve spent 400 dollars on a game that should have cost 50 bucks altogether. Basically, instead of getting a complete game, you’ll get a skeleton for what you used to pay and then be raked over for everything additional. Where’s the value for the consumer?! I want my game finished and bug free for my hard earned cash, not patched 20 times and forced to pay for extra garbage every week that should have been included from the get go. I call BS on your call of BS Christian Svensson.

    #1 6 years ago
  2. Patrick Garratt

    I’m quite surprised how loud the outcry’s been over this. Although I do agree that charging extra for a multiplayer component could set a dangerous precedent.

    #2 6 years ago
  3. Freek

    Or in short; it doesn’t matter how you budget it. To the consumer it seems like we have to pay an extra 5 bucks for something that used to be included as standard.

    #3 6 years ago
  4. lelik

    i call bs on the call on bs of the bs. no, not really. i agree with the first post.

    #4 6 years ago
  5. Freek

    But the bigger problem is: despite the outcry, gamers will still buy it. So nothing will change, they’ll keep charging more and more for stuff that used to be in the game from the start.

    #5 6 years ago
  6. Hunam

    I think the main problem here is, as with the street fighter 4 costumes is the timing. You release stuff too early all you are saying is that it was made with the game buy kept back to be sold separately. If you wait like 3 months people will be more than happy to accept you spent that time making it rather than just sitting on your hands.

    #6 6 years ago
  7. Patrick Garratt

    I guess the problem with something like RE5, and SFIV to a lesser extent, is that there’ll be a very fast drop-off in the amount of people playing the game. If they’re going to cash in, they need to do it quickly.

    #7 6 years ago
  8. Hunam

    I guess, but still is insulting. Though, I’m not really convinced it’s going to be any good, what with the stationary shooting and the hella slow pace.

    #8 6 years ago
  9. Freek

    Sure, they have to cash in fast, but of what benifitt is that to us, the gamers?
    Not every game is around long enough to warrant quality, newely developed content. But every game out there does want to have premium DLC.
    So you get into the situation of holding bitts of the game back and negative responses.

    #9 6 years ago
  10. Rhythm

    As someone who barely touches multiplayer I’m extremely happy to see this trend shifting. Hopefully it’ll spark an end to the “tacked on for the sake of it” multiplayer modes that:

    a – no-one uses
    b – detracts from single-player development time/budget

    If you want to use an engine developed for single-player story-telling and twist it to fit some deathmatch multiplayer mode then fine, but don’t ask people who simply want to play the story to pay for it for you.

    With regards DLC in general, sure it sucks to have to pay for stuff once you’ve already bought the game but you do have a choice to not buy it.

    #10 6 years ago
  11. Hunam

    Personally, I don’t get DLC and I don’t think developers and the industry have much of an idea either. I mean multiplayer map packs is the main DLC at the moment and all that does is splinter the players, often to the lose of the people paying for maps they can only get games on at peak times, other stuff, like extra modes just seems insulting or pointless, depending on time of release, and single player stuff like Fable/PoP/TR just don’t seem worth it for the lack of hours against the cost.

    I’d happily pay more if DLC was anywhere near the quality of PC addons, but they’re not.

    It’s worth a note that I’ve omitted music games because, well, they are a entity on their own and DLC for that works perfectly well, is reasonably priced and offer great value for the time and money and is massive in that it’s about choice, no one is expected to buy it all to complete their experience as it’s all down to personal taste.

    #11 6 years ago
  12. crippledhooba

    Just cos of that I aint buying it.

    #12 6 years ago
  13. DrDamn

    I think people need to take a little bit of a reality check on the amount games cost to make and the amount we pay for them. Buy a game based on what is in the box, then if there is DLC base your buying decision on the cost / value to you.

    Seems to me there is a reasonable amount of value in the DLC if it’s something you want to play. For many it won’t be so why should they pay for it? It’s really not something you should expect in a RE game is it?

    #13 6 years ago
  14. Bulk Slash

    I agree with Rhythm, I’d much rather more effort were put into the single player modes of games than tacking on multiplayer.

    Of course in the case of RE5 the single player is absolute cack, with Sheva spending most of her time either standing behind Chris and shooting him in the back or kicking Chris to the ground because he’s between her and an enemy she can kick. How about some DLC to make Sheva not shit?

    #14 6 years ago
  15. Hunam

    I’m not being funny DrDamn, but why should I care about the amount it costs to make a game? Developers and Publishers are not looking out for me so I’m not going to look out for them. If it costs to much to make a game, find a way to do it cheaper.

    It’s not my problem.

    #15 6 years ago
  16. hitnrun

    The real problem with this is that Capcom is increasingly getting out of hand with this practice and is completely colorblind to how their shtick appears to consumers.

    That last 3 games I’ve purchased or considered from Capcom had this problem. Mega Man 9 had Proto Man (which is forgivable; who can say they expect playable Proto Man?) and two different game modes (which is not forgivable; that should be included). RE5 has these deathmatch modes.

    But the worst offender is Street Fighter IV, which charges $20 total for costume art packs. There’s no excuse for this. Alternate looks have come with virtually every fighting game in the last decade.

    #16 6 years ago
  17. Jacee

    Personally I have to agree with the people who say bullshit to Capcom and take it one step further and say not only will I not be buying RE5 DLC but I won’t be buying the game at all.Here in Canada the game retails for at minimum 69.99. I was in Best Buy on the weekend and was thinking of getting it for my son and saw that it was retailing for 10 dollars more then EVERY OTHER GAME and said screw that.If Fallout 3 can be made and retailed at the normal price up here of 59.99 my ass RE% can’t be. Capcom lost another total sale with their gouging prices and if their prices remain there they will continue to.

    #17 6 years ago
  18. Esha

    There are two ways I combat this.

    1) I support indie developers, who are less likely to do this. Look at World of Goo or Crayon Physics Deluxe for example, those were complete games with no DLC. Why? Small developers need to build up a bond with their consumer-base, and they can’t do that if part of that base thinks they’re being taken for a ride.

    2) I watch for developers that don’t pull this stuff and keep their names in mind. I’m currently building a list (I may put it online eventually) of developers which release non-trivial (not costumes or aesthetic changes, but game modes and content) content within four months after a game’s release. Developers move up/down on that list based on how often they release DLC before they should.

    In fact, a site devoted to 2 might be handy and it would be a good way to detail the severity of the DLC problem.

    Basically though, if I see two games in a release list, and one is from a developer that’s notorious for releasing non-trivial DLC within the first few weeks of a game’s release, and one from a developer that’s got a good track record of not doing that, then I’m going to opt for the latter in good faith, because at least it’s a show of respect from the developer to me as a consumer (like others have said here, dropping immediate DLC and hoping the punters are too herd-dumb to notice is insulting).

    #18 6 years ago
  19. cachucha

    didnt also japan get that for free? so yeah i call it bs

    #19 6 years ago
  20. ElfShotTheFood

    I think Japan got it cheaper.

    #20 6 years ago
  21. Blerk

    Are they putting something in the water over at Game Company HQ this week? I’m thinking…. gin.

    #21 6 years ago
  22. Shatner


    #22 6 years ago
  23. DrDamn

    Game development costs have gone up massively as each generation passes but the price charged has remained the same. Yes potential game sales are higher but a lot of games will make no money at all. Why should you care? Well I presume you still want to be playing a decent variety of games in 5 years time?

    If you don’t think what you get in the box is worth the money then don’t buy it. This extra was really not expected of the game – so if Capcom put the extra effort into providing it then why shouldn’t they charge for it? The timing of the release has nothing to do with it, it’s the cost of development.

    #23 6 years ago
  24. Tiger Walts

    If they want to create a drive for ongoing sales, rather than ransoming content they should offer DLC free for the first week or fortnight and then charge a premium thereafter. The Day one adopters who paid full price for the game get all the content for free, the preowned and discount buyers will have to pay for existing content but get the new stuff free.

    This would offset the dip in income as a product tails off and provides a revenue stream from the preowned market. The only problem with that is you don’t need a game to buy DLC for it, at least on the 360.

    #24 6 years ago
  25. El_MUERkO

    i can just about live with DLC which adds to the game after release, what really pissed me off is DLC that is nothing more than an unlock code for content already on the disk

    #25 6 years ago
  26. icastflare

    Why is everything about money nowadays!? And no I’m not talking about capcom, I’m talking about people. When I heard RE5 was getting an ONLINE MULTIPLAYER MODE, I jumped up and was like “yes!!!” It was such an awesome announcement. Then I go to forums and everyone is “up in arms” about having to pay FIVE DOLLARS. Are you serious? You make that in half an hour at a minimum wage job. You make that in 15-20 minutes at a decently paying job. At a solid career, you make that in a paid coffee break.

    Do I think what Capcom did is wrong? Yes, I am against charging for content so close to release date – if it’s practically ready by release time, it should be included in the game even if it has to be delayed a couple of weeks.

    Am I looking forward to this? YES. For the price of a Big Mac and Soda, I’m getting a freaking competitive multiplayer mode for RE5!!!

    I just think it’s ridiculous how people can’t enjoy an awesome announcement (RE5 multiplayer) because they are too focused on saving a trivial amount of cash. Meh.

    #26 6 years ago
  27. Jacee


    Its about money because I already pay a premium for every single game I buy so I resent a company that charges me for content that EVERY OTHER GAME comes with for free.We are not really talking extra content here we are talking about functionality that is in every other game that comes out.To put it in car terms I’m not getting air conditioning if I pay the extra 5 dollars I’m getting the ability to drive the car after 5pm

    #27 6 years ago
  28. wz

    Jacee: I don’t think that multiplayer is an integral feature of the RE series, so you do not pay extra for it. It’s an added bonus, so that’s fair, methinks.

    icastflare: My thoughts exactly. If they charged addon-prices, I would mind, but this is ridiculous.

    #28 6 years ago
  29. Jacee

    My point being I already am paying 10 dollars more then american gamers are plus the extra content is another 7.50 to me so Im paying a massive premium for content that is included in every other game. Its not a matter to me whether its an integral feature to the RE franchise itself its an integral feature of the majority of modern games as well as being an integral feature of the Xbox360 experience.Its a rare game today that does not have multiplayer content out of the box and if it does not it typically never will.

    Bottom line to me is this I don’t understand why capcom would risk one sale for this kind of approach.For every sale that they lose because of the price premium and charging for extra content they will have to sell 12 of the DLC does not seem to me that its a good business model. They could have picked thier battles better and their attitude on the subject does not do them any favours.

    #29 6 years ago
  30. scuz

    because publishers are using DLC to gush more money out of people in which certain features would have been in the game but took them out because they figured “we can sell this after release”

    #30 6 years ago
  31. wz

    I’m not so sure about that. Because the publisher always risks, by taking out too many features, that the customer does not buy the original product. And in this case, the will be no DLC sales either.

    Maybe it’s just that I never came across a game where I had the feeling that any part had been cut out to be released separately, for extra charge. I rarely buy DLC, but if there is extra stuff I am interested in, I don’t see anything wrong in paying for it.

    #31 6 years ago

Comments are now closed on this article.