Because I am a games journalist, I am often approached by my friends for feedback and instruction on various issues. In this episode, I politely and sophisticatedly assist my friend Sean in coping with Capcom's decision to offer a versus mode for Resident Evil 5 for five bucks, and support him in forming a constructive action plan.
I'm not sure I understand the commotion
but you aren't supposed to be able to say why
it doesn't really matter what you say though
and I find myself wondering why I don't
IT SHOULD COME WITH A GAME
THAT MEANS WE PAID FULL PRICE FOR AN INCOMPLETE GAME SO THAT THEY COULD CHARGE US LATER
IT'S LIKE RAISING THE PRICE WITHOUT RAISING THE PRICE
which i suppose is a valid argument but i just dont care that much
and if anyone disagrees with you they're a bad person and you should blog about it
in this economy
the banks have already gotten a bailout
where's OUR bailout
now they want to take MORE from us
my great grandfather did not fight for civil rights so i would have to pay $5 for a vs. mode
there's main gameplay and then mercenaries
there's never even been fucking 2 player in fucking resident evil
unless you count umbrella chronicles
you're entitled, period
to let them know you will not take this
let's see how many diggs we can get
i'm just going to write
CAPCOM WE WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS
FOR LIBERTY AND JUSTICE
Sean: I'm glad you're around to put things in perspective for me
Another satisfied customer. And I didn't make him pay me, so there.
64 comments:
My guess is neither of you care about Capcom's ruse because the prospect of RE 5 deathmatches isn't appealing.
That too.
But really. What difference does it make whether you pay to receive something that's already developed from online or from the disc?
The reason is (click here to add "the rest of Phil's answer" to your download queue. This item costs 400 Microsoft points. There are no refunds on this item.)
I thought the reason there was suppose to be outrage is that the vs. mode is on the disc and what you are paying for is a bit of code to on lock the content that you technically already paid for.
There is no conformation that this is true yet, but from what I've heard of the file size it can't be an actual download.
My rage topped out over a year ago after I ran around nude yelling in the night that I hated the presence of CO-OP in RE5 in general. I can't really bring myself to get outraged at this. =( If I had my way, I would annoyingly run around burning all copies of the game, but I'm super nice and stuff.
~sLs~
What's better, paying five bucks to unlock content that's on the disc or not having the option to download the content because it was never factored into the developer's production cost?
E5 was an expensive game. Multiplayer costs money to develop. Capcom had three options:
1. Charge $75+ for the game.
2. Make the mode a $5 unlock.
3. Scrap the mode.
Don't want to drop a fiver? Don't. Your dollar is your vote for whether or not companies should offer bonus content they couldn't create without the additional DLC revenue.
HOW ABOUT OPTION 4 CHRIS THEY SHOULD JUST GIVE IT AWAY FOR FREE BECAUSE IF THEY DON'T THEY ARE STEALING FROM YOU or something
$75+ is more like $65+
I'm not a numbers guy.
We should be outraged because if this sells a lot then it gives other companies ideas about what they can put on the disk and what they can put on later. So you know you buy £40 game and then they decide the last chapter you have to pay for, and then half the game.
Don't worry its coming.
O'MAH BLOG U R SO WRITE
WARE MAH TORCH
NO 1 TELL PETA, WII GOT 2 KILL DA PHAT CATZ
If they're not including any new maps or models, I'd expect this to be a really small download. Probably just a little additional code and a little additional scripting, that could be just a couple MBs. "Brand new mode" doesn't mean it needs to be a lot of data. So until there's proof that "this was on the disc from day one, they're just unlocking it!" I don't think it's a valid argument.
Of course, even if there IS proof I don't care much either way, but let's at least be honest with our arguments
Unfortunately I'm going to have to agree with Gauntlet here.
We are all outraged fatigued here, I completely understand where you're coming from Leigh, and your post is hilarious, but there is a real threat of getting less while paying more here.
Of course this specific instance of RE5 multiplayer isn't really offensive, because who the hell wants that in the first place. Deathmatch has never been a "core" experience of RE.
It's more of a slippery slope FEAR than anything. All the technology is already in place to lock out whole levels and make the full game cost over $100. Of course not likely at all right now, but people are aware that is is possible, scared that it might happen, vigilant for it, and overreact when they see something resembling it.
Actually thank god for the crazy outrage, maybe it will keep something actually bad from happening.
One more thing, that $60 price point is completely artificial. It did not cost them an extra $5 (1/13th) of the complete development cost to include this in the game. The release cost of $60 is the same for any game, regardless of how high the price of development blooms. I bet you more unscrupulous companies are looking at this as a way to bypass that price point and recoup their sunk costs without having to sell as many units.
Sorry about making this a long rambling post, for the most part I agree with you!
Yeah. It IS coming. Because pretty much, the current economic model is showing that this $60-ish price point can't sustain, even if we weren't in a recession.
And now that digital distribution is becoming so strong so quickly, it's now possible to deliver things in parts, rather than in wholes. Paying one price for a basic core experience, and then incrementally buying smaller modules to add-on (and not buying the ones you don't want, mind) -- is much more financially viable for the industry, will probably ensure it can continue to take creative risks without busting the bank open, and I think will actually be better for players in the end soon, too.
Time to get used to the idea, is my little prediction!
I think charging for content on the disc is a dangerous trend, but not only is $5 for a new mode reasonable, it's precisely the kind of content that validates the whole idea of DLC. Screw paying for cosmetic upgrades (LittleBigPlanet, I'm looking at you). If you want me to drop money on additional content for my game, it better be something that actually changes the way I interact with the game: extra levels, new modes, etc.
If publishers try to offload too much into DLC, the game won't sell well, and nobody's going to care to drop EXTRA to get the full game. Otherwise above average games like Wanted or, famously, Heavenly Sword get panned or relegated to rentals because they're simply not enough game for $60. Especially at a time when more and more people are feeling like games are too expensive, lopping chunks of your game off and selling it as DLC is a great way to shoot yourself in the foot.
With actual products, value creation schemes seem shady, especially in B2C transactions. A hot topic in business marketing is Customer Perceived Value. It's as vague as it sounds as a business metric, but it's a real thing we all feel every day.
When businesses attempt to create new value out of existing products lines / services, it's usually a lame attempt to mimic someone else's success at offering something truly exemplary. Playing copy cat, they end up charging extra for something the marketplace has already seen. The first to market achieved the benefit of true value creation, because they offered more than their competitors at the same price, or offered the same thing at a reduced price.
I could care less about RE Co-Op, and I don’t mind paying for stuff, but multiplayer isn't new enough to charge the marketplace "extra".
There's also the perception of (poor) value that arises when the content is already complete. When a firm produces DLC long after the original retail release, it's seen as value-add. But when they start offering microtransactions like this, you feel like a step was taken backwards. Imagine fast food joints stopped offering value meals, and you had to go back to buying things individually.
It is a question of timing. The DLC released yesterday, April 7, a mere three and a half weeks after the release of RE5; this comes off as opportunistic, not as extending the life of the game. Add in the DLC announcement a few days before RE5 released, and you get pissed off pre-orders, especially from those who coughed up an extra $30 for a special edition.
But to look at it from another angle: if $5 is relatively cheap, and we shouldn't complain for what we're getting; then why can't that cheap $5 simply be absorbed by Capcom? To put it another way: if the price point is negligible, then why make the consumer pay? Does Capcom expect to sell that many copies? And if so, why not jack the original price of RE5 in the first place and include multiplayer from the get-go?
If you're concerned with the future of content delivery, I recommend you read Long Tail.
It would be one thing if you paid money to download it. Its another to pay for stuff they put on the disk but hid until you gave them cash.
I don't play multiplayer much at all so RE5 isn't even a full price purchase for me since apparently Sheva in solo play has the AI of a DOS era RTS unit, but its kinda FUBAR anyhow.
They spent assets that lots of people won't even use. The money is spent in the hopes of recouping these mystical extra development dollars via online suckers paying for it.
Expansions released at a later date to enhance an existing title?
ROCK ON.
Intentionally leaving spaces blank to make you buy MORE MORE MORE?
So NOT the rock on.
I have to deal with this sort of nonsense in tabletop RPGs and other hobby games. I'd rather not see it infect videogames too.
Bad enough they are all trying to go digital downloads so we never own a hard copy to play as long as the hardware and the disk/cart holds out.
(I'm sure some beancounter someplace is AGHAST that I am replaying my legitimate copies of the SSI AD&D Krynn Gold Box trilogy instead of buying new D&D electronic RPGs. Even though they are sucky real time and not half as fun.)
If the dire predictions of Gauntlet and others are true... won't we just stop buying the games that don't give us a full $60/£40 worth of content for our $60/£40?
Besides, is lopping off half the game any different than what's already been done with Shenmue, the .hack series, Mass Effect, Too Human, Penny Arcade, Siren, or any other "game" that has been broken up into multiple releases? We don't need DLC to be given incomplete stories at full price.
If you are going to charge me more for what you call "extra" content, I actually prefer that it be on the disk, instead of eating up more space on my limited hard drive.
I think Brian has the best insight here: this is more of a P.R. problem than anything else. People are outraged, even if you or I think it's absurd that they are. It's a shame, but what Capcom needs to do is (after market testing their ideas better to preempt outrage) just sit on the DLC longer. Lie and say that they needed another couple of months to develop it, to increase the perceived value of the add-on.
Frankly, as far as I'm concerned, Capcom could have stripped out both online co-op and The Mercenaries and I still would have felt like I got $60 worth and then some. I'm far more outraged at Gears of War 2, which included competitive multiplayer I didn't want but gave me a piece-of-crap single player campaign that didn't get the love and care of the first game.
If you don't think about it much, you'll just feel that it's wrong.
If you really think about it, you'll come to Leigh's conclusion: so what, it's essentially the same thing, no big deal (I mostly feel this way, too).
But then if you really, REALLY think about it, you'll realize these companies didn't do it with class, and it evokes the same disrespect for the firm anyway.
All right, so I couldn't really get my point across over twitter, so I'm back to have a long winded try. The sad thing about angry internet ranting is when it gets in the way of a valid point, and I think that's what's happened here.
Here's how I like to pay for a game, I like give my money (£40, which until the economy went haywire was roughly equal to $80, by the way) to the store owner, or occasionally over the net, and I like to receive my game, and I like to play my game. That is it, no fancy extras, no DLC, no monthly fee, no nothing. DLC was an interesting development, but they were essentially mini expansion packs, something I could do without.
Capcom, however, have changed the game. Now if I want to play versus mode I have to fork out more cash (using the appalling Microsoft funbucks system I've always ignored). I don't really want to play versus Resident Evil, so that's fine, but now I'm worried, what if Actard decide that they'll sell Modern Warfare's Multiplayer as an extra (it's not unreasonable, if there's one thing those folks love it's more money)? Something that to most people is a major part of the game, even more than single player (again, not to me, but to plenty of others). Now you're paying $80 for a game and then another bunch on top for something that's supposed to be integral to the game, it's probably more than $5 now too, because it is so integral. Maybe they've decided to add co-op now too, but that's gonna cost you more.
That's the difference, we've gone from spending a few quid to get some bolt on widgets I could do without to being asked to pay extra for something I used to get for free. And it's not a big step at all, it's a very small one.
I just want to pay my money and get my game, now there's DRM and DLC and digital distribution. Where did it get so complicated? Why can't we just keep it simple?
I think I'm with Dante on this one. But the truth is, as someone who only recently got a PS3, I don't know how to feel about this. I'm a fan of the RE series, bought RE5 (for the first time not terribly upset about this new $60 price point), and enjoy it as is. But the truth is, I wouldn't mind giving these other modes a try.
Earlier this year, I played through the Half-Life 2 series on The Orange Box for the first time. And while I was somewhat satisfied with the ending to Episode 2, the whole way there I kept thinking: "Man, I'd have been pissed if I'd been crazy enough to buy these games separately." My worry is that I'll feel this way if I buy the RE5 DLC.
And I don't want to support this kind of business move. After all, if Valve can be decent enough to give me three above average games, why does Capcom feel like it should screw me over?
Dante wrote: I'm worried, what if Actard decide that they'll sell Modern Warfare's Multiplayer as an extra
...you won't buy it, and a different company that offers $60 worth of content for your $60 will get your money instead? I hope that's what will happen.
On the other hand, maybe I will buy it, because I have no interest in multiplayer and always hate feeling like I'm paying for content I don't want.
I love your blog but im gonna have to disagree with you leigh. Sure multiplayer has never been apart of RE series, but that doesn't make it ok to charge for something as trivial as multiplayer especially if the data is on the disk like some expect. That's something you would put in a free update, but its whatever
The post was funny but i think you showed the total opposite of the spectrum. Not all people who disagree with the dlc will make petitions or shout to the mountain tops that its wrong, but to be honest, it is pretty shady and its becoming a practice i will expect from capcom from now on.
Same thing with SF4 and those downloadable outfits ( remember stuff like this use to be unlockable by playing the game?)
We don't know if the data was already on the disk for RE5 but a 1.8mb download is extremely tiny, I think it was the same size as the unlock key they charged me for after i tried the demo for Bionic Commando rearmed.
Doesn't this just come down to a value assessment like anything else? You judged the provided content worth $60, you paid $60. You were not mislead and promised something you did not receive. It doesn't matter if the forward-thinkers at Capcom hid Resident Evil 6 on the disc for a future $60 unlock. You got what you understood you were getting for the price.
Well, it all feels a bit slimy to me, but if you think about it all it's really doing is giving us new perspective on what you're really paying for when you buy a game.
When you plopped down cash for that RE5 disc, you weren't really paying for the game. You were paying for the right to access the game. Logically, there's nothing wrong with putting other data on the disc which requires another transaction to unlock. You could say that it's implied when you buy a game that you're buying the right to access all of the data on the disc, but that's a bit shaky and I don't think has ever been established.
It's all a big mess and makes me glad I don't play games anymore.
Sigh. I was hoping that an online petition would be enough to stop the just announced Shadow of the Colossus movie.
Now I'm all apathetic. =(
But staying on topic, what bothers me most about this is (if the content really was on the disc) the lying that went on. I suppose charging for the mode is capcom's right, but they don't have to make up stories justifying it (which just end up making them look like not so pleasant or trustworthy people).
@ken
But it is their right. You don't own the content on the disc. You simply own the right to use it.
A few problems about this bother me, though I don't have the game. The first three apply even if this was real downloadable content rather than unlockable.
First, multiplayer works best with a ton of players. However, charging extra for the multiplayer will reduce the number of players using it and therefore the value of it.
If the multiplayer is "downloadable content", then its tied to your account instead of to the game disc. If you want to sell the game or let a friend borrow it, you can't transfer that purchase. That's fine for complete games, but selling the game makes the content you paid for useless.
I hate DRM and so do a lot of other consumers.
As for including the multiplayer as an "unlockable" on the disc instead of downloadable content, there are some psycological issues involved, but I'm not sure I fully agree with them.
* People don't like paying for something they received previously for free. In
this case, they received the content "for free" on the disc and are paying to unlock it.
* People don't like paying for something they could easily fix themselves. If somebody hacked their game system to unlock the content, they could play this for free. This would be illegal in terms of the DMCA. I doubt the illegality reduces their frustration / annoyance any.
@Chris
I beg to differ. You certainly legally own the disc, as well as its physical contents. You can do as you please with it. It is within the right of no one to dictate what you can or cannot do with your property.
Copyright laws prevents you from _copying and redistributing_ it. And nothing else.
This kind of on-disc content unlocking isn't trivial, if it were to go to court. It would probably come down to whether said locked content was misrepresented during the sale, I guess - i.e. if it was suggested or implied it would be available.
That said, if you found a way to use it on your own, more power to you. You OWN your disc, and can do whatever you want with it.
But IANAL, usual disclaimers apply.
@Brian: We have a winner!
"First, multiplayer works best with a ton of players. However, charging extra for the multiplayer will reduce the number of players using it and therefore the value of it."
This has been my concern when I first heard about this. Is Capcom relying on this to drive the downloads, or did they just not consider that if people think nobody else has paid up, they won't expect to find anybody to play with online, so they won't buy it themselves?
The draw of the really successful online games (like Halo3, CoD4, etc) is that there will always be people online to play against. You never have to worry about whether you will find a Halo3 game. However, less successful games (like Shadowrun) suffer the dreaded "Nobody online 2 weeks after release" syndrome, which means they are hardly worth the purchase price. It seems to me that anybody trying to pitch multiplayer is entirely dependent on creating a critical mass of online players - which this decision works directly against.
If the multiplayer is "downloadable content", then its tied to your account instead of to the game disc. If you want to sell the game or let a friend borrow it, you can't transfer that purchase. That's fine for complete games, but selling the game makes the content you paid for useless.
This has to be Capcom's real motivation. They know that as a single player game, they are probably only going to get 1 sale for every 3 people who play this game, since it's definately not that replayable. I'm sure nobody (least of all Capcom) will be suprised when in a month Gamestop's and EBGames' pre-owned game shelves are full of copies of RE5. This then, is their attempt to atleast extract SOME value from those secondary buyers. The single player game will be transferable (no way around that) but atleast everybody who buys it second hand will give Capcom 5 bucks since that's a non-transferable feature.
It's basically Capcom's "Resale-Tax". By making it only 5 bucks, and making it an important feature but not a required feature, they are hoping that enough people won't be outraged by it to buy in. Maybe they are hoping that if people got a discount through buying pre-owned, they won't consider the extra 5 bucks that much of a deal.
The problem is that for it to work, it relies a lot on public perception... and in this particular case, they've failed. The fact that multiplayer relies on critical mass works against them as well.
Gotta say, Leigh, you write faux outrage better than most. If I was a casual internet denizen, I might even believe you were outraged :p
I'd probably have been outraged about this issue around... lessee... 13 years ago? Yeah, I would have been 15 back then and completely unable to control my righteous indignation. If I had've had access to the internet, anyway. And if gaming hadn't been radically different 13 years ago. And... er... my point still stands, dammit!
Regardless, I wasn't intending to purchase this. There's very little DLC that interests me enough to shell out the cash (especially now that I'm unemployed), and unless it involves the words "Fall" and "Out," it's not getting by money any time soon.
RE5 with a VS. mode that people must pay for to unlock for the disc when it should be standard? I think you guys said it best when you clearly pointed out that a multiplayer mode has never been a standard mode in the history of the franchise, save for one RE Wii game if I'm not mistaken.
Case closed, moving on...
This petty issue takes away from the real crime that's been committed against gamers: Yakuza 3 seems as though it will never make a Western appearance. I wrote I haiku about it...
A REAL INJUSTICE
TEH PAIN BURNS IN MY SOUL NAO
DAMN YOU SEGA, DAMN
I want that game so bad I cry about it at night sometimes... :'(
I'll put Chris 2 up here, because there's another Chris now. So many Chrises in one comment section.
@nescire
I sort of agree and disagree.
Yeah, you do own the physical disc, but owning the actual code is where it gets hazy. By law, technically, yes, the laws against music content ownership do not apply to PC games or games for "PCs with limited capabilities."
However, you only own the right to use the code the developer has provided in the way the developer specifies either in the context of the game or its promotion.
That means copying and distributing are illegal. Fiddling around with files is too.
So, in RE5s case, the Vs. Mode wasn't advertised until after the game's release. Whether or not the content is on the disc, you are not allowed to unlock it. You pay for the privilege to use that content.
As many have said before this, this DLC is a value judgment. I thought $60 was a fine price for RE5. I think $5 is a fantastic price for a new mode--it's much better than $5 for a new Chris Redfield costume.
Is it slimy that it was on the disc? I guess. But is that any worse than them sitting on the content?
@Chris
However, you only own the right to use the code the developer has provided in the way the developer specifies either in the context of the game or its promotion.
I'm not sure what gave you this notion? It doesn't have any basis in law that I know of, at any rate.
Once you buy something, i.e. a game disc, it's yours - end of story. You have full ownership rights over it, as well as resale rights, etc. No one else has any say in this.
Any after the fact EULA (End User License Agreement) presented after the sale, which could say something like this, does not have any weight in court.
For restrictions like these to be implemented, you would need to enter into a contract with the vendor which specifies limitations upon what can be done with the disc -and this is important- at the time of purchase.
In short, if no one made you sign anything when you bought that game at Walmart? You're fine. As long you're not copying and redistributing it.
That means copying and distributing are illegal. Fiddling around with files is too.
It gets a little complicated here. I previously said if you can use it on your own, more power to you. And that's true, copyright laws say nothing about that. Fiddling with the files is fine.
But there's also the DMCA (a.k.a. the Swiss army knife of prosecution for anything technology-related). Among other things, it makes "circumventing copy protection mechanisms" illegal. The actual wording of it is as vague as can be.
And pretty much anything can be construed as a "copy protection mechanism". If the vendor were to say the content locking code is a "copy protection mechanism", and go to court with that against someone who bypassed it, they would most likely win.
To conclude, I'd note all this legalities are the main reasons publishers want to move to the games as a service model.
Ever read those endless, impossible-to-read-it-all agreements you agree to when purchasing DLC or some such? They usually define all kind of crazy limitations like the ones you mention. You don't really "own" anything, except the right to personally access a software service. And since it is an actual contract you agreed to at the time of purchase -indeed in this case what you purchase is defined by the contract- it would almost definitely hold up in court.
But IANAL, usual disclaimers apply.
@Nescire
Most games these days do come with a little "you may not change, reverse engineer, or modify this product in any way" spiel on them. Just as an example, a hack to remove all of Kasumi's clothes in Dead or Alive (yes, it has been done. No, it wasn't great - looked like a Barbie doll with implants), is actually considered illegal because the developer specifically says you do not have the right to alter the code they have provided you with.
Don't know if it's specifically said in any title screen for RE5, but I have seen it in other games.
I see it like this. You bought RE5 knowing the game doesn't have a VS mode. Don't pretend it does just because the data is on the disc. For ages lots of digital products have been artificially limited for business reasons, this isn't new.
Later you find out the VS mode DLC is an unlock code. I see Capcom's actions as dishonest as they claimed that the multiplayer really didn't exist. If RE5 came out then two months later a 400MB VS mode DLC came out everyone would be happy, because they wouldn't feel like they are being lied to.
I just worry about the day when DLC/updates remove things from the product you paid for. To an extent a glitch fix does this, but in a way most find positive. But imagine say a FPS having a weapon removed entirely for balance reasons, and it was your favourite weapon. You'd be pretty upset. How about an entire mode (see online for most old games)? How about changing the protagonist's looks?
I imagine its only a matter of time until someone does something like this and upsets a lot of people.
@nescire
You are my favorite commenter.
I'm rooting my argument in the need for a Creative Commons License. Without it, you can't do things like tweak games, film yourself playing them or generally mess with files.
This is backwards thinking on my part, but if you can't unlock content that you paid for, say the VS. mode that may or may not be on the RE5 disc, then you don't own it. You own the right to use it. Obviously, my background in law stops at about 5th grade.
For peeps that are really into this, I reccomend you check out the US Code Collectio provided by Cornell and any and all info on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
I just figure, if the ESRB can re-rate a game based on content on the disc that can only be unlocked with a hack, they're implicitly saying that the content is legitimately part of what you bought. The Hot Coffee debacle turned out to be a good thing after all. ^_~
Capcom is doing this for business reasons, but I don't agree that it's really smart business. A good multiplayer mode can do wonders for a game's popularity. If you charge extra and require a download for the multiplayer mode, you drastically reduce the amount of people that will actually play the multiplayer mode. This reduces your word-of-mouth advertising (which often comes from multiplayer modes in the game world) and thus reduces overall sales. Of course, Resident Evil is an extremely popular franchise, so Capcom will still sell units just fine and they'll probably get a lot of extra download biz too, but I think this strategy could bite the company in the ass if applied to any game that doesn't come with an existing fan base.
I get the outrage people have though because as a fan, I hate when my fandom is taken advantage of. It's like when your favorite band releases some shitty single or bullshit boxset wtih a whopping two new tracks. It's like they're just fucking with you to see if you'll buy it because they know you are a completionist collector and they can take your dollar.
More on topic, I think the problem of the DLC model is that the most successful examples of it are also the worst.
Namco Bandai make a fortune off The Idolmaster DLC, for example. What's this DLC, exactly? Accessories and clothes for the characters of the game. The kind of stuff I could whip out in 10min of 3DSMax. No, I'm not a graphic artist.
But somehow it sells. Negligible investment for the developer, huge returns. It's hard to make a business case against this, so I think every Western developer is going to at least try, eventually.
@Mark Lucherini
Simply having this printed on the box is a bit dodgy. It would need to be clearly visible, and you might still need an explicit agreement to it to have any chance with that in court. Even so if you say no to this, and the clerk still sells the game to you (99.9% chance)... more power to you.
Also for DOA hacks, did they ever win in court with this argument? Did they go to court at all, actually? I don't think so.
It's trivial to go around this legally too:
Step 1: Person A buys a game.
Step 2: Person B buys the game from person A.
Step 2.1: Or alternatively, person B downloads a copy from person A. It's illegal for Person A to do this, but not for Person B.
Step 3: Person B has the game, and no contractual obligations with the vendor. He can now write a hack or whatever.
A much more likely argument to prevent distribution of the hacks would be that the models/texture used by the hack are unauthorized derivative works of your own copyrighted models/texture.
IANAL, usual disclaimers apply.
Not feeling the rage, though I do feel the added cost devalues the default game.
However, I feel obliged to add trivial trivia in response to: "a multiplayer mode has never been a standard mode in the history of the franchise, save for one RE Wii game if I'm not mistaken."
Resident Evil games that feature a multiplayer mode:
Umbrella Chronicles (1 and 2)
Outbreak (1 and 2)
Resident Evil (DS)
Survivor 2
Resident Evil 0 (honorable mention for having an AI buddy who shoots)
Most of those are outside of the "main entries" in the franchise, but Capcom's no stranger to multiplayer.
Aw man. I lol'd.
Yeah, I really just don't care about the issue.
Captain Rufus said:
>It would be one thing if you paid money to download it. Its another to pay for stuff they put on the disk but hid until you gave them cash.
But i actually don't really see the difference at all. What everyone seems to be saying is that if Capcom had cut the content from the disc, and made it in the form of a download, everything would be just peachy, and all that's changed is the perception of the consumer.
Julian mentioned Wanted, a game that I'm somewhat interested in, but have no intention of ever paying anything close to $60 for. Everyone has mentioned how short it is, and it makes me wonder why the developer or publisher chose to slap the full $60 price tag on it. Doesn't anyone during the course of development and marketing look at the game as a whole and ask "How much is this game really worth?" A blanket price tag of $60 just doesn't make much sense. There are exceptions, but not many.
Leigh, you said that the data is showing that the $60 price isn't sustainable. Have any of your super secret industry contacts mentioned anything about more reasonable prices for more games coming soon? I'm sure that $60 will stay the default price for for mega releases like Modern Warfare 2 and Final Fantasy XIII, but will we actually see a broader range of prices for those games that maybe aren't in that top tier?
I thought about this issue, and I think it is actually a better business idea than I initially said. Mainly because of the secondary market. If you buy the game used, you still have to drop $5 bucks to play online. It's a nice workaround for a company to get money out of a player who bought a 2nd hand copy.
JT: If that was their intention, doesn't it make sense to bundle a free code with new copies? It would end up similar to what Konami did with MGO, but with considerably less dicking around with a secondary login. It resolves much of the problem in people's minds, and would probably end up driving up new game sales. If you're only saving $5 buying used and want to play online, you might as well just buy a new copy. I have a feeling we'll see more and more of this type of thing going forward.
Rant Howard: Listing the Umbrella Chronicles and Gun Survivor games is kind of missing the point. Those are light gun games, a totally different genre with different expectations and conventions. Survival horror is NOT typically multiplayer centric, aside from the failed experiment that is Outbreak. In any case, again excepting Outbreak, those examples are cooperative multiplayer, which you'll notice RE5 has out-of-the-box. RE5 was never billed to have competitive multiplayer, and there was no reason to expect it to, since the only RE game it's appeared in was essentially an experimental offshoot. When you were happy paying $60 for RE5, you knew what your were getting. There's no reason this should change that. Even if it were free, I'd probably spend 15 minutes on it and just go back to playing Dystopia or Left 4 Dead anyway...
@Julian
Bundling a free download code new copies is a brilliant idea! That's the perfect solution to tapping into the secondary market and not pissing off your core consumers.
You should write a letter to Capcom. Seriously!
What happens to the people who only discover games with "integral DLC" long after they're out of print?
Games are in print for such a short time that people who missed them the first time around will only be able to find used copies. And when, not if, the DLC server is finally taken down forever, people who buy used copies of the game will have no way to get the full product.
For example, I never owned a Saturn when it was new, but thankfully I can buy a used copy of Panzer Dragoon Saga. Imagine if the final chapter of that game had been made DLC-only.
The problem is even more pronounced with entire games distributed via DLC. For example, consider the uproar when Microsoft threatened to de-list unpopular games from the Live store. Games that at least some people like would have been lost forever, with no way for people in the future to access them. No other artistic medium tries so hard to actively erase its past.
Granted, in this specific case, it's a largely superfluous mode in a game that I don't care about. The multiplayer servers will likely be down when the DLC servers go down. But it sets a bad precedent. Wasn't there some guy from EA talking about making the final part of their games DLC-only to curb used game sales? Not everybody who buys a used game is getting it for $5 off from GameStop on the release date - there are a lot of people like me, who never had the money to pick up lots of classic games when they were new.
A few observations from a development standpoint:
1. The assumption that a small download size means the content was already there on the disc, and was therefore being deliberately held back, is - at best - often inaccurate. Having an asset on a disc is not the same as that asset being ready to use in the game - that requires code, design, development time and - potentially most expensively - testing time.
2. A very valid reason for *trying* to put the asset on the disc is to prevent a "block" between two players, one who has the DLC and the other who doesn't. Using Project Gotham Racing 3 as an example, if the asset for the DLC car everyone but you had wasn't on your disc, it'd be a lot harder for you to play with those people. You'd have to resort to pumping a temporary copy of the asset over to anyone who didn't have it, potentially several times if only one person HAD that DLC and, say, fifteen didn't, all before the match had even started... so, yeah, a pain to say the least.
3. The majority of developers are not out to nickle and dime you. Features are cut from games due to time constraints, lack of manpower and other production concerns, even though the team would love nothing better than to get them in and make their game better. (Who sets out to make a deliberately crappy game?) So, rather than waste a 99% complete feature, you decide to release it as DLC. The problem then... finance. That DLC has got to be tested comprehensively, potentially on a variety of different systems. It has to be pushed to consumers. It has to be localised into different languages. You'll probably want some money for a small marketing push to make people aware of it. All of these costs add up.
4. If you leave your DLC too long, people have already lost interest in your game and have probably sold it or stuck it back on the shelf. The 'sweet spot' for DLC release is surprisingly small.
- L
@ beeporama:
$80, and the problem is not that I decide I don't want it, it's that enough people decide they don't mind paying, then suddenly everyone else sees it as acceptable and the only way I can ever get a multiplayer is by paying extra for the privilege.
Julian: How am I missing the point if I acknowledge that list of games is "trivial trivia?" It is only a list of multiplayer RE games, not intended for scrutiny beyond "Resident Evil isn't an entirely single-player franchise." All your points are valid, but I don't deserve any "missing the point" credit. I avoided the point!
Rant: Fair enough. Although, I suppose in some twisted way it's appropriate that I half-seriously nit-picked your half-serious nit-pick. ^_~ Upon rereading my post, it came off way more harsh than I intended. It's that stupid tirade at the end that I almost cut... I just couldn't resist name-dropping Dystopia... >_<
Anonymous: That's why it shouldn't be something integral to the game. Online multiplayer is a perfect candidate because by the time DLC servers are down, nobody's playing online anyway. Map packs (Gears of War 2 did this) and extra skins are other potential examples. Also, if you're worried about about being able to get all the available content, are you categorically opposed to all DLC? Are you missing part of the game if you don't have the downloadable levels from The Force Unleashed or Prince of Persia? Are you missing an integral part of the Rock Band 2 if you can't access the songs you get for buying it new?
I think the perceived offense has to do with buying the right to use content already on the disc. Funny though is that Street Fighter 4 did the same thing with additional costumes and no one batted an eye. Which to me is a pretty big sucker deal - to get all the extra costumes in SF4 goes for roughly $20. That's just for small 100kb keys that turn those on.
Now in either instance I'm not at all mad or upset with this. As consumers you can opt to buy something or not. Superfluous features like a vs mode in a survival horror game or extra costumes in a fighting game don't make the core experience, therefore there's no reason to demand it be there from the get-go.
The only real sin committed is that you pay the right to use something which is technically already there - but how many times do we need to do that for practical software apps?
Or better yet - think of GTA and Hot Coffee. Do you think that because it exists on the disc, even though you were unaware of that upon buying it, that it is now within your right to access it? In the past there have been whole chunks of games that never become part of the package that publishers sold. By the reasoning of "it's on the disk so it's mine, I paid for it and how dare you make me pay for it again," debug levels and all code that devs leave in the game (because it's too costly to recode it out) should be yours by right.
Although to me, it's all about where you value your dollar. If you think RE5 sans-vs is worth the $60 Capcom asks (and I do, boy howdy), then what's the difference here?
You assume that since Capcom does it now all developers will? That's a pretty impractical way of looking at it, like a vs. mode in all games and venues are equal. Locking Vs. in Street Fighter until you pay would spell the game's demise; same goes with Modern Warefare. The tenets that RE fans love and value have next to nothing to do with competitive play, so where's the similarity some of you draw? I'm not seeing it at all.
About Capcom's Unlockable costumes in Street Fighter 4, I don't think CheapyD from Cheap Ass Gamer liked it and wrote this letter:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/blog.php?b=6806
There definitely were people upset about this then too, and over the upgrades in Oblivion.
I'm torn on many levels, all purely theoretical because I cant muster the strength to care much about it.
I really don't like co-op in RE 5 it kinds of tones down the fright a little, when u know you're with a partner.
beeporama:"People are outraged, even if you or I think it's absurd that they are. It's a shame, but what Capcom needs to do is (after market testing their ideas better to preempt outrage) just sit on the DLC longer. Lie and say that they needed another couple of months to develop it, to increase the perceived value of the add-on."
Yeah but how sad it is. Hey, let's not release new content now because it may offend some people. Really, "they" would have bitched anyway. If Capcom would have released the game at 65$, waited 3 months before releasing the content or did the same, gaming boards would have been in flames about this anyway.
The anonymous developer above is right on all issues - as a DLC director myself I know what a thorny issue this is, but consider these business facts;
- DLC 'on the disc' can be QA'd alongside the main product. This is a cost saving of significant proportions - tens of thousands of dollars significant. Add to that the raised point by Anonymous that otherwise you're ALL going to have to download a load of (say) PGR cars which you might never unlock. You've got to have 'em in case you play online against someone who HAS bought the cars and wants you to see their car. That means the choice is having it sitting on the disc or sitting on your HD taking up valuable space. I know which I'd prefer.
- Anyone subscribing to cable already deals with encrypted content delivered to them that they have to pay to unlock. Just because one comes via cable and one comes on a disk, there's no difference there other than the delivery method. There's still stuff there available on that box that sits under your TV and you've got to pay extra if you want to access it.
-People are getting confused over the DRM issue here - just because it's on the disk YOU DO NOT OWN IT. You're paying for a license to use the content and what that content consists of is up to the developer. As a consumer you buy the license to that game knowing what you're getting. Unless Capcom told everyone the multiplayer was in the version you were buying the license for, there's no wrongdoing there.
- The whole DLC choice issue should be viewed as a positive thing, but because of preset established price points people can't conceive that they're being offered an optional extra. It's more like buying a showroom car than anything else; here's a base price, for an extra outlay you can choose to add to that package. While ever there's a standard pricing model people are going to expect entitlement to every part of that package. I'd imagine if you downloaded the title from PSN or XBL and you could choose the extras, people would have much less of an issue with it? That's an issue with the market and it's a tricky one to educate customers to, but Leigh is absolutely right; dev costs are going up and up, dev times are going mental with each new gen of hardware. The reality is it's THIS, an increase on RRP across the board, or go without the extra bells and whistles. If you want to keep the same price point something's got to give, folks.
I musta missed the hoopla on this one and bring nothing to the table. I've been arguing in favor of DLC since the infamous "horse armor" Ah well...Glad I found your blog!
There's a fair amount of EASY VULGARITY in this conversation, don't you think?
Post a Comment