PSA: Calm Down - Resident Evil 5 DLC NOT On The Disc!
April 8th, 2009
The internet is ablaze today with rumors that the new Resident Evil 5 DLC is already on the disc, and that all you’re downloading is an unlock code. Turns out that, despite some larger news outlets fanning the flames, this may not be the case after all.
For those not in the know, the file size for the DLC is 1.86mb. Before I lost my mind and started running through the streets screaming about the evils of Capcom and their policies regarding DLC, I took the time to ask a few video game programmers the simple question “Does this look like a fair size for the content being delivered?” and the unanimous answer was “Yes”. See, this DLC doesn’t come with any new maps, characters, artwork, or any other assets - it only comes with the two new game modes. Compiled code, as it turns out, only takes up a few megs, not gigs. In fact, in the course of my research I found that the main executable file for most 360 games generally runs between 10 and 20mb. The remaining gigs and gigs of data are taken up mostly by art assets, sounds, and music. Does any of that prove without a doubt that this DLC isn’t already on the disc? No - it only proves that the file size and the content provided jive with one another.
Now let me take a moment and directly address the IGN article posted yesterday about this issue. In that article, an unnamed Capcom representative is quoted as making the following statement when asked about the content being on the disc:
“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.”
I thought that sounded awfully familiar, so I did a little digging around and discovered a CVG article from a few weeks back where a Capcom rep was quoted as saying the following when asked about the pricing for the new DLC…. the pricing, not the fact that it’s on the disc:
“Although Versus mode makes use of the assets that exist in the game, the functionality is not currently in the game and is above and beyond the initial scope of Resident Evil 5,”
and
“We have never included a Versus mode in Resident Evil before, and as well as the costs of development of the feature, there’s also additional bandwidth costs associated with it,”
Those statements sound awfully similar to me. It seems that IGN may have taken the blanket PR statement given by Capcom’s PR people whenever the topic of this DLC comes up, and applied it to the new issue of the content being on the disc.
Let me throw one more quote at you that ties everything together in a nice, neat bow:
And again, for those people looking at this anew, the DLC in question is not an unlock on the disc.
That one was from Christian Svensson, the Corporate Officer/VP of Strategic Planning & Business Development at Capcom. He made the statement at the tail end of a post in a thread on the Capcom Unity forums.
Now, let me make one more thing crystal clear here - this DLC is a very poor value for the price. I’ll be posting a full review later in the day, but the short version of that review is that, for $5, Capcom should have thrown more content into the pack. Personally, I think they should have given the game modes away for free, and put up a couple maps for sale. What I’m getting at here is that if you’re going to burn Capcom at the stake, do so for the low value of the content, not for a crime they didn’t commit.
-Mike Kurz
Tags: DLC, featured, Panic, Resident Evil, Resident Evil 5
Subscribe to the Check Your HUD RSS Feed
April 8th, 2009 at 10:15 pm
Thank you for having a bit of journalistic integrity for not immediately jumping to conclusions, and taking quotes COMPLETELY out of context like some other places out there.
[Reply]
April 9th, 2009 at 12:38 am
you lost me after
this MAY not be the case after all.
who’s paying for your lunch?
[Reply]
Mike Kurz reply on April 9th, 2009 9:50 am:
If you’re trying to imply that I’m in some way attempting to promote Capcom, or that I have some ties to Capcom, you’re wrong. If you read the article instead of spewing ill informed bile, you would notice two things:
1. There’s a lot of evidence supporting the fact that the DLC isn’t on the disc.
and
2. I spend a good chink of the last paragraph describing why I think this DLC is over priced.
I’m not a fan of this DLC. It’s a poor value to the consumer, and Capcom dropped the ball with this one. All I’m saying is that it’s not already on the disc. Let’s be mad ’cause Capcom put out a sub par piece of DLC. Let’s demand better value for our gaming dollar. Let’s not waste time crucifying them for a crime they didn’t commit.
[Reply]
April 9th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
As one poster already said, again, Thank you for actaully having journalistic integrity and posting the facts instead of getting bent out of shape on a non issue.
Does it even matter if the content was already on the disc? Extra development time is extra development time and having it on the disc saves everyone time and HDD space. If you don’t like the DLC… don’t buy it.
[Reply]
Mike Kurz reply on April 9th, 2009 2:15 pm:
The reason most people get bent out of shape over buying DLC that’s already on the disc is that you’re essentially paying for it twice. It may have taken additional time to develop, but the fact remains that it’s on the disc you already paid for. When that game was submitted for certification, that content was approved along with it. When that game went gold, it did si with that content in place. Charging for an unlock code for preexisting content is akin to selling someone a car with an mp3 player built into the dashboard, and charging them an additional $200 later down the line to buy the power button for said mp3 player - it’s a dirty move.
At the end of the day, it comes back to value. If I’m paying for something I feel like I already own, then yea, I’m gonna get pissed about it. It’s a tricky issue - as a consumer, I get angry about bad DLC. If I enjoy a game, I want the total game experience. If a developer wants to charge me an arm and a leg for the total experience, or if they want to break apart the total experience so they can sell it to me later, I’m going to look down on that dev.
From the dev / publisher’s end, they just want to make sales, and turn a profit on their work, and that’s great - I WANT that to happen. If Capcom keeps making money, I get to keep playing Street Fighter and Resident Evil games. The problems arise when they push the envelope too far. When they try to rip the customer off in order to turn a profit. That ends badly for everyone. The publisher might make some money, but the resulting PR problems offset that. If a particular publisher / dev rips me off today, I’ll think twice before buying their games tomorrow. It’s about balancing profits with customer satisfaction - and that’s a problem in just about any industry.
[Reply]
Sup3rpanda reply on April 9th, 2009 6:35 pm:
But software already does this and has done this for ages, think of most freeware or shareware or other tiered software such as Windows Vista. You buy/download 1 version of the software with all features in the exe but some disabled until you upgrade to the latest one. BTW you can buy a car and not be able to use the features to its fullest, sattelite radio? OnStar?
It doesnt matter what content is on the disk, only that what you purchase is worth the price? Dont like what the basic RE5 disk comes with enabled? Dont buy it! Think the DLC is crap, dont buy it, non problem solved.
Would you rather them wait to add the DLC later and not add it to the disc just out of principal?
[Reply]
Mike Kurz reply on April 9th, 2009 7:20 pm:
The big difference between a game disc, and the examples you’re giving is intent.
When I download a piece of shareware, I’m presented with a “this software will expire in 14 days” nag when I install it, letting me know that if I want to keep using it (or get all the features) I have to pay - no problem. I got to try the software for free, and I know what I’m paying for later. In the case of On Star or satellite radio, you know before you make the purchase that you’ll have to subscribe for the service if you want that fancy device in your dash to work to it’s fullest.
Now let’s compare that to, let’s say, Soul Caliber IV. Darth Vader was already on the 360 disc, and Yoda was already on the PS3 disc, but they were deliberately locked for the express purpose of selling them later. When I purchased that game I was under the impression that I was buying a game that came with a set number of characters. Turns out, there was one more character available to me, and that character was already there on the disc I bought - I just had to pay a little more if I wanted to get at him. In this case, a product was created, and then parts of it were sawed off, and tucked away on the disc strictly in the name of rummaging around in gamers’ pockets for loose change at a later date. It’s a despicable way to do business.
The vista comparison is a little trickier. It’s kind of crummy (from the consumer’s point of view) that MS does that, but again, it comes down to intent. MS is laying all the cards on the table from day one and saying “Hey, buy this disc, and a license to use it one of six ways”. Let’s go back to Soul Caliber - Namco waited months before offering the other characters up for sale. They were on the disc the whole time, but Namco wanted to pass them off as new content. The goal was to deceive consumers into paying more money.
I think Capcom is on the right track (though they keep executing it wrong). I think the solution here is to have a “main game” dev team, and an “add on” dev team. Once the main game is done, send it in for cert, and send out into the world with all the features on that disc available to the consumer. Then, offer whatever new piece of content the add on team has to offer later, at an additional price. Two separate products from two separate teams. Things get messy from the consumer’s standpoint when you begin sawing off chunks of game in hopes of squeezing out a little more profit later on.
[Reply]
Frank reply on April 10th, 2009 12:44 pm:
1) Develop game with plans for extra content in place.
2) Deliberately leave extra content off the disc.
3) Sell “extra” content later, as normal.
Let’s be honest here, it’s the exact same result, just masquerading as content that’s actually new. The problem is that products are planned to be incomplete, and as long as people will eat up content that would traditionally be provided for free, this will only get worse.
[Reply]
Mike Kurz reply on April 10th, 2009 1:10 pm:
I definitely see your point, but there are a couple of things to remember:
First of all, a lot of the content that comes out as DLC would never have seen the light of day a couple years back. DLC can be a great way for devs to provide more of the ideas and features they want to provide.
Also, a game has a budget and a timeline it must meet while in development. Some of the stuff the developer might like to put into the game would conflict with either the budget or the timeline. Having a second team dedicated to DLC as Capcom does means those ideas don’t have to die.
All that being said, I agree with you completely that some devs / publishers are releasing incomplete products with the plan of adding more via DLC, and that’s a practice that needs to stop. DLC has the potential to be a great way for devs / publishers to get more engaging content into the hands of gamers everywhere, but they have to do so responsibly. Hopefully the industry will learn the right lessons from the PR incidents caused by bad DLC.
Svenn reply on April 10th, 2009 2:19 pm:
I would really like to know what the definition of “incomplete game” is these days. As Mike said, most of this content is stuff that just never would have existed years ago. It doesn’t change the base game. If a game left out an ending or something you needed to complete it, then you could say that someone released an incomplete game. Just because a developer releases a game, and then releases DLC later that adds more to it does NOT mean they released an incomplete game.
Really, if we didn’t have DLC then RE5 would never have had a VS mode at all. It just wouldn’t have made it in and no one would make a big deal over it. They decide to release a new mode as DLC though as additional features for a complete game, and people freak out over it. If you don’t feel that a game is worth your money, don’t buy it. If you DO buy a game, and DLC is released later for it then don’t yell that it should be free because suddenly you consider your copy to be “incomplete.”
April 11th, 2009 at 3:27 pm
I don’t know much about programming, but I do understand that artwork and audio are what make a video game so large in size and it seems ridiculous to me that major gaming news outlets would report this stuff without at least asking a few questions. To cite the file size as “PROOF” that the content was on the disc without proving how large an unlock key vs how large a new game mode is really points out that these sites are not fact checking.
That really makes me wonder why the gaming community would accept their reporting as fact. Even if you know nothing about programming and file sizes, in this case A does not equal C just because it equals B. “The content is small, therefore the content must already be on the disc” is a pretty shoddy argument if you don’t know HOW BIG an unlock key is or how big a game play mode is.
[Reply]
May 17th, 2009 at 3:55 am
Interesting stuff, not sure I agree completely. Just my 2 cents worth
[Reply]