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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.