Click to embiggen. and now it's reality: Capcom will be adding several new online multiplayer modes to
Resident Evil 5, for a price. The "Versus" pack will allow up to four players to compete across two different game types, including Slayer's Rule, a "point-based game that challenges players to kill Majinis," and Survivor's Rule, which focuses on player-vs-player combat, with the last person standing claiming victory. Each game mode will support one-on-one, or two-vs-two play.
Capcom says Versus mode will be available "a few weeks" after the game's release and will cost 400
($5) and
$3.99 $4.99 on Xbox Live and PSN, respectively.
Update: Capcom has noted that the cheaper price on PS3 was an error. Equality for all!
{ Mar 12th 2009 at 11:40AM } 
Get a WordPress.com Blog
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)
FemaleOrca @ Mar 12th 2009 11:44AM
The visuals of this game have a decidedly Metal Gear vibe to them.
Thats not a bad thing. Far from it. Just intriguing how similar they are.
Also, PS3 users can spend the dollar they save on this DLC on ice cream!
BxGT @ Mar 12th 2009 12:13PM
The ice cream is a lie.
robotoid @ Mar 12th 2009 12:40PM
See??? MGS4 IS possible on the 360! :( please?
Bleu @ Mar 12th 2009 1:21PM
I like Ice Cream.
FemaleOrca @ Mar 12th 2009 1:28PM
Then you, my friend, are in luck!
ryan @ Mar 12th 2009 2:51PM
Sorry no ice cream for you!
/icecream Nazi
FemaleOrca @ Mar 12th 2009 3:42PM
Capcom! Come on!
Just for that I'm gonna buy 5 ice creams instead of this!
CannabisPrime @ Mar 12th 2009 11:44AM
2v2? Ugh, bad memories of wingman flooding back...
Babel @ Mar 12th 2009 1:53PM
I like Wingman :(
It was my favourite part of Gears 2, and by far the fastest when matchmaking.
CannabisPrime @ Mar 12th 2009 2:13PM
Lag switchers completely ruined the experience for me.
Dr Jeckyl and Mr ESC. @ Mar 12th 2009 2:32PM
Ditto that's why matchmaking sucks dick.Too many dipshi*ts with lag switches and the f*cking matchmaking penalizations.
I wonder how people can actually stand playing Gears 2 and Halo 3 with that BS and the report system doesn't works not ever,I have never seen anyone being banned for using lag switches or cheating ever.
Anticrawl @ Mar 12th 2009 5:42PM
And all the shitty aspects of Gears of War 2 online could have easily been avoided with the oldschool public lobby system. So a player can control their own room, gametype, map, settings and play with the same bunch of people over and over and be social and kick out douchebags. The ranked matchmaking on GOW2 might as well be bot matches with random vulgar phrases on loop playing through your mic.
Neuromancer @ Mar 12th 2009 11:44AM
As long as they're not charging for co-op...
Jack Tretton @ Mar 12th 2009 1:44PM
Just you wait -- a la carte pricing coming soon!
$.99 Capture the Flag
$.99 Team Deathmatch
$.49 King of the Hill
$2.99 Co-op, online
$1.99 Co-op, offline
Lars @ Mar 12th 2009 2:45PM
The real question is, who would want this 2v2 DLC?
Isn't all DLC technically cheaper on the PS3? :)
I'm being silly, don't get your panties in a bunch and grab your flamethrower.
But from the prices being one cent cheaper, I love the fact that you don't have to load up your account with cash that just sits there in Microsoft's pockets.
FSK405K @ Mar 12th 2009 11:45AM
If new copies don't come with a code to redeem the multiplayer options, expect to see pitchforks and torches parading toward Capcom's front offices.
SnakeOzilla @ Mar 12th 2009 11:57AM
doubt it.
McBrick @ Mar 12th 2009 12:05PM
To which they will respond by barring the doors then moving and shooting the protesters (but not both at the same time) through the windows. Hopefully there will be at least one with a chain saw or large axe just to keep things interesting.
Maybe someone WEARING Axe?
doubleofive @ Mar 12th 2009 11:46AM
So, a 1v1 versus mode on a game that doesn't let you move and shoot. How does that make any sense?
xFenixKnightx @ Mar 12th 2009 11:51AM
I'm assuming there will be HUGE amounts of frustration online. lol
Dan Rabot @ Mar 12th 2009 11:52AM
I smell the stink of irritating shoot outs. Shooting at stationary targets. YAY!
Duke @ Mar 12th 2009 1:09PM
Sounds like an awful MP experience to me too.
Jerk Face @ Mar 12th 2009 1:14PM
Guys - look at the bright side, at least this crappy experience costs money!
...
Oh, wait.
Vidikron @ Mar 12th 2009 1:22PM
It will be like an old western shootout.
xFenixKnightx @ Mar 12th 2009 2:19PM
Niiiiiice, I LOVE old western shootouts. Oh wait...
Duke @ Mar 12th 2009 2:45PM
Yeah, I guess we can't complain about something we are paying for.
Wait...
swifty07837 @ Apr 2nd 2009 2:58AM
well theres still the traps and proxy mines that you can plant to trap other players, and enemys are still about to, including bosses, ike the exocutioners, etc.
Night Elve @ Mar 12th 2009 11:46AM
I can understand that DLC cost money when you are acquiring new songs for Rockband or Guitar Hero, but it really piss me off when you have to buy new functionality of a game just a few weeks after the game is released.
I mean if I'm going to spend 60 bucks I expect the fucking game contains a full set of features.
CannabisPrime @ Mar 12th 2009 11:50AM
I don't have a problem with this. It is pretty clear that this game wasn't meant for PvP online play, but they decided to throw us gamers a bone. If they never released this, everyone would stll buy the game. It's not like versus mode will make or break your RE5 experience. You could just like, not buy the pack, and play the game as it was originally intended?
Psycho300x @ Mar 12th 2009 11:51AM
So join me, and many others in not paying for this crap.
Obie @ Mar 12th 2009 12:11PM
Agreed, this "DLC announcement right around the release date" trend is really sleazy. They can shove it for all I care.
rudolphe @ Mar 12th 2009 12:14PM
Cannibus your missing the point. Obviously this is and was probably already done before the game shipped. They intentionally left it out to squeeze a few more dollars out of the consumer. You can't use the excuse "originally intended" for this one.
I mean seriously what's next... charging for franchise mode in madden? Co-op in Halo? It's a bad trend to start, and if people pay money for it, it will only continue.
Dave @ Mar 12th 2009 12:30PM
I'm still curious as to when things which should be labeled as Updates and given for free became DLC? I hate the word DLC, who and what game invented that shit?
I mean paying for three additional not even so great maps that if half the community doesn't buy they likely won't come up in matchmaking? You guys brought this upon yourselves.
Old school PC Gamer here (with ps360)
CannabisPrime @ Mar 12th 2009 12:46PM
@Rudolphe
I'll assume along with you that this was completed before the game was shipped. Going on that assumption, that still doesn't mean it MUST be added to the disc. (This is also assuming this DLC was completed before the game went gold) The core of RE5 is still present on the disc, it's not like you're paying to unlock the last level. This is the first time that online PvP has been made available for the RE franchise, this is why I don't see a problem with this. They're charging you for something extra. And guess what? Extras cost extra. You don't go buy a new car without getting charged for all the "extras" they throw in, how is this any different?
Video game companies are out for profit. You can fool yourself into thinking they only care about their gamers, but that's not the case. It's all business, and this is a great way to make a little extra bank.
If you don't like the idea of paying for this content, then....don't? I highly doubt on the box for RE5 "SEPERATE DLC REQUIRED TO PLAY DISC" is stated.
Nathan @ Mar 12th 2009 12:56PM
Well, when you look back in time, Guitar Hero and Rock Band were the two games that started publishing DLC and started the trend.
Also I strongly hate DLC because it is not a tangible item which you cannot sell with the game that you bought for $60, so it sits in your hard drive useless as Helen Keller.
robotoid @ Mar 12th 2009 12:58PM
Exactly, I think it's natural to buy new songs for you game, or new levels, or new multiplayer maps, but not for game modes! That's like having to pay for matchmaking in Halo or COD, those kind of things should be title updates.
And it's so close to release date! c'mon! it's even before release! You can even think those things could be on the disc already and the "DLC" would just unlock them. Bah. Do not buy so they realize people are not willing to go with that.
jarhead906 @ Mar 12th 2009 1:05PM
@Cannabis Prime
It's no longer an assumption that the DLC has been completed. The info was leaked through the Trophy list to PS3 owners in Asia, who have had access to the game now for a while.
If the Trophies are completed, the content is completed = utter bullshit from Capcom. Not buying this shit.
CannabisPrime @ Mar 12th 2009 1:16PM
@jarhead906
I'm willing to concede that, then. I guess to me this DLC screamed "afterthought" since the controls for this game don't lend themselves too well to player versus player game modes.
My point still holds true: they're trying to sell a niche to people, regardless of whether or not it was on the disc/completed before release. Not everyone has to buy it, and I'm willing to bet most people WON'T buy it (my point above). But, comparing charging for this DLC to charging for Halo matchmaking is stupid. People buy Halo for matchmaking, no one will be buying Resident Evil 5 for non-CoOp multiplayer. And those who want to give it a try have to cough up $5. It's $5...seriously.
robotoid @ Mar 12th 2009 1:35PM
@CannabisPrime:
It doesn't matter why people buy some games, doesn't matter if people buy Halo only for the matchmaking or if others buy it for the campaign plus the multiplayer. That's not the point. The problem is the decision they made to cut stuff that was planned to be included from the beginning out of a game just to get some more dollars from their customers. Halo is a game planned from the beginning to have a single player experience AND a multiplayer experience, it doesnt matter if people choose to buy it only for either one of them or for both, it's the decision to have a game with two parts and cutting one of them at the last moment just to get more money. Doesn't matter if one part is more relevant than the other.
Baby J Penn (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Mar 12th 2009 1:43PM
That makes this even worse. You have to pay for extra DLC to unlock all the trophies??!??! Thats just plain wrong. This game has stumbled since it the demo was released.
rudolphe @ Mar 12th 2009 2:43PM
@CannabisPrime
Everyone doesn't buy Halo for the Multiplayer, i'm one of those people. And i never said i had a problem with DLC if it's something that's warranted, intentionally leaving out a game mode just to make more money off the game is as lame as it gets. it's not new content, not new weapons, not new costumes, it's a full blown feature was left out to squeeze money out of us and it's bullshit.
Also i was using Halo as an example, any other games name couldn't went in it's place.
Jtenma @ Mar 12th 2009 3:41PM
Wow! Why is this even an argument?
Really though, I am fucking offended and disgusted by Capcom pulling this. I mean, how dare they challenge our intelligence with this shit!
AN ADD-ON VERSUS MODE!??!!
This makes me not want to buy the game as a whole because this offends me so much. Seriously, who do they take for a fool?
No one should ever defend a decision like this...nor should anyone buy into this DLC either as they are probably using this as testing grounds for "a la carte" gaming.
Baby J Penn (PSN johnnynumber5) @ Mar 12th 2009 11:53AM
So when they say player vs player do they mean like competitive multiplayer in the traditional sense? If so, 2 vs 2 seems a little lame ... or am I missing something? Why the hell are they charging for multiplayer modes that should have been in the game to start with?
Cosmo @ Mar 12th 2009 11:56AM
Interesting, why is the same DLC for the PS3 $1 cheaper?
McBrick @ Mar 12th 2009 12:07PM
Maybe Capcom doesn't understand those b-s Microsoft Points (Space Bucks?) aren't $.01/point.
Dave @ Mar 12th 2009 12:37PM
McBrick, does this mean that Microsoft doesn't actually set the price for DLC and that all those people think they do just to defend developers are wrong!?
McBrick @ Mar 12th 2009 2:17PM
Actually, I think that's exactly what it means. If MS were going to charge a "premium" for DLC for games that are also available on PS3, this wouldn't be the first we've seen of it... would it?
I think could be an honest mistake that's corrected before the release. Doesn't make sense for either MS or Capcom to do this intentionally, UNLESS they're deliberately trying to see if the market will bear it. If so, bad move.
rudolphe @ Mar 12th 2009 11:56AM
Why the fuck should i have to pay for a versus mode? I wont be buying this, i hope no one does... it's a sham... robbery...
You know what, fuck Capcom. What next, are they going to charge for the FOUR PLAYER LOBBIES FOR STREET FIGHER FOUR?! Oh no wait, they'll release a champion ship edition next year that's the exact same game with 4 more fighters and multi player lobbies. Burn in hell Capcom, burn in hell.
Dicks...
rudolphe @ Mar 12th 2009 11:59AM
If this is the route they're going Lionhead may as well charged for that crap Co-op mode they tacked on to Fable II.
They want money for this and Valve is giving us the Left 4 Dead update for free... wtf Capcom, wtf.
Jack_Jackington @ Mar 12th 2009 12:05PM
if you dont like em, dont buy their games