Brad Lee

Played the demo.

Orgasmic it was not.

Clunky controls. Awful graphics. AI spamming moves over and over again.

No thanks.

Also agree.

400 I expect a game to be good. 800 I expect a game to be great. 1200 I expect a game to come with an orgasm.

If Lode Runner cost a lot of money, then the developers are retarded.

There's a reason why this game is so old, it's because the game is very easy to make. The AI is rudimentary at best (played the demo, got the enemies stuck in endless loops numerous times without even meaning to). The graphics are very basic. The levels are designed in a grid-system, so each one was probably "painted" with a very basic level editor. Etc.

If the game cost a lot to make, again, the developers need to find new jobs. When a game is already designed for you, that takes a tremendous amount of time and cost off their hands.

If the original were released at 400 MS points with Live support, I would have thought about it. If the remake cost 800, I probably would have gotten it. But at 1200, that's just silly. The developers overestimate the nostalgic value of this title.

I paid 1200 for Braid, and that's only because I felt that, in a lot of ways, Braid was an evolutionary step forward in gaming. But 1200 for a game I played over 15 years ago? No thanks.

Iddaknow, sounds pretty much like Lord of the Rings so far. When you say that it'll be difficult marketing it so it doesn't look like Lord of the Rings, that means it's similar enough that people will draw the comparison themselves.

It's like saying, "I have this great FPS in the works, but it will be difficult to market it so people don't think it's just another Halo. One important difference is the Cov--err, I mean the alien race is the scientific race, while WE'RE the religious ones--pretty neat twist huh?"

Hey ShadowXOR. Do you work at Capcom? I don't think so. So claiming that you have the "facts" and insulting other people for their "ignorance" is ridiculous.

How do you know that all the content wasn't already on the disc, and that the download size wasn't inflated? The FACT is, you DON'T. Sure, Svensson said it's not a download key, but he's also the douchebag that calls BS when gamers have legitimate complaints. And besides, if we're gonna play that game, why not trust IGN's word that it IS just a download key.

So, if you do have the FACTS, please, present them to us so we can all finally know once and for all the real truth.

Furthermore, claiming this stupid nonsense about "Capitalism" and "buy it or don't buy it" is really pissing me off. People like you think that companies should have unlimited freedom to make and charge for whatever they want. The reason why people are bitching about the charged Versus mode is to hopefully send a message to Capcom that they don't like what they're doing. If Capcom is intelligent enough to listen, they will respond to gamers in a respectful manner. If they slip up (say, by calling complaints BS), then the whole issue will spiral out of control (as it already has) and Capcom will lose a chunk of its fanbase over something that, when it boils down to it, is trivial.

But you know what? When people say "its the principle of the thing" its certainly not trivial to them. I applaud anyone that has bitched about this BS since the very beginning, because I hope to see a future with DLC that is either free, or at the very least, not some cheap money-grab.

And that's what it all comes down to. If YOU don't have a problem with Capcom charging for this DLC, then by all means "buy it or don't buy it" the choice is yours. But when you come in here, without even having bought the game to begin with, and try and claim to us that we're overreacting without even attempting to see our point of view... well, that just makes us want to say "Fuck off."

Two fart games, actually. Two rumble massage "games." A 3D Aquarium, a Fireplace...

With all this crap hiding the good games, it's no wonder no one is buying.

I'm also turned off by the price. I played a demo of a game that I swear I could have made 10 years ago using Klik and Play, yet it cost 800 MS points!

Avada, your example couldn't be any more perfect to go against your point.

Why DON'T car companies sell you two-tire cars and charge extra for a full, four-tire set? BECAUSE IT WOULD PISS OFF CUSTOMERS!

What customer would look at a car with only two tires, while ALL OTHER CAR DEALERS are selling cars with FOUR tires and think, "damn! I'm gonna get me that two-tire car so I can pay extra for something that should have been on my car to begin with!"

Everyone arguing about the charged DLC is basically saying that it should have been a feature implemented into the game already, and not charged as extra, which I agree. If the added content contained new weapons, new characters, new story, new maps, new ANYTHING other than modes, I would hold back on calling it a "rip-off" and a "money-grab." But, considering all the evidence against it, I would call this both a ripoff and moneygrab just like a car dealer trying to sell a car with two-tires and a "tire plan" to add more with an added cost.

A more apt example would be a car that comes without A/C. A/C is not a necessity so it makes sense to charge extra for it. An example of this comparison would be a map pack, it's not necessary to play, but the added maps add value to your multiplayer experience. However, this is not an "addition" it is an essential download to play the modes.

I think Capcom would have been wiser to simply add a "Mercenary Pack" DLC, where you get four new characters to play the mercenary mode with. That way, it's added content, and not charging money to play a different game mode.

Vcize

Man, you are one of the most brickheaded people I've ever seen on the internet.

It's not that people are not understanding you, it's that you can't comprehend our complaints. It's not that we don't get your argument, it's that you don't get ours.

Okay, so RE5 would never have had a Versus mode if they couldn't charge for it, let's say that's true (even though you're taking a company's word for it which is generally a bad idea). Even if true, our complaint is not that it should have been included on the disc and blah blah blah. Our main complaint is that Capcom is charging gamers for added content that is, in all probability, lackluster and not worth the price of admission, which makes it look suspiciously like a money-grab.

Everyone complaining that it "should have been on the disc" are essentially saying that the added content is not enough for a $5 charge on top of a $60 game. What if Halo 3 had come out, and then a few weeks later they had a "Capture the Flag game mode DLC" that cost $5. Wouldn't that piss you off?

And saying "If you don't like it, don't buy it" is a shallow argument. If we don't like what a company is doing, it is not only our right to complain, it's our responsibility. How are companies supposed to change and address customer concerns if we don't express them? When the VP says "If you don't want it, don't buy it," they're basically saying "we want your money, if you don't give it to us, go fuck yourselves."

You complain that people don't understand basic business principles, but you are proving time and time again that YOU are the one that doesn't understand basic business. It's not just some company making a product that customers may or may not want to buy. Image is extremely important in the business world, and by charging for this DLC and then saying "buy it or don't buy it, we don't care one way or another" to customers that have valid complaints, you're destroying your image and losing future customers.

For those who don't know, the phrase "the customer is always right" is not supposed to be a literal statement. The idea behind the phrase is that you should always at least act as if the customer is always right.

For example, if a customer at your restaurant complains about his/her meal, it's better to say "Sorry sir/mam, we'll get you another one." By giving the customer a free meal to make up for the shitty one, you're preventing that customer from going to one of the many, many, many other restuarants in the future. In the end, taking a dive on the cost for the meal will more than make itself up if the customer continues to eat at your restaurant in the future.

This is a horrible PR move on the part of Capcom. People that are pissed about this charged DLC (myself included) will feel insulted by these statements, which very may well push us away to the many, many, many other video game series out there.

Capcom is really walking on a thin line for me right now, the only thing holding that line up right now is Dead Rising 2. The free costumes in the first game were unnecessary, but a wonderful "thanks for buying!" statement on the part of the developers, and it gave me a warm, fuzzy feeling on the inside. It's a good thing SF4 wasn't really my thing, otherwise the ridiculously overpriced alternative costumes would have pissed me off more than they did. But now, as I play RE5, I feel the game is lackluster at best, and that co-op doesn't fit the franchise. Alternative modes of play in this "Versus" DLC could have added more opportunity for the game to convince me to buy, but since it's $5, Capcom can go fuck themselves.

Everyone seems to be forgetting a very important aspect of business: image. While free DLC costs companies money, the DLC increases customer loyalty and significantly improves the company's image.

To put this all into perspective, however, I know Halo 3 charges for new map packs, but imagine if they charged $5 to unlock the Capture the Flag game mode. Wouldn't that piss you off just a little bit? Even if the mode of play wasn't in the original budget?

Walk and touch your toes.

Go ahead and try it :p