What are you Thinking? Resident Evil Edition!

[Turo602]

I wouldn't call it shady. I could see if they were charging twenty dollars for a costume but two dollars? Are we really going to quibble over something that isn't even detrimental to the game AT ALL and only costs two dollars?

It wouldn't bug people so much unless they desperately wanted the costumes, school I find hilarious. I wanted the extra stuff so I paid for it and it doesn't bother me. It's extra, that's why it costs extra.

It's 3 dollars a piece. All together, the costumes are 15 dollars. That's a quarter of what the game itself costs, and I quite honestly don't see how that's a fair value. Regardless, it's not about the money or whether it's detrimental or not. It's about the principle. Just because you're okay with it or see it as extra, doesn't mean that the practice itself isn't shady.

Unlockable costumes were literally a part of the original game and a staple of this series, and rather than earn them by completing a challenge like in the original game, we just get a poster as a nod to the challenge, and the costumes themselves are locked behind a paywall because if it's 2019, then it's just extra stuff you don't really need.

Purposely removing content, no matter how small, just to sell it as extra for a quick profit, is downright shady no matter how little the cost. We used to be able to earn things like this by playing the game. It wouldn't be a big deal if buying it was optional and you could still earn them in game, but unfortunately, that system has been abused already and by Capcom no less.

 

[Springhosen]

It's 3 dollars a piece. All together, the costumes are 15 dollars. That's a quarter of what the game itself costs, and I quite honestly don't see how that's a fair value. Regardless, it's not about the money or whether it's detrimental or not. It's about the principle. Just because you're okay with it or see it as extra, doesn't mean that the practice itself isn't shady.

Unlockable costumes were literally a part of the original game and a staple of this series, and rather than earn them by completing a challenge like in the original game, we just get a poster as a nod to the challenge, and the costumes themselves are locked behind a paywall because if it's 2019, then it's just extra stuff you don't really need.

Purposely removing content, no matter how small, just to sell it as extra for a quick profit, is downright shady no matter how little the cost. We used to be able to earn things like this by playing the game. It wouldn't be a big deal if buying it was optional and you could still earn them in game, but unfortunately, that system has been abused already and by Capcom no less.

You're acting like these extras were free back in the day out of the goodness of gaming companies' hearts when that just isn't so.

If they had been able to charge us for them before, they would have.

Yes, the costumes are three bucks a pop, making them fifteen dollars altogether, but if you had just bought the deluxe edition for ten extra dollars, you would've gotten them and Wesker's samurai edge with the game. Or alternatively you could buy the standard edition and enjoy the game in its entirety and be content with the costumes that you can earn - the classic ones.

Business's practice this all the time because guess what? At the end of the day, it's a business. They're not spending all this time and money to just give you a game and give you all the extras that go with it.

Be lucky they didn't charge you for the Fourth Survivor and Tofu modes and that they're not charging you for Ghost Survivors.

Complaining about costumes and ignoring the fact that they're actually giving you playable content for FREE is a stretch to me.

 

[Mr.R]

I am actually more happy with the fact that Ghost Survivors is free. I know that, for some people, costumes and the OG soundtrack are important things. It's a viewpoint, everyone has its own. Gaming here in Brazil is kinda of a expensive hobby (because of the taxes over it), so I just bought the standard edition of the game and I'm okay with it (I'll get the costumes when, eventually, when they make some flash sale with some good offers, like they do from time to time). And let's be honest...if all of the costumes and the soundtracks were free but Ghost Survivors was paid, people would be complaining anyway. Back then, RE2 had a standard edition and then a Dual Shock Edition, which also came with an extra mode called Extreme Battle (same thing with the original RE, and the Director's Cut, and the Director's Cut Dual Shock Edition). Those things aren't new.

 

[JujuLodestar]

I wouldn't call it shady. I could see if they were charging twenty dollars for a costume but two dollars? Are we really going to quibble over something that isn't even detrimental to the game AT ALL and only costs two dollars?

It wouldn't bug people so much unless they desperately wanted the costumes, which I find hilarious. I wanted the extra stuff so I paid for it and it doesn't bother me. It's extra, that's why it costs extra.

EDIT: I have an important announcement to make: Platinum is mine!!!

Spoiler

And is it weird that I feel closer to Leon now as a result of beating hardcore with him?

Spoiler

Not as close as Claire but still.

It's not particularly tied to the costumes specifically. That is a factor, but between the current gaming industry, Capcom's CONSTANT nickle and diming most of their games, it comes off as really shady in general.

Bonus points since they're releasing classic models later. Let us have the models but not the music to go along with it?
Hmm...

This is not exclusive to Resident Evil or Capcom. But it's a very clear attempt on cashing in on nostalgia. And they clearly knew what they were doing. Having 2 playthroughs with the OG music, it's a near 1:1 on a moment to moment basis. That takes effort. And the fact that this was released alongside RE2 as opposed to a few months after which would logically be the time-frame this much effort would take, it's very suspect.

And for the record for ORC, that DLC was not released, implied, or even talked about before the game's release, it was post release product through and through. The game was all about RE2 after all.

Also I got my first S rank with Leon so I'm obligated to like him more. So I feel you. His last Birkin battle was really fun too honestly.

 

[Turo602]

You're acting like these extras were free back in the day out of the goodness of gaming companies' hearts when that just isn't so.

If they had been able to charge us for them before, they would have.

Considering they didn't have the option to charge us extra, yes, all those extra unlockables were added out of either passion, goodness, or simply to earn their sales with a worthwhile product. Something a lot of developers have forgotten in this day and age. Thank god for good developers like Nintendo, Naughty Dog, and Rockstar who still practice this kind of business and their sales reflect that.

Yes, the costumes are three bucks a pop, making them fifteen dollars altogether, but if you had just bought the deluxe edition for ten extra dollars, you would've gotten them and Wesker's samurai edge with the game. Or alternatively you could buy the standard edition and enjoy the game in its entirety and be content with the costumes that you can earn - the classic ones.

I shouldn't have to pay extra at all for a "deluxe" edition. Which is why I didn't, nor should I be content with their sh*tty practices just because most of their product is there except for whatever they deem is "extra" despite being available at launch.

Business's practice this all the time because guess what? At the end of the day, it's a business. They're not spending all this time and money to just give you a game and give you all the extras that go with it.

That doesn't make it good business. They can do whatever they want, but as the consumers that are keeping them afloat, we can definitely show our displeasure and call them out when they're being sh*tty. It just sucks that they have so much hype that voting with your wallet isn't really gonna do much to stop them is it? That's why they keep doing it. Until they start getting really greedy again and it blows up in their faces and they have to bust out another fan servicey project.

Be lucky they didn't charge you for the Fourth Survivor and Tofu modes and that they're not charging you for Ghost Survivors.

Complaining about costumes and ignoring the fact that they're actually giving you playable content for FREE is a stretch to me.

If they did, I guarentee you sales and reception would reflect that decision because those modes are a lot harder to brush under the rug than some costumes. Also, why should I be lucky? I don't have to be grateful to some corporate dicks that want to ruin a solid product with their greed. They serve the consumers, they should be lucky they didn't do something so stupid.

As for their free DLC, considering how neutered the content of the game is compared to it's original counterpart, and the lack of the Extreme Battle Mode which this Ghost Survivors seems like a replacement of, I'm not exactly gonna pat Capcom on the back for it.

 

[mjk321]

https://www.polygon.com/2015/8/29/9222257/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-one-game-character
the ballpark estimate for making one character in a game is $40k~$80k, so skins are a bit less than that. but still it costs a lot for companies to make stuff, it's totally fine to charge people for cosmetics that they really want and doesn't impact the game in anyway.

 

[Turo602]

https://www.polygon.com/2015/8/29/9222257/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-one-game-character
the ballpark estimate for making one character in a game is $40k~$80k, so skins are a bit less than that. but still it costs a lot for companies to make stuff, it's totally fine to charge people for cosmetics that they really want and doesn't impact the game in anyway.

Considering the game has sold 3 million copies in just 3 days, I doubt they needed to charge for costumes. Capcom is just greedy. Always have been.

 

[JujuLodestar]

https://www.polygon.com/2015/8/29/9222257/how-much-does-it-cost-to-make-one-game-character
the ballpark estimate for making one character in a game is $40k~$80k, so skins are a bit less than that. but still it costs a lot for companies to make stuff, it's totally fine to charge people for cosmetics that they really want and doesn't impact the game in anyway.

A company should be making their money because of the quality of the game.

And for a SP game? Even more to have them as unlockables. There's literally no reason to play the game a 2nd time because you unlock literally nothing of value outside of the Samurai Edge with infinite ammo. Which then trivializes the game outside of boss fights.

 

[Hel]

I can see both sides of the argument. Back when I got my copy of the original RE2, it had everything - outfits, weapons, bonus modes - included on two discs, no DLC, no paying extra. On the one hand, I liked it that way, because everyone had access to the same content, and everything was unlocked by skill and patience, rather than money. You got the complete game for one price, and let's be honest, only the fewest of us actually like paying more than we absolutely have to, even if it's technically worth it.

But on the other hand, we also have to take something into acount that hasn't really been brought up here yet, namely how much time, effort, and money it takes to create games nowadays, compared to back then. Capcom originally had a different RE2 in mind, but scrapped that concept close to its completion, restarted from the beginning, and still managed to release a polished sequel only two years after the first game, with Nemesis and Code Veronica following at yearly intervals. Something like that would be completely out of the question these days, just think of the five-year gap between RE6 and 7, with only Revelations 2 being released in-between (a game that, as much as I love it, wasn't up to the quality standards of the time).

As for the original soundtrack being part of the DLC rather than the base game, well, it's not like Capcom had to give us that in the first place. Did the first remake have an option to switch back to the original soundtrack of RE1? Nope, neither in the game nor as paid DLC, and I don't recall anyone asking for it back then, just like no one asked for the soundtrack of the original Tomb Raider 1 to be included in the 2007 remake of that game (even though comparisons were certainly made). It's a nice little extra, which I'm sure wasn't much work to put in since the music was already there, but as I said, they didn't have to do it, and now I wonder how much different reactions would have been if it had never been done or mentioned at all.

So when it comes to which side I'm on, I think I'm actually leaning more towards saying that the paid DLC is justified. Maybe I've just gotten so used to paying Evil Alliance money for Sims DLC that I no longer even think twice about it (then again, I do get most of that stuff on sale), or maybe it's because I'm a creator myself and I'm slowly getting fed up with people thinking I like to work for free, but at the end of the day, everyone can spend their money as they see fit, and decide for themselves if a few more outfits and weapons in a game are worth it or not, and there's sales for people who want it, but not for the asking price.

 

[Jonipoon]

I don't mind paying for extra content as long as its not something that I feel should've been part of the basic game. The Noir outfits are, essentially, extra content in my eyes, but I agree with what Turo602 said that if this game had come out 20 years ago, those Noir outfits would've been free unlockables within the game.

It's just a different world today, and there's no point in looking back wishing that everything was like before.

The only thing I find a bit strange is that the classic outfits are free unlockables within the game, while the classic soundtrack isn't. That is very bizarre compromise.

Maybe I've just gotten so used to paying Evil Alliance money for Sims DLC that I no longer even think twice about it

Aaaww, The Sims. I stopped buying Sims games after Sims 3 came out. IMO the series has been complete utter rubbish since then. It's painful to see how Sims 2, a fifteen year old game, has better graphics and more fluid animations than Sims 4. Nevertheless, the majority of people who consume Sims games these days aren't exactly the smartest of people. I don't mean anything against you.

 

[Springhosen]

Considering the game has sold 3 million copies in just 3 days, I doubt they needed to charge for costumes. Capcom is just greedy. Always have been.

A company should be making their money because of the quality of the game.

And if the game wasn't doing well and was counting on the DLC sales from loyal followers to help out, it would be their fault for not making a good game, right?

'Ef that. We all know how one or two bad games can send a company under because of what a risk making a game is with how expensive they are and how much time goes into them; all the manpower and the wages to cover that manpower. Capcom is a business and I think they're being very fair in terms of DLC with this game, probably more fair than they've been in the past and to complain over a costume, that adds nothing to the game what-so-ever, being three dollars is extremely petty.

Gaming is expensive now. Consoles are expensive, games are no longer twenty or thirty dollar cartridges, get over it. Or perhaps gaming isn't the hobby for you considering that three dollars is such a big deal.

 

[JujuLodestar]

And if the game wasn't doing well and was counting on the DLC sales from loyal followers to help out, it would be their fault for not making a good game, right?

'Ef that. We all know how one or two bad games can send a company under because of what a risk making a game is with how expensive they are and how much time goes into them; all the manpower and the wages to cover that manpower. Capcom is a business and I think they're being very fair in terms of DLC with this game, probably more fair than they've been in the past and to complain over a costume, that adds nothing to the game what-so-ever, being three dollars is extremely petty.

Gaming is expensive now. Consoles are expensive, games are no longer twenty or thirty dollar cartridges, get over it. Or perhaps gaming isn't the hobby for you considering that three dollars is such a big deal.

Sales and Survival Horror are always a mixed bag.

And if this was another smaller company I'd agree with you, but this is Capcom. The guys with Devil May Cry, Street Fighter, Monster Hunter...
If even freaking Sega with failure after failure, can bounce back time and again, One failure would literally do nothing to Capcom. Hell, RE0 is the closest you can get with a failure in the series. But they all still do well by today's standards for the most part. I mean hell, Revelation is considered a success and ORC outsold that series individually. 'One of the worst games in the series.'

But at the end of the day, Turo says it best.

Regardless, it's not about the money or whether it's detrimental or not. It's about the principle.

 

[Springhosen]

But at the end of the day, Turo says it best.

What principle? This is a business. These projects are expensive with hundreds of hours going into them with fairly good sized teams, not to mention technology upgrades and the software needed to keep making things look pretty for graphics whores. This costs money and lots of it.

I suspect you'd be pretty ****ed if the price of games went up ten to twenty dollars because of costs. Isn't it better to get the game - whole and complete - for the price you're used to and have the OPTION to add on extras instead of it being pushed on you?

 

[Hel]

Something to lighten up the mood: You may never realise how feminine Ada's movements really are until you swap her and Leon's models...

:lol:

 

[Springhosen]

Something to lighten up the mood: You may never realise how feminine Ada's movements really are until you swap her and Leon's models...

:lol:

I love how butch Ada is. She's got the shoulders of a football player!

 

[Lithium]

When I went to the clock tower in Leon's story, the Tyrant was literally on my heels. I entered, and the Tyrant-music kept playing - I freaked, paused, and checked about three different guides until I was sure that guy wouldn't follow! What a scare :lol:

 

[JujuLodestar]

What principle? This is a business. These projects are expensive with hundreds of hours going into them with fairly good sized teams, not to mention technology upgrades and the software needed to keep making things look pretty for graphics whores. This costs money and lots of it.

I suspect you'd be pretty ****ed if the price of games went up ten to twenty dollars because of costs. Isn't it better to get the game - whole and complete - for the price you're used to and have the OPTION to add on extras instead of it being pushed on you?

Like Turo said.

Purposely removing content, no matter how small, just to sell it as extra for a quick profit, is downright shady no matter how little the cost. We used to be able to earn things like this by playing the game.

You can make good business without having a shady practice like this.
CD Project Red and Nintendo are the two biggest contributors to those ideas.
These 'extras' were made alongside the game, so they should have been in the game. But instead selling them separately or in a 'deluxe' edition where the most unique thing is the freaking Samurai Edges, and that, was a reused asset from RE7 ffs. That's the worst thing, these 'extras' are not entirely unique. Samurai Edge are reused, Arklay Sherrif is a reused, but modified asset, OG music is literally 20 years old, charging us for stuff that was in a previous game technically speaking?
And it's Capcom? It's just them nickle and diming their fans. Capcom is amazing at that.

But Hel made a good point. At the end it's our decision to buy it or not. But as a customer of their product, I believe I have the right to give them feedback, and calling their BS like this is one of them.
Hell, ORC's Special Edition was more warranted and fair. At least I got a freaking physical shoulder patches, a steelbook case, and DLC content with that game.

But to end this on a lighter note.

Please remake Outbreak in this Engine Capcom.

 

[Turo602]

And if the game wasn't doing well and was counting on the DLC sales from loyal followers to help out, it would be their fault for not making a good game, right?

'Ef that. We all know how one or two bad games can send a company under because of what a risk making a game is with how expensive they are and how much time goes into them; all the manpower and the wages to cover that manpower. Capcom is a business and I think they're being very fair in terms of DLC with this game, probably more fair than they've been in the past and to complain over a costume, that adds nothing to the game what-so-ever, being three dollars is extremely petty.

Gaming is expensive now. Consoles are expensive, games are no longer twenty or thirty dollar cartridges, get over it. Or perhaps gaming isn't the hobby for you considering that three dollars is such a big deal.

Considering the success of Resident Evil 7 and the positive reactions of RE2 at E3, let's not even for a minute act like the game was ever going to do poorly. This isn't some indie studio working on some big triple A game that could go under if the game doesn't sell. This is Capcom and Resident Evil. The name alone has already proven what it can do even when it sucks balls, just look at RE6.

Plenty of companies don't adhere to this bull**** nickel and diming practice so I don't see that as a valid excuse. Especially with big established franchises that are guaranteed to sell like Resident Evil.

I can't imagine Insomniac Games charging 3 dollars for each of the 20 costumes that came with their Spider-Man game and then hiding behind "games are expensive" and it's "extra." They actually respect their consumers and know it's their job to make a quality product and sell it and sure enough, their game spoke for itself as it has sold nearly 10 million copies. No nickel and diming necessary.

Resident Evil 2 would have definitely been a much more appealing product if it had all of its contents and the quality, hype, and praise would have sold the game regardless. Those "extras" just equate to extra profit off of clueless consumers who don't mind being ripped off because they buy into their narrative that it's not necessary content and just be happy with what they give you. That sets a horrible precedent for the rest of industry and I'm glad not everyone follows it. There's business, then there's greedy business.

Also, I'd like to know where you live where cartridges were 20 or 30 dollars. Games used to go from anywhere to 70-100 dollars back in the day. And don't worry about how much I spend on my hobby, because I've already stated that this isn't about 3 dollars. If you're okay buying just one costume for 3 dollars, good for you, that doesn't mean everyone should be okay with having to pay extra for stuff that was part of the original game before.

 

[Hel]

Actually, about that "outfits were part of the original game" thing... I wasn't planning to be a smartass here, but since this has come up several times already, my inner perfectionist won't let me go to bed until I clear it up: The original RE2 had exactly one extra costume for Claire and two for Leon. The remake gives them new default outfits, but also remakes of their classic attires as unlockables, plus Leon's casual jacket from the beginning of the game, so that once again makes three outfits in total for Leon and two for Claire - not counting the DLC and the new option to start the game in alternate versions of their default and remade outfits, such as Claire without the jacket and wounded Leon. Ada and Sherry now also have two outfits each, so even without the DLC, we still have the same amount or even more per character than we did before.

And yeah, games are totally becoming more expensive, at least for PC. Just ten years ago, a brandnew PC game would usually cost something between 40 and 50 € over here, now it's between 50 and 60, the same as console games, and that's just for the naked standard edition. But as a hobby, gaming isn't really that expensive when you put it into perspective. People spend hundreds and more on concerts, fancy restaurants, and other one-time experiences that they will have nothing but memories of at the end of the day, whereas a game you bought once can be replayed as many times as you wish. At least, that's what I tell people who try to bully me for preferring video games over costly outings.

Aaaww, The Sims. I stopped buying Sims games after Sims 3 came out. IMO the series has been complete utter rubbish since then. It's painful to see how Sims 2, a fifteen year old game, has better graphics and more fluid animations than Sims 4. Nevertheless, the majority of people who consume Sims games these days aren't exactly the smartest of people. I don't mean anything against you.

And how and where exactly do you get this information about Sims players' intelligence, if not just from the fact that other people are still enjoying a game that you've given up on? Also, I'd like to see the alternate universe where TS2 has better graphics and animations than 4.

 

[Jonipoon]

And how and where exactly do you get this information about Sims players' intelligence, if not just from the fact that other people are still enjoying a game that you've given up on? Also, I'd like to see the alternate universe where TS2 has better graphics and animations than 4.

One of the most major complaints from critics on The Sims 4 has been the lack of content compared to previous games. And The Sims 4 is a perfect example of recent video games offering minimal new content for a big sum of cash. Game Packs for example, which Sims 4 popularized, are basically 20% of an expansion pack, and they've been spurting those out like crazy not to mention to vast amount of Stuff Packs. So far Sims 4 has had 6 expansion packs, 6 game packs, and 14 stuff packs. Sims 3 had 11 expansion packs and 9 stuff packs, while Sims 2 had 8 expansion packs and 9 stuff packs. The trend here is to spread out the content in as many different packs as possible in order to maximize profits.

The Sims 4 was originally planned to be an online multiplayer game, which explains the downgrade in terms of gameplay from previous games. The only reason why EA can do this with The Sims 4 is because they know most of their players will buy it anyway. The only other game I can think of where players are used and milked for cash so successfully in this way is GTA Online.

The Sims 3 reused alot of animations from The Sims 2. And there are many examples of Sims 4 being worse animation-wise than Sims 2. Just look at this comparison video for example:

It's not exactly a secret either.