Capcom? More Like DLCapcom?

But does Capcom WANT to listen?

Also, Vlave?

Ah true enough. All that matters is the content!

Yeah, I had the impression that you made these yourself until I saw 'insentive'. Although you did miss "wiling", paragraph five, first sentence .

I think that dividing up game content and selling it individually could work, as long as the consumer never has to shell out $60 at once.

My evil scheme has always involved Call of Duty: sell multiplayer subscriptions at $15 or $10 a month with free content updates and free 'mode' additions as new settings and ideas come out, such as 'MW mode', 'WaW mode', 'MW2 mode', 'Black Ops mode', and so on. Then sell all the high production value single-player campaigns as $10 standalone packs, or a little more bundled with a month of multiplayer. That way they can milk the multiplayer fans like they've always wanted, and they won't abandon all the single-player misanthropes that won't shell out $60 for a 5 hour game.

Honestly I'm ok with DLC like that. They are just stupid enough to announce it early like that. I'm sure they had 4 or so months left of freetime after the game was finished to create such a thing.

The only thing I'm not ok with is the pricing anymore 60 dollars for a new game is just too expensive nowadays.

Funnily, I was just thinking that. If Capcom just kept their mouths shut about the DLC and released it a few months later, people wouldn't really complain about it.

Someone needs to direct Sara_Gunn to this so she can see how a negative article should be written. Thank you, Nick Tan.

The Rant Expert is on her way.

I can see the title now: "Fo' realsies Capcom, I love paying for on-diskified DLC. NOT!!!1! Please stop ripping me open and crapping on my soul! Waddayathink?"

Don't buy the game. That's how you solve this.

It's Resident Evil. People are going to buy it anyway. It's like telling a Nintendo fanboy to stop buying Mario games if they want Nintendo to make something else.

Damn, I cannot double-rate your comment.

Voting with your wallet is, as a concept, great. Money is what businesses listen to after all. Unfortunately a single game purchase is a drop in the ocean and the fish wouldn't care if you took a cup of sea water. Unless you can convince thousands of other ravenous sea water fans to take their own cups to the seaside you're only depriving yourself of a game you may want to play. If a boycott did happen we'd also need to tell Capcom, in no uncertain terms, why they're not getting our money.

i didn't read your article because of that stupid comic with those stupid faces

Welcome to the Internet

I understand why DLC exists. The 2nd hand games market is enormous and publishers only see a couple of weeks' sales before the profits are sapped away into the 2nd hand machine. DLC is a way for new games to stay relevant longer, or at least grab some money from 2nd hand purchasers. At the same time games retailers would struggle to avoid collapse if they couldn't sell 2nd hand games because profit margins are far tighter for new games. Publishers and games retailers are, at least until total digital content takes off, inseparable and reliant on each other. I think some kind of agreement between them would go further than this struggle for DLC supremacy. Perhaps retailers agreeing to not sell 2nd hand games for a certain amount of time in exchange for better prices on buying in new games or giving a small amount of 2nd hand proceeds to the publishers (much smaller than new game charges).

Two good post Maca! It really does come down to impacting the bottom line to necessitate change but it's apparent that this act (Capcom on disk dlc and bragging about it in advance of release) isn't aggregious enough to solidfy the gaming community into a joint effort...and thus the pattern continues...

Havent bought a Capcom game since Resident Evil Outbreak File 2.

Who plays Resident Evil for multiplayer? It's not like Raccoon City was a blockbuster hit.