Resident Evil 6's on-disc DLC is free

[Guild McCommunist]

So everyone seems to be hating Capcom recently. One of the bigger things they draw hatred for is their policy of DLC, often keeping it on the game discs and charging cash to unlock it. On-disc DLC was present in Resident Evil 6, to the moans and groans of many, but fear not: this DLC is free.

The new content is the campaign for Ada Wong, which was previously announced but not available at launch. There's also a new difficulty level called "No Hope", although ironically the prospect of all on-disc DLC being free for once means a lot of hope.

However, future content, such as Mercenaries costumes and multiplayer content will be paid or unlocks from residentevil.net, but not on disc.

It was previously announced that the DLC on-disc was necessary for "technical reasons". It'll be available "soon" although no date was given.

Source

 

[Squirps]

How exactly is this DLC if it's on-disc and it's free? O-o

 

[ProtoKun7]

How exactly is this DLC if it's on-disc and it's free? O-o

DLC it isn't (unless you force it to mean "disc-locked content"), but DLC doesn't need to be paid for.

 

[Gahars]

With that fourth campaign, I was really afraid they'd make the Wong move. Good to see Capcom is starting to learn from its mistakes.

 

[BORTZ]

I think its kinda a situation where the devs eventually have to hand over the data to be put into media form. Sent off to a DVD company and whatnot. I'm guessing there was stuff that needed to be included and they got it done before printing started to they can now put it on the Disk in a separate spot. Maybe.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

How exactly is this DLC if it's on-disc and it's free? O-o

DLC as a term has evolved past its initial meaning and is now more of a broad term for add-on content.

 

[stanleyopar2000]

With that fourth campaign, I was really afraid they'd make the Wong move. Good to see Capcom is starting to learn from its mistakes.

What you did there. I saw it

 

[Issac]

I read on another source that the on-disc DLC is actually just parts of DLC. That the content that is on the disc isn't finalized yet, (but put there to minimize the download later I guess).

 

[raulpica]

Back in my age, you didn't call parts of the game "DLC" and made it seem like you were generous and stuff by giving them for free.

It was just called part of the game and you were FREAKING ENTITLED to it by paying the full price.

Game companies nowadays

 

[Rizsparky]

Back in my age, you didn't call parts of the game "DLC" and made it seem like you were generous and stuff by giving them for free.

It was just called part of the game and you were FREAKING ENTITLED to it by paying the full price.

Game companies nowadays

I'm afraid game companies are also businesses, if you want them to continue making games they need to make profit and this on disc paid DLC hocus pocus is just too good of a revenue stream.

 

[Squirps]

How exactly is this DLC if it's on-disc and it's free? O-o

DLC as a term has evolved past its initial meaning and is now more of a broad term for add-on content.

But how is this add-on content if it's included with the game? Is it supposed to refer to sidequests or side missions or extra stuff or something?

 

[Gahars]

Back in my age, you didn't call parts of the game "DLC" and made it seem like you were generous and stuff by giving them for free.

It was just called part of the game and you were FREAKING ENTITLED to it by paying the full price.

Game companies nowadays

Or it would get bundled and sold as an expansion pack, or just not made at all.

DLC has its problems, but I don't think they're inherent; it just stems from companies misusing it more often than not. And hey, if Capcom can learn, anybody can.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

How exactly is this DLC if it's on-disc and it's free? O-o

DLC as a term has evolved past its initial meaning and is now more of a broad term for add-on content.

But how is this add-on content if it's included with the game? Is it supposed to refer to sidequests or side missions or extra stuff or something?

It's added on later, hence add on content. It just refers to any part of the game that is developed/added after the release date.

EDIT: And not related the quote, here's the process of how DLC is usually made:

1. The developers finish developing the main game. The game is sent off to be tested and "go gold".
2. During this time, developers are paid to do nothing. They can't really start a new project so they often start developing DLC.
3. If the DLC is done early, it's either put on the disc separately and released at launch, put on the disc and released later, or just released later purely as a download.
4. For the above three reasons, the first one could be because it's not relevant enough to the main game to warrant being main-game content. Most add ons feel like add ons. For being released later while being on disc, it can still need to be bug tested and such or is only partially developed. For released separately, it's still in development or testing after the game's release.

So DLC isn't always some money-grabbing scheme as much as it is developers using modern technology effectively. You didn't see this happen "back in the day" because it couldn't. Internet-connected consoles and the larger spread of gaming allows this.

 

[raulpica]

Back in my age, you didn't call parts of the game "DLC" and made it seem like you were generous and stuff by giving them for free.

It was just called part of the game and you were FREAKING ENTITLED to it by paying the full price.

Game companies nowadays

I'm afraid game companies are also businesses, if you want them to continue making games they need to make profit and this on disc paid DLC hocus pocus is just too good of a revenue stream.

So you're telling me that the game business has been able to survive for almost 30 years without making DLCs, only to find now that they can't survive without them? SHOCKING!

I've never bought a DLC, and I never will. I won't be giving my money to something as low as releasing a (sometimes) incomplete game only to make you pay for additional pieces of the story and/or gameplay.

Screw them.

Back in my age, you didn't call parts of the game "DLC" and made it seem like you were generous and stuff by giving them for free.

It was just called part of the game and you were FREAKING ENTITLED to it by paying the full price.

Game companies nowadays

Or it would get bundled and sold as an expansion pack, or just not made at all.

DLC has its problems, but I don't think they're inherent; it just stems from companies misusing it more often than not. And hey, if Capcom can learn, anybody can.

I'm talking about on-disc DLC mainly, that's just a nice way of trying to sell you stuff which is ALREADY present on disc, which could be free, but instead it's not.

In this case Capcom is valiantly flaunting about giving you free on-disc DLC, which should be already INCLUDED in the game's price in the first place.

 

[stanleyopar2000]

Back in my age, you didn't call parts of the game "DLC" and made it seem like you were generous and stuff by giving them for free.

It was just called part of the game and you were FREAKING ENTITLED to it by paying the full price.

Game companies nowadays

Back in my day I remember the words 'you have unlocked" not "You May PURCHASE"

 

[injected11]

Oh how generous and benevolent of you Capcom! Letting us have what we already paid for, for free?!

Still not buying your crap until it's GOTY edition and $5 or less.

 

[Rasas]

So you're telling me that the game business has been able to survive for almost 30 years without making DLCs, only to find now that they can't survive without them? SHOCKING!
Well you got to understand games development costs have increased and they have to sell one million plus copies to break even.
I've never bought a DLC, and I never will. I won't be giving my money to something as low as releasing a (sometimes) incomplete game only to make you pay for additional pieces of the story and/or gameplay.
Ya, boycotting DLC seems to be a option but unfortunately I think enough people buy them for companies to think not to. Boycotting the game might lead to the death of the series so maybe sending letters or having a facebook page saying you won't buy the game since of on disc DLC might do it.
Screw them.

 

[narutofan777]

huh I don't get it? dlc on a disc for free?? what were they thinking???

 

[Nemesis90]

Oh how generous and benevolent of you Capcom! Letting us have what we already paid for, for free?!

Still not buying your crap until it's GOTY edition and $5 or less.

Beat me to it. I'll be doing the same.

 

[ouch123]

If it's going to be free anyway I'm still not sure why exactly it's DLC. Now, based on what Guild said, it's most likely because the game was being approved while the DLC was being worked on. Having said that, an additional difficulty level and a campaign for one of the series' main protagonists sort of feel likes it should have just been finished and then released with the main game. Judging from the fact that it's on-disc as well, a great deal of it must have already been completed or the add-on content is very insubstantial, in which case I don't see why the additional delay would have been a problem if it meant getting the game out as a finished product. People said RE4 felt incomplete on release due to not having Ada's story (among some other things) which was added in later releases, so I don't see why the case is any different this time around. Since this game was released in early October I'd assume there was no particular pressure to get the game out early, as I don't believe October is really a prime holiday season for marketing purposes.