Versus Mode Comes To Resident Evil 5

Resident Evil 5 will be getting a new multiplayer mode later today that allows players to square off against each other. It will be available on the Playstation Network and Xbox Live for a fee of $5. Two different game types will be available, according to Capcom. In one, Slayer's Rule, you'll compete against other players to kill the most enemies. The other mode, Survivor's Rule, pits you directly against other players, either one-on-one or two-on-two.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[MindlessAutomata]

Better than the random bullshit kdawson puts up.

Re:

[KDR_11k]

Well, it caused some uproar when people suspected that the VS mode was developed at the same time as the main game but cut from the final release and sold separately to add a 5$ insult to the 60$ injury of current generation gaming.

Re:

[Toonol]

All of which I'm sure is true. The game's been out for about a month; online multiplayer is a complicated bit of code that has to have been in development for almost the entire length of the project. It's Capcom's right to do that, but I kind of hope consumers reject it. If they don't, it will soon become standard to charge an extra fee for online multiplay.

Re:

[andy9701]

The game's been out for about a month; online multiplayer is a complicated bit of code that has to have been in development for almost the entire length of the project.

Except the game shipped with online multiplayer - you can play through the game co-op with a partner, either locally or online. Surely that code could be reused for this mode - sure, you need to support 4 players instead of 2, but I can't see that being harder than writing the multiplayer code in the first place.

That said, even ignoring the f

Stationary turrets

[Anonymous Coward]

RE5 is a cool game, but versus mode is just going to consist of players stationary seeing who can press the shoot button fastest (or less lagiest)

Death-Watch

[HTH NE1]

RE5 is a cool game, but versus mode is just going to consist of players stationary seeing who can press the shoot button fastest (or less lagiest)

But what of 'bot accusations?

Vinni: Tarrant! Tarrant! We're wasting time, Tarrant. We could die of old age chasing each other around here.
Deeta: What do you suggest we do? Draw straws?
Vinni: We draw guns, Tarrant. Isn't that what you're best at? Only I'm better... and I'm going to prove it. Holster your gun -- I'll meet you out in the open, face to face. Fast man wins. What do you say?
[Deeta walks up behind him, unnoticed.]
Vinni: Well, have you got the stomach for it?
[Deeta aims his gun at Vinni's back, but

$5 for a feature?

[incognito84]

A feature that should've been included in the initial release? This is highway robbery. The micro-payment system is worthless if a game worth $40 ends up costing $65 in $5 denominations.

Re:

[icsx]

Well, Microsoft wants publishers to make players pay for extra content so maybe this is intentional addition for as cheap price as it can be. Hell, Sony even makes the company pay for bandwidth so it's sort of understandable in their point of view but ours - not.

Re:

[mabhatter654]

but that's why PLAYERS pay for LIVE Gold status at $$ per month. Supposedly, all the game servers run on Microsoft's farm and player fees keep up the farm, so companies only have to develop.. it's very Apple-like.

The real reason is to curb the used market. This way every body who buys a used copy still pays their $5 to play online and your $5 is tied to your account, so you can't "get rid" of it.

Re:

[Secret Rabbit]

I'm going to correct your 'worth $40' to 'costs $40'. Because, 'worth' is a subjective term and this game WILL be WORTH *a lot* more (or a lot less depending) than $40 to many people (that is assuming it is $40 where you are).

That said, I wouldn't necessarily say that this is a micro-payment system. But, rather that this game has been (partially) separated into its components. So, for people like me that don't play on-line, this game just got cheaper because I wasn't *forced* to purchase this component.

Q

Re:

[alienunknown]

Quite frankly, I would like to see that type of model continue on this path. I mean, not having to purchase parts of a game that I'm not going to use would save me money.

I don't think it will ever work like that. I doubt it will ever save consumers money if the gaming industry adopts such a model for all games. I'm sure what the game publishers will do is sell the "basic" game at the same high price which is a price where a lot of people are still willing to pay, and then selling extra features that should probably have very well have been in the original at an extra cost.

I think the gaming industry is going to milk it for all they can rather then provide a fairer price

Re:

[bri2000]

Exactly like they did for Beautiful Katamari. It cost me full price (GBP 40) with only about half the levels available and I had to pay another GBP 15 or so (about 2000 points IIRC). They were on the disc, you just weren't allowed access to them until you'd paid the extra. It did convince me to never buy a full price game again.

Re:

[stonewallred]

Eh, I have not purchased a game without trying it first for several years. I usually Dl them and then see that the critics and reviewers are lying sacks of shit and the game sucks. The only games i have bought and play are GTAVC, GTASA, and World of Goo. The rest get about an hour or two of play, then deleted. If the game companies would make good games I would buy more, but until then I try then delete because my money is too short to waste on BS cookie-cutter games.

Re:

[flitty]

A feature that should've been included in the initial release? This is highway robbery. The micro-payment system is worthless if a game worth $40 ends up costing $65 in $5 denominations.

Really? Slayer vs. mode should've been included in a Resident Evil game? Hardly. I don't think this will be a high selling DLC. I have a feeling most people don't want the anachronistic controls applied to deathmatch. This isn't robbery. Capcom is not going to disable your RE5 unless you buy the vs. mode. This is Enti

It's About Time!

[qpawn]

We finally get a game where we can kill humans!

Retarded

[pieisgood]

Wow, I get to stand still and shoot other guys standing still? Say it isn't so! WHAT AN INNOVATION, AND ONLY FIVE DOLLARS?! WHAT A STEAL!!!!!

Resident Evil 5

[DreamsAreOkToo]

I liked Resident Evil more when it was... Resident Evil. RE5 is more like Halo, UT, Quake, CoD, or (500 other games) by the second.

The retarded thing is, in 5 more years when people are *only* making FPS... somebody is going to release a Survival Horror game that sells like hot cakes, and we'll see all the CEOs start chasing that pot o' gold...

Interested to see it reviewed

[Shrike82]

This needs to be a pretty damn amazing versus experience to justify an additional cost. There are tons of games out there that don't try to kick you in the balls with a surcharge for versus gameplay, and I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that RE5's versus won't be anything special.

Still, I'm waiting with baited breath to see how many fools and their money are parted on the first day, before they've even tried it out.

What the hell is this crap?

[Cathoderoytube]

You understand that Capcom pulled this 'feature' from the game before shipping it so they could gouge customers at a later date right? This sort of thing comes free with pretty much every other game. You could just as easily play one of those and not give these scumbags your money, which may or may not drive home the point that customers want a completed game for their $60.

Gouging for DLC

[Gizzmonic]

I'm sick of all the DLC gouging. And companies that have the gall to charge $60 for a game and then charge extra for the most basic features that are undoubtedly already on the disc should be shackled and ridiculed in the town square. We need a REAL gamer's bill of rights that goes something like this:

• Right to resell the game with full functionality-DLC included.
• DLC content must be novel. It should not simply be an 'unlock' for something already on the disc.
• Alternate costumes should not cost money.

• I

I won't be buying this...

[mace9984]

I've been playing RE5 since it first came out. Beat the whole game playing w/ my brother in another state via the multiplayer. While its kinda neat to be able to do that, the in-game multiplayer is complicated to say the least. You have to go into your level, go back to your dashboard (ps3) to invite someone, then either play through the level until they can join, or restart the level. If they can't get the in-game multiplayer right, you can bet your sweet /. bottom that I won't be paying another $5 for

Why I love Valve....

[ZiakII]

Every time I read something like this, makes me love Valve more and more. Take example of their latest release Left 4 Dead, the game was fairly short 4-5 hours. There are basically four campaigns for the game in which it is you plus three others against the zombie AI, fun for the first couple of times. The bigger attraction imo was versus where it's 4 VS 4 except you swap from the survivor team to the Zombie team. The downfall of that was there was only two of the four campaigns was available for versus.