TGS 2010 : Dead Rising "Case West" Announced

[CRedfield98]

idk why they are announcing this now, its kinda ruining the end of DeadRising 2. Now we know hes going to get framed for what happened. They probably could have waiting on this one....any idea when its suppose to get released?

[Jill's Boob]

That looks to be the information for the main game itself.
It lists 1-4 players. I didn't know the game had more than 2 player multiplayer.

There is 2-player co-op in the main campaign, but the 1-4 players portion is regarding the TIR (Terror Is Reality) "game show" multiplayer. I don't know if you've seen any media from DR2, but there is a reality TV/game show that Chuck participates in involving the slaughter of zombies. It's like "The Running Man" meets "American Gladiators." Well that's the MP portion of DR2, as there are different arenas where the players compete to kill the zombies.

It will hurt PS3 sales of the game and probably put some people off all together but I'm not gonna go buy a 360.

I agree with Gene's earlier comment that all this extra stuff is already done and could have easily been included in the retail game. But instead they can earn extra $ from it as DLC (and even more $$$ from MS for making it exclusive).

Yeah, I am in the same boat. When DR1 was first released, I wanted to pick up a 360 just for that title. But I just waited a long time before I jumped back into gaming and grabbed a PS3 because I watch more films than I play games. I kept hoping for a DR1 re-release on PS3, but no such luck.

If the 360 people get more content, so be it (and good for them), but I have a feeling that eventually (perhaps a long ways down the road) there will be a DR2 "special edition," in true Capcom fashion, that will include all the content mentioned in this thread, along with whatever numerous other DLC comes out in the months following the release of DR2. If not, no big deal. I guess some of this is just a reward for Xbox having DR1.

However, this new manner of milking consumers for more and more cash is very frustrating. For $60, you'd think that you'd be getting everything a game has to offer right on 1 single disc. But nope. (And don't even get me started on discs where you pay to unlock content... *cough* RE5 Versus *cough*) I can only imagine how much DLC has yet to be announced for the MP aspect of DR2.

I know that Capcom is a business and their goals are out to make profit and please the shareholders, but sometimes it feels as if they go overboard with milking us foolish consumers for all we're worth.

[BBboy20]

'Something special' seems more like some esclusive skins or weapons, at least for me..

...MJOLNIR ARMOR and a Lancer? =D

[Rombie]

Am I the only one that used "Glorified Demo" as something that was supposed to be a positive thing? (And something I hope more publishers do spins on in an equally great fashion as Case: Zero, and hopefully Case: West)

I think so, given the comments including my own in the Dead Rising 2 topic and the previous DLC threads around here :p

As I said in that topic, personally I'm over the exclusive DLC thing - Capcom can make this as exclusive as they want I guess; their choice.

Personally I agree though with others here and also said it before - if they want to expand the IP to other consoles, which clearly they do by putting the main game on the PS3, then cutting their own leg off by limiting extra content to one console is a surefire way to not make the main game sell on the other console. Which makes no sense at all to me.

Then again I think they have bigger issues right now given the almost amazing 90% of everyone internet backlash against the new look DMC.

[Stu]

If you think those 2-3 survivors actually are story material lol at you.

They ARE story, whether you think they're relevant or not.

Second, I like how you conveniently forget about Chop 'Till You Drop every single time.

What relevance does CTYD have though? It'd only stengthen my point that DR seems a predominantly 360 franchise surely?

Regardless, you throw the fanboy line out there when i own both consoles and plenty of games on each.

Capcom is trying to push this franchise over RE yet they keep making stupid decisions.

Not Capcom. One man within Capcom.

[Carnivol]

if they want to expand the IP to other consoles, which clearly they do by putting the main game on the PS3, then cutting their own leg off by limiting extra content to one console is a surefire way to not make the main game sell on the other console. Which makes no sense at all to me.

Arkham Asylum did it before, didn't seem to hurt that game much (if anything at all. Wouldn't be surprised if even the 360 sales are stronger than the PS3 ones.) (What did hurt, however, was the fifty billion retailer exclusive DLC and the lame full price re-released GOTY with all of it, sans the previously PS3 exclusive Joker mode, which remained PS3 exclusive.)

Although available on PS3 now, GTAIV had the previously 360 exclusive Episodes (with no word on a PS3 version until further down the pipeline.) Don't think it hurt sales.

Could of course say that in the case of Batman, the 360 already had the audience - while the PS3 crowd needed convincing. And that the tables were turned for GTAIV.

In the case of Dead Rising 2, it could be a clever marketing trick. By doing Case: Zero, you prevent potential target audience on the 360 from picking up DR1 to see "what all the fuzz is about", a game they're likely to hate. Instead, you give them Case: Zero as an alternative, a game which is improved in many ways (and by having that there, you've already shown them what DR2 will be like, thus DR1 can do no longer do any harm... but might earn Capcom a little bit of money.)


The PlayStation 3 crowd doesn't really need this sales reassurance. They can't try Dead Rising 1 unless they also have the other platform. All they really need to know is that Dead Rising 1 was a hit and that the sequel's gonna be bigger, better and will be available on PS3 too.


Case: West is the tricky one in the mix, as it seems to act as a mini-sequel to both Dead Rising 1 and Dead Rising 2... hence the potential 360 exclusivity... no Dead Rising 1 to build on. Dead Rising 2 doesn't really rely on Dead Rising 1 (at least not from what we've seen so far), just like most Resident Evil games also stand perfectly fine on their own legs.

[James]

Case West most likely won't take place in Fortune City and as such does not reek of cut content at all for me.

Dead Rising 2's gameplay area is massive. There's a HUGE area to explore that is much more vast and diverse than Willamette Mall. To even consider that content from Still Creek (Case Zero) and the new area (Santa Cabeza? in Case West) were originally included in the game but cut from DLC is pretty unlikely to me.

The way Case Zero is structured, in particular, is way too inconsequential for it to have even fit into the main game.

There's an interesting duality with PS3 owners who always manage to complain when things are exclusive, yet if it were releasing on PS3 people would be all like CUT CONTENT, PAYING EXTRA $20 FOR THE GAME etc.

Spoiler:

show spoiler

I have a PS3 too, but I never bitch about exclusivity

[The_15th]

Some of us don't live for videogames so we don't enjoy having to own 4 consoles.

[Mr. Rod]

Surely if you didn't "live" for it, you wouldn't be complaining. Just saying!

[Rombie]

^ So apparently having an opinion counts as either not caring or caring too much then? Great deduction there guys. heh Sorry, I just find that kinda funny.

James - I was going to agree about the cut content thing, but then I realised that kinda applied to RE5 on both platforms and it got complaints, so I don't think that's really just a PS3 kinda deal.

Carn - No, Arkham didn't. The "Play As Joker" content amounts to nothing more than extra challenge room events, it's not canon nor story. Plus most importantly it was free. Admittedly I agree it shouldn't have been console exclusive, but unlike Case Zero or Case West it wasn't content that provided a bit more actual story or built upon real stats based in the game. I have no idea the impact it had on sales because the game itself got a lot of acclaim, but I can at least remember fanboy wars over it. So I can't be sure.

However I don't know where you were, but likewise GTA4's contents definitely did hurt PS3 sales of the original game. And I know this clearly from being at stores on launch day. Plus if you look back on the sales data. I think the 360 version sold over 2.5:1 against the PS3 edition. The extra content was marketed from the original E3 announcement onwards as 360 exclusive, and I was very surprised in the end to see it was only a timed agreement seeing as reportedly Microsoft paid $50 million for that time. In any case too on the flip side when finally announced for PC and PS3 a reverse outcry was heard from 360 fans stating how unfair it was, as it was promised to them as theirs only.

As mentioned better examples are Fallout 3 and Prince Of Persia, where extra DLC content provided further extended endings... which basically look to be akin to prologue content ala West. If you're not going to get a full resolve on the main game and have to add that then it'll impact on the thoughts of people buying it (and that has been said by people in this thread and elsewhere). I don't personally believe it's true that this will be the case... ignoring arguments in this thread excluding, there wasn't a lot of story in Case Zero so I don't expect much of West and a true ending will still be on the main game on both consoles. But instead the way it looks to general purchasing public isn't quite that. Likewise I agree that the PS3 doesn't need the sales reassurance other than to know the original sold well and it should be a fun game, but they do need to be reassured that the DLC content is worthwhile if you have 360 but not important if you don't. And that I think is where this is a poor choice.

The main opinion, and going back to the original comments here, is more about the idea of the play-for-preview content. If Capcom is confident that this is good, it's worth sales, and money, then why the hell limit it? It sold a record number on the 360 market place, I'm sure even if not potentially as record breaking on the PS3 (it could be, but who knows) it still would be more sales for them. And promote the main game further. Meaning more potential sales for the PS3 version.

Again, really I'm not pushing the point of the exclusivity more so that this as a business model, if you're going to do it, makes no sense to me. If companies like EA and Activision follow this trend in the future, I doubt I'll ever see any platform exclusive content. I just expect we will see something akin to GTA4 in sales here, something like 2:1 copies sold in the US.

[Carnivol]

Capcom probably weren't certain whether Case: Zero and Case: West would be a profitable affair in the first place (especially with the price point - something Capcom's previously also taken risks with, such as how they let the consumers decide the price of Rearmed).

I doubt Microsoft were backing this up financially in any way, or if they were, it was not by giving Capcom money for exclusivity, but more likely saving them a few bucks on the listing on the marketplace by giving them a so-so offer on this "experiment" ('cause that's really what it is - an experiment - really doubt this will be the last time we'll see something like this, and I doubt it'll then be a 360 exclusive affair.)

Also, regarding Prince of Persia, I've said it before and I'll say it again; The game didn't need the DLC (story wise), just like Dead Rising 2 most likely doesn't need Case: West either. But here's the real mind bender; Why does multi-platform content matter so much when it comes to PS3 vs 360 specifically? What about the Wii, PSP, PC, NDS and 3DS? (Of course, we do see the occasional moan about how Game X is wasted potential on platform Y and should've been on console Z instead.)

I never bothered with finishing Fallout 3, so I don't know how it originally ended, but was the DLC actually a proper ending or was it just "if we say it happened like this, we can drag this shit out even longer"?

I guess the exclusivity thing, at least as far as I can see it, loops back to a billion similar scenarios, so here's another;
Was watching LOST on TV a waste of everyone's time, 'cause it didn't have The New Man in Charge as part of the broadcast?


(As for RE5 and "cut" content, would people really rather have Resident Evil 5 come out a whole year later, just so they could've wrapped up Versus, Desperate Escape and Lost in Nightmare as part of the main package - or even better, one and a half year later, so they could've been sure no one would've been left out on the PlayStation Move front too?)

[Darkmoon]

The Fallout ending was essentially this;

Spoiler:

show spoiler

Unpatched, you character snuffs it and the game ends. With the DLC you survive and continue onwards to take out a whole new chunk of Enclave doom. The DLC version is the cannon ending.

I think the issue with the 360/PS3 thing is anything you can do on one system you can do on another. The Wii can't handle the same crap, so no one expects the same stuff on it. Mostly, anyway. You do get the odd person demanding RE5 Wii anyway...

So when you have the same game on both systems, most people expect it to have the same stuff. It must be a real kick in the groin for PS3 owners to know they can get Dead Rising, but not the extra stuff. And so far no confirmation it'll show up futher down the road.

[A-J]

@Dark, slight correction

Spoiler:

show spoiler

you could survive in fallout 3's regular ending too, you let the girl sacrifice herself, the game still ends, there is no free roam after the story ends though, so it's still all over. The DLC forces you to replay the last mission and the outcome is always the same in that iirc

[Darkmoon]

Ah, cheers. I always play the goody two shoes character.

[The_15th]

Surely if you didn't "live" for it, you wouldn't be complaining. Just saying!

If I buy a game, I want to have the full thing! Why would I settle for 80% of a game?