From the perspective of wanting to just enjoy the game in it's entirety, I can safely say it is infact lame. This isn't RE4 last gen  where there was a 10 month gap between the GC and PS2 versions of the game, with the latter getting bonus content, which might of actually spurred futher sales. In this case, both are launching simultaneously and yet one console is going to be deprived of bonus content. Mark my words, this will be an attempt by microsoft to establish the superiority of their version, and any benefit to x360 owners is simply a product of making the ps3 version appear less attractive. This used to be easy with ps3 multiplats having framerate and technical problems, and as such the superiority of the x360 version of multiplats were easy to distinguish. This hasn't been the case for some time, so Microsoft is continuing the superior version thing they had going for them earlier in the generation, but in a different form.

It's true we don't know what it is, but this announcement is coming with just over a month to go before RE5's launch, enough time for the word of the forth coming exclusive content to spread far and wide. It is undoubtedly being done with the aim of getting people to buy this for x360 instead of ps3, as was done with gta4. My money is on exclusive DLC for the x360 version.

ameratsu - What about the counterclaim that Sony forces developers to add on DLC for games that come out later? Isn't that lame, too? X360 owners never got the bonus content to Eternal Sonata, or Enchanted Arms.

The argument that what MS is doing is 'lame' is only as lame as you want it to be. What if Microsoft is merely funding extra content on great games? I'd imagine that Sony could do the same thing, but is choosing not to (and I wonder why they've never done this?)

Or Bioshock  

Eternal Sonata or Enchanted arms, while i'm not exactly sure what they got for exclusive content, sounds similar to the GC/PS2 versions of RE4. One launched 10 months after the other (ps2) and had extra content. That extra content most likely didn't exist at the launch of the GC version and therefore couldn't of been implemented into that version, and I'd speculate that it would be a similar case for the games you mentioned. Launching later with extra content also makes sense because it's necessary, with developers wanting to charge full retail for the belated version. Around when the ps3 version of bioshock launched, Bioshock was $5 on steam, and relatively cheap on x360. How do you expect to convince people to pay $60 for a game that's identical to the year old version?

Again, microsoft may be funding extra content on great games but they're doing it solely for the purpose of having the superior version to what's on the ps3. It isn't some sort of good hearted measure on the part of microsoft.For the games you mentioned, the ps3 gets extra content but doesn't get that content until a considerable period of time after the x360 saw the original version. There has to be value associated with getting a game earlier, and as I showed above, extra content in a later version to certain extent is necessary if they want to charge full price. When launching simultaneously, bonus content/dlc simply aims to make people believe the competiting product (ps3 version of RE5 in this case) is inferior, not to provide an additional incentive for purchasing the game.

I don't think they'd go out of their way to generate hype with a viral marketing campaign just to make a trailer exclusive to the xbox site.

^ They had cryptic messages leading up to an exclusive trailer? Wow...how unimpressive.

EDIT: Especially now after the demo has been released.  I don't think anyone will be sweating on a trailer if they're already playing the game.

These comments against MS getting exclusive DLC are the stupidest arguments I have ever seen. They are competitors.

And do you really think dev are making exclusive DLC for the xbox out of the kindness of their heart? Not MS or dev problem if sony isn't getting the DLC, that sony's problem. Maybe you should be pissed off at sony for fucking up so badly.

i just want RE5 now.. I been playing the demo nonstop since it was released in XBL N.A.

ymeaga - One should note the anti-DLC comments are only coming from PS3 owners...

Maybe the way I look at it is a little different:

What if the DLC would have never made it to market had MS not stepped in and secured it for their console? As we've seen as of late, multi-plat is the only way to go, as securing an entire game would cost just too much.

Yet despite that, DLC remains a very affordable option for developers. DLC costs about 1/10th of the standalone game - even for a comparable set of time that can be afforded to the gamer with the DLC. So why would it *not* be in Microsoft's interest to pay the developers to make more of a good game?

Microsoft isn't looking 'hey, how can we screw Sony fans over', which is the way some of the anti-DLC Sonyfan comments are, but MS is more thinking along the lines of 'how can we secure a better experience for our fans'.

May I remind you that Sony could (and does) do the same thing for the year-old ports. I know some are arguing 'b-b-ut they're needed to stay competitive!' and I say 'no, no they're not'. They aren't needed. A year-old port could just be churned out as a budget port (say, $30-40) like many games last gen were. Resident Evil 4 was that way for the PS2.

In the end, Sony could do what MS is doing, and funding unique content for a given big game. MS, I doubt, is preventing content that's already being made to themselves - rather incentivizing the developer to make it in the first place, and for the 360.

And again, why not? If paying for DLC costs 1/10th of securing an exclusive, changes are, you'll get more for your money in the end.

They just want to tell xbox 360 owners that they successfully made gears 2.5 lol