Asura's Wrath?
I'm halfway through the game so don't quote me on that but I read here that the final DLC is like the "true ending".
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
[Nintendo Direct] Nintendo, of all people, get DLC right? (NSMB2)
- Thread starter DGRE
- Start date
I'm halfway through the game so don't quote me on that but I read here that the final DLC is like the "true ending".
Freezie KO
Banned
Thoughts? It's fucking awful. Nintendo fails at the internet.
They leave out the good stuff (online play).
And they promote the bad stuff (DLC).
Sure, for right now, they're saying that they won't leave anything out, but we have zero way of knowing. And that's why the DLC model sucks for consumers. If they don't leave anything out now, they might eventually. DLC encourages it. Why include content when you can make money off it later? It's only a matter of time.
They leave out the good stuff (online play).
And they promote the bad stuff (DLC).
Sure, for right now, they're saying that they won't leave anything out, but we have zero way of knowing. And that's why the DLC model sucks for consumers. If they don't leave anything out now, they might eventually. DLC encourages it. Why include content when you can make money off it later? It's only a matter of time.
Hours Left
Member
I doubt they are just sitting there waiting until the game ships before they are going to start working on the content.
SkyMasterson
Member
Speaking of which, were we supposed to get some MK7 dlc, or was that just talk?
I would love some new courses and hell even some characters.
I would love some new courses and hell even some characters.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I respect that.
BishopLamont
Banned
Even if they have ideas for new content now, doesn't make it feasible for them to add it in by the release date. They have a schedule they have to stick to you know.
Its alot different to purposely holding back content for release later, or having unlock keys for content thats already on the disk.
Freezie KO
Banned
Right. And who will notice if they shorten their schedule, rush the game out a bit, and then just sell the rest of it later?
It's Mario after all. They know we'll buy it anyway. DLC takes knowledge away from consumers. Can't see how this is ever a good thing.
BishopLamont
Banned
Its good/bad depending how they go about it, in the end you have to trust the company with it. I'm willing to be exposed to the possibility of being nickel and dimed if it means I get more stages for my Marios post-release.
This is not Bandai-Namco we're dealing with.
Freezie KO
Banned
BishopLamont
Banned
I confess to being guilty. =]I rest my case.
michaelius
Banned
Speedymanic
Banned
The fact that they've announced their intent pre-release is all the evidence I need to know that some coin rush levels will undoubtedly be cut to be sold as DLC.
Nonsense. You could apply that same argument to all games. This game shouldn't ship until all content is ready.
Mario games have a story?
It's a ridiculous argument.
Why would you do that?
Member
I rest my case.
Yes. It's sometimes hard to give companies the benefit of the doubt (that they're not withholding content to sell later), but I don't mind giving Nintendo that benefit, especially since 1) they stressed that it isn't withheld content, and 2) they don't seem to embrace the idea of DLC in the first place. I think they're doing it because people want them to.
Why pay for DLC when you can fund it with $20 hats!
You do know just because Reggie or Iwata or anyone at Nintendo says it, doesn't necessarily mean its true, right?
That thought has occurred to you? Right?
It's NSMB man. They're not building Skyrim. By the time the game releases they'll probably have been working on DLC material for a month. They'd be stupid not to. You're kidding yourself if you actually believe they'll finish the core game and then twiddle their thumbs until its in the wild.
What Reggie said sounded like it was tailored to soften any typical DLC backlash bullshit. Not this sincere, noble explanation as to how they'll approach DLC.
That thought has occurred to you? Right?
It's NSMB man. They're not building Skyrim. By the time the game releases they'll probably have been working on DLC material for a month. They'd be stupid not to. You're kidding yourself if you actually believe they'll finish the core game and then twiddle their thumbs until its in the wild.
What Reggie said sounded like it was tailored to soften any typical DLC backlash bullshit. Not this sincere, noble explanation as to how they'll approach DLC.
The fact that they've announced their intent pre-release is all the evidence I need to know that some coin rush levels will undoubtedly be cut to be sold as DLC.
Nonsense. You could apply that same argument to all games. This game shouldn't ship until all content is ready.
Mario games have a story?
It's a ridiculous argument.
It has a single player campaign mode that has a beginning and an end. Coin Rush is completely optional.
They did it for free before minitransactions.
maverick40
Junior Member
Pity about the latest 3ds revision nintendo just anounced. I pity the day 1 buyers, nintendo love the $$$$$$$$$
walking fiend
Member
I don't know about Reggie or Iwata, but Miyamoto is definitely a liar!
Err that's exactly what Nintendo meant. They won't do a "Capcom" and build NSMB, ship it, then lock half of the content for players. They will actually build a finished uncompromised title and extend the dev time to DLC content. Just like all DLC should work.
Glass Rebel
Member
If there's one thing I miss from my Nintendo days it's the sheer optimism.
We'll see how they handle DLC in time but this means jack shit.
We'll see how they handle DLC in time but this means jack shit.
Speedymanic
Banned
Skyrim has a campaign that had a beginning and end. Dawnguard is entirely optional.
Nobody has complained about Skyrim's content, I believe. Or at least reasonably. You can tell it's post-game material.
Freezie KO
Banned
So you're giving them the benefit of the doubt because they said to give them the benefit of the doubt?
I don't trust any company with DLC. And even if they're honest about it now, the temptation to withhold content is not imaginary. If you withhold content and sell it later, you will make more money.
This is the company that isn't putting online multiplayer into New Super Mario Bros. U and Pikmin 3, their top two games for their brand new console, both of which feature multiplayer modes.
If Nintendo doesn't want to do something, they won't do it.
One of the online gaming community's favorite things to ignore is the fact most companies do that, in actuality. Reggie seemed desperate in that video.
Glass Rebel
Member
fixed
Freezie KO
Banned
I don't think you're correct. I doubt shareholders give a shit if Nintendo includes online play. They have their internal philosophies about what's worth adding, and online multiplayer just isn't one of them.
Shareholders also beg them to go to iOS, but Nintendo doesn't do that either.
Speedymanic
Banned
It's a ridiculous argument as it can apply to every single game that has post release DLC.
The fact remains that Nintendo haven't done dlc 'right', they've simply looked at what other devs have done and copied them, unfortunately it looks like they've followed the Capcom example and decided to nickel and dime their fanbase.
I felt no tinge of desperation. What is he desperate for?
I Stalk Alone
Member
The new Layton game has a free puzzle released every day for the first 365 days. so you get free dlc then the next year when they make more they will probably charge extra for it which seems fair. This is what should be expected from DLC either free now or planned to produce at a later time due to time and budget constraints which is fair.
I think it depends on DLC, and the type of content. Skyrim and Dark Souls have content clearly not in the retail release that show resources were spent on it after the release of the original title. If Nintendo follows this approach, I'd be happy. If people are able to uncover these files in a ROM and Nintendo has the gall to charge for them, this shit should never be purchased. Period. No ifs, ands, or butts about that.
walking fiend
Member
not really; you are extremely understimating amount of freedom Iwata has.
lol, what?
Glass Rebel
Member
that's what I'm saying though. I personally think that Nintendo embracing DLC was to appease shareholders, showing that they're gonna join the rest of the industry and monetize their games after release and purchase.
T-then you can re-create the levels from NSMBDS, Wii, and U, so you'd never have to buy them! O:
Oh yeah... it could also mean simply lying about it.
Kinda how EA said, "If you sell content that's P2W (pay to win) in a multiplayer game, make sure the oposing player doesn't know he has died because of P2W." They really did say that.
perfectchaos007
Member
Mario DLC? That's so 2001
But seriously, I wish SMB3 would be re-released with the e-reader levels already available so I can play them...
But seriously, I wish SMB3 would be re-released with the e-reader levels already available so I can play them...
I lol'd.
I seriously don't see Nintendo finishing the game and then having a special team making levels. It will be a few interns making stuff and Nintendo charging 500 Reggiebucks for the privilege.
MaxwellGT2000
Member
I feel this way too, wait and see, low expectations means you can't be let down am I right?
If they charge 5 bucks, it better be a pack of levels. $5 per level is a fucking travesty.
Why would you do that?
Member
I'm giving them the benefit of the doubt because they don't really have a history of doing greedy or anti-consumer things and lying about it. I completely understand why you wouldn't trust any company with DLC, though.
As for your other point, I think they don't feel Star Fox 3D, Pikmin 2, or New SMB U needs online multiplayer. Whether or not I agree or disagree is out of the scope of this thread. But they can be coerced into things. Twilight Princess is one example.
Franchuzas87
Member
For me, no DLC is getting DLC right.
New ideas/stages/content for new full games. Like Galaxy 2 was born after the launch of Galaxy 1.
New ideas/stages/content for new full games. Like Galaxy 2 was born after the launch of Galaxy 1.
When it comes to CoD or Halo 4 maps that gets loads of replayablity usually demands a higher price. For Mario levels that have hardly any replay value? I seriously don't see people playing Coin Rush 100's of times. They should be giving them away free.
What is this sentiment based on? When has Nintendo ever acted this way in the past?
airmangataosenai
Member
They deserve some credit for handling it better than most other publishers. The OP reads like a cult devotee to be sure but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve some praise for not withholding content (Assuming that it really is a large game and it wasn't rushed to release).
walking fiend
Member
I definitely disagree.
Mimamoto's only reason for not bringing online to Pikmin 3 was the latency issue; so obviously he wanted to bring it but couldn't.
I would say they weren't capable of adding online in a form they find suitable; but that of course they should be able to if others can.
perfectchaos007
Member
I don't see how this thinking is justified at all. If a great game was COMPLETED and shipped, and you like it so much that you want MORE content because you have fully exhausted every nook and cranny in the game ( Which is how I usually treat Mario games ) then why not give fans an option to purchase extra levels and content if that's all that it is....extra. There are at least 10 mario games I would pay good money for extra content to be added on, so whats wrong with that? Just like NSMB2, those games finished development as well, only many years ago instead of months.