Support NeoGAF

[Linkstrikesback]

Guess you could read the salient point in that being that the game will be regular price on eShop, so digital puchase discounts would have to come through a store. Yeah, Best Buy wouldn't be an option, though. :lol

I'm not sure what the situation is in america (Do multiple shops sell download codes?) but it's not really a huge thing in the UK/EU.

I know here, GAME have a monopoly on it for some reason and they're not much better than the eshop.

 

[The_Lump]

Bingo.

There's nothing wrong with DLC-- but when you announce it and sell it on Day One, it raises suspicion. If the game is as content-rich as people are claiming, then allowing the game to sell on its own merits before rolling out additional content makes more sense to me.

But they're being perfectly clear about what content is in the main game and what is in the dlc from the start. That's way better than selling the game and then announcing dlc shortly afterwards, or not being clear about what content is in the main game/dlc. That's when people start getting suspicious

 

[Freezie KO]

But they're being perfectly clear about what content is in the main game and what is in the dlc from the start. That's way better than selling the game and then announcing dlc shortly afterwards, or not being clear about what content is in the main game/dlc. That's when people start getting suspicious

"They're not as bad, guys."

 

[rekameohs]

This honestly seems no different than New Super Luigi U (doubling the size of the game at a discount price), which I thought was generally thought of as a great bit of DLC. I certainly welcome the practice.

 

[InsaneZero]

Bingo.

There's nothing wrong with DLC-- but when you announce it and sell it on Day One, it raises suspicion. If the game is as content-rich as people are claiming, then allowing the game to sell on its own merits before rolling out additional content makes more sense to me.

I interpret it as a move that damages my trust in Nintendo-- much as it's done to other publishers and developers that have followed similar strategies. To each their own, however; if other consumers are fine with this approach, all power to them. I'm not, so I'll be avoiding this game.

So uh, why can't you just buy the game and enjoy it on its own merits without this DLC then?

 

[charlequin]

If anything this is the Season Pass done right. Nintendo is telling you upfront what you're getting with the season pass.

Yes, the irony of the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in this thread is that this is an extremely reasonable offering: a clearly complete and feature-filled game, sold at a discount price to start, which is significantly expanded via DLC -- DLC packs whose content is clearly identified, offered at a discount in bulk, with an upfront announcement so people can prepare before buying the game. Nintendo is taking an extremely scrupulous approach to this and people are freaking out because it reminds them that time is still flowing outside the hermetically sealed bubble.

They should of atleast waited a month to "unviel" it

So after Nintendo took the now-industry-standard step of having a team develop extra content after they complete a main game, but before it actually ships to consumers, you would rather that they arbitrarily delay that content in order to create the false perception that it was built later?

 

[Kriken]

I like the idea for NA, charge $30 instead of $40 for the game and offer the DLC for $15 to make the 'full experience' $45. The lower price tag raises incentive to buy the game, and the cost of the DLC seems to be worth it if the courses match up with what's in the main game in terms of quality. The only gripe I have is day 1 DLC, it will always bug me when I'm told that a day 1 purchase is not the full thing. Might pick this up later down the line

 

[donny2112]

I'm not sure what the situation is in america (Do multiple shops sell download codes?) but it's not really a huge thing in the UK/EU.

I know here, GAME have a monopoly on it for some reason and they're not much better than the eshop.

GameStop and Best Buy are the only ones I know of selling DL codes for retail games. Mario Golf is the only one I've seen at a discount and only at Best Buy, though.

 

[dreamfall]

I was griping about needing Rosalina! I'm happy she's in there! Though I do wish the Season Pass was priced at $9.99.

Still, this game is going to be wonderful. I'm not sure how I feel about Season Passes, though the content here feels substantial. I just hope they don't start charging a lot for extra characters in their next endeavors!

 

[Ilúvatar]

Would anyone care to explain to me what a Nabbit is or is it better that I don't know?

 

[EmCeeGramr]

"They're not as bad, guys."

What is bad about this?

 

[r3n4ud]

So uh, why can't you just buy the game and enjoy it on its own merits without this DLC then?

Because the complainers won't be getting the 'complete' experience.

 

[Clownboat]

I don't like the way the industry has changed since the introduction of DLC. And I'm particularly disappointed to see DLC come to one of my favorite game series (Mario Golf). So I won't be participating.

But I'm not going to begrudge people for supporting a business model they feel they benefit from. If people are clamoring to buy "content" for their games, why would I want to stop them? If anything, I'm jealous. The current generation must feel like the Golden Age of gaming to people who enjoy DLC.

People need to lighten up.

 

[rekameohs]

"They're not as bad, guys."

Tell me what's bad about this and I'll reply,

Edit: hah, beaten

 

[Salsa]

I like the idea for NA, charge $30 instead of $40 for the game and offer the DLC for $15 to make the 'full experience' $45. The lower price tag raises incentive to buy the game, and the cost of the DLC seems to be worth it if the courses match up with what's in the main game in terms of quality.

this is where I'm at

assuming the game is $30 on the eshop at release

releasing it at $35 on their own digital store when all stores have it at $30 would make me flip my shit

 

[The_Lump]

"They're not as bad, guys."

What? I'm replying to a specific post. I'm not involved in whatever argument you're having.

But ok, I'll take the bait. I don't like day 1 dlc on principle. But if it's going to exist, I'd rather know exactly what is included in the game/dlc so I can decide if I'm being ripped off. What's wrong with that exactly?

Edit: beaten

 

[Petrae]

But they're being perfectly clear about what content is in the main game and what is in the dlc from the start. That's way better than selling the game and then announcing dlc shortly afterwards, or not being clear about what content is in the main game/dlc. That's when people start getting suspicious

My suspicion, as a consumer, revolves around this question: If you have DLC on Day One, why is it not in the game? It looks suspicious to me that such content can be ready on Day One, and yet here's the company telling us that they want more money for it.

If I don't buy the Day One DLC, am I still getting a "complete" experience? Arguments can be made both ways. Why not just price the game at $40 with the Day One DLC and let us know when the future content will be ready?

It's nice that Nintendo is telling people what the content is in advance, but the Day One stuff-- as it does with every other game, publisher, and developer that adopts this practice-- sets off red flags for me.

 

[Coffee Dog]

"They're not as bad, guys."

You know freezie, if you keep saying stuff like this you'll keep getting called out. What, exactly, is bad about this?

 

[rekameohs]

this is where I'm at

assuming the game is $30 on the eshop at release

releasing it at $35 on their own digital store when all stores have it at $30 would make me flip my shit

Wait, is Best Buy selling download codes for $30 or is it just the cartridge? Because I would much rather have the game digitally.

 

[Salsa]

the funny part is how no one would be mad about this if the game was $40, like you'd expect, and the season pass was $5

 

[donny2112]

So after Nintendo took the now-industry-standard step of having a team develop extra content after they complete a main game, but before it actually ships to consumers, you would rather that they arbitrarily delay that content in order to create the false perception that it was built later?

The likely scenario is that the game was finished many months ago, and they've been working on the DLC since, yes. However the idea of "Day 1 DLC" has a bad connotation of being content held out of the main game but just locked on the disc to make more money, even if that's not the situation here. The likely scenario is fine, but Day 1 DLC has a reputation. :/

 

[Zafir]

Yes, the irony of the gnashing of teeth and rending of garments in this thread is that this is an extremely reasonable offering: a clearly complete and feature-filled game, sold at a discount price to start, which is significantly expanded via DLC -- DLC packs whose content is clearly identified, offered at a discount in bulk, with an upfront announcement so people can prepare before buying the game. Nintendo is taking an extremely scrupulous approach to this and people are freaking out because it reminds them that time is still flowing outside the hermetically sealed bubble.

Yeah but it depends where you're from. Only the US is getting a good deal. Europe is getting the same old deal which everyone already moans about.

 

[Salsa]

Wait, is Best Buy selling download codes for $30 or is it just the cartridge? Because I would much rather have the game digitally.

they also sell a digital code for $30. I instead without knowing bought eshop cards to get this game from Nintendo directly so yeah they better not screw me over

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

Day 1 DLC. Season Pass. From Nintendo.

They are finally becoming the modern company we want them to be!

 

[Petrae]

the funny part is how no one would be mad about this if the game was $40, like you'd expect, and the season pass was $5

I'd still be questioning it. It's not the price I have issues with, but rather the practice of Day One DLC and the "Season Pass" additional revenue per user vehicle.

 

[donny2112]

Would anyone care to explain to me what a Nabbit is or is it better that I don't know?

From New Super Mario Bros. U. He would steal an item in a stage you already completed, and you had to go back to the stage and race to catch him as quick as possible before the flagpole. He then returned as a playable character in New Super Luigi U as an invincible character who couldn't use items to race through the levels with.

 

[Salsa]

I think the legitimate problem here for me is them acquiring these sort of practices before first making their online services competent in the first place.

you know, same as always with the no account thing. I'm paying for a season pass but if my 3DS breaks or gets stolen then woops bad luck. It's a tougher sale.

 

[rekameohs]

the funny part is how no one would be mad about this if the game was $40, like you'd expect, and the season pass was $5

Yup, much like Rusty's Real Deal Baseball, Nintendo is using IAP to let people buy as much content as they please throughout the game, at a discount price, and clearly defining what they are paying for, even with free demos included. It's easily the best DLC practice I've seen recently and I think Nintendo's really on the right track, especially with Steel Diver: SW, Rusty, and Mario Golf releasing in such quick succession.

Oh wait no it sucks because reasons

they also sell a digital code for $30. I instead without knowing bought eshop cards to get this game from Nintendo directly so yeah they better not screw me over

Thanks. I may order from BB then if the MSRP is $35

 

[KNT-Zero]

Oh my god, Golden Mario feels like such a cheap character. It´s basically a color change of the render of Metal Mario for MK7. Cheeeeeeap!

 

[Salsa]

gold mario sucks cause it makes superior metal mario look like cheap silver mario

 

[PreyingShark]

This hole actually looks really fun. Looks like a good challenge. Will buy.

they also sell a digital code for $30. I instead without knowing bought eshop cards to get this game from Nintendo directly so yeah they better not screw me over

The official MSRP is $29.99, yo.

 

[Wensih]

No, it's not....

"Modern Standards" are a way to milk extra cash and not a benefit for the gamer...

I am sad to see Nintendo joining the bandwagon on this one.

The "full game" is 5 dollars more than a regular retail game which are $40. I'm not sure how that's milking extra cash.

 

[JazzmanZ]

gold mario sucks cause it makes superior metal mario look like cheap silver mario

everyone knows Silver is cooler then Gold, just ask people who picked up the pokemon gen 2 games!

 

[InsaneZero]

My suspicion, as a consumer, revolves around this question: If you have DLC on Day One, why is it not in the game? It looks suspicious to me that such content can be ready on Day One, and yet here's the company telling us that they want more money for it.

If I don't buy the Day One DLC, am I still getting a "complete" experience? Arguments can be made both ways. Why not just price the game at $40 with the Day One DLC and let us know when the future content will be ready?

It's nice that Nintendo is telling people what the content is in advance, but the Day One stuff-- as it does with every other game, publisher, and developer that adopts this practice-- sets off red flags for me.

Code freeze usually occurs long before the actual release date to prepare for retail distribution. This means that development has to commit to a certain number of features and content to ensure that they meet their committed date. Anything extra to be added in is introduced as DLC. Sometimes, you get enough content ready in time for it be distributed at the same time as the original release, which is why you have Day 1 DLC.

DLC doesn't require any retail preparation since it's distributed digitally, so there is a much shorter turnaround time between code freeze and general availability.

 

[mullet2000]

Nothing wrong about how they're handling this DLC/Season Pass, but I'll admit the prices made me wince a little bit. $6 per pack is a lot, at least my initial reaction was "that's a lot."

$4-5 with a $12 season pass or whatever is about where I would place it, if I were to value them based on what we know now.

 

[Salsa]

everyone knows Silver is cooler then Gold, just ask people who picked up the pokemon gen 2 games!

true, true. the Olympics got it wrong

 

[EmCeeGramr]

Selling DLC for Fire Emblem - fine
Selling DLC for Art Academy - fine
Selling DLC for NSMB2 - fine
Selling DLC for NSMBU (and in a retail form, too!) - fine
Selling DLC for Pikmin 3 -fine
Selling a pseudo-F2P game where you have to buy the whole thing to level up and can't even individually buy historical subs until you do - fine
Selling DLC for Wii Sports where you can either buy individual sports forever or rent a single sport for 24 hours - fine
Selling DLC for a F2P game where you have to haggle with a dog - eh, fine
Selling DLC for Mario Golf and announcing it beforehand with a discount bundle - NINTENDO HAS BEEN CORRUPTED BEYOND REDEMPTION

 

[The_Lump]

My suspicion, as a consumer, revolves around this question: If you have DLC on Day One, why is it not in the game? It looks suspicious to me that such content can be ready on Day One, and yet here's the company telling us that they want more money for it.

If I don't buy the Day One DLC, am I still getting a "complete" experience? Arguments can be made both ways. Why not just price the game at $40 with the Day One DLC and let us know when the future content will be ready?

Well that's all well and good if you're assuming the extra content isn't really extra and was developed whilst using whatever time/resources were laid out for the main game. But who's to say it was? How can we know that? That's where the transparency is key. If I can clearly see the main game has as much content as I'd expect for whatever they are charging for it, then I trust myself as a consumer to decide if it's worthwhile. In this case (from what I've read so far) the dlc content seems like a) it's additional to a fully featured game and b) could conceivably have required more resources to develop than those budgeted for the main game. Of course that's down to personal perception but again, that's why transparency is key.

And none of that is taking into consideration a discount on the whole shebang.

 

[muteant]

I do recall Nintendo saying that they wouldn't create DLC until the game proper was done. Oh well, at least the game is budgeted appropriately. I think some people so burned (rightfully so) by words like "season pass" and "day 1 DLC" that they're not taking a step back and seeing that this is actually a reasonable structure. I just wish they wouldn't prey on those with a fondness for characters like Rosalina. Character DLC is the only thing I somewhat object to in this arrangement.

 

[Anustart]

I'll never understand the outrage over day 1 dlc. What difference does it make when the content was made?

 

[The_Darkest_Red]

Selling DLC for Fire Emblem - fine
Selling DLC for Art Academy - fine
Selling DLC for NSMB2 - fine
Selling DLC for NSMBU (and in a retail form, too!) - fine
Selling DLC for Pikmin 3 -fine
Selling a pseudo-F2P game where you have to buy the whole thing to level up and can't even individually buy historical subs until you do - fine
Selling DLC for Wii Sports where you can either buy individual sports forever or rent a single sport for 24 hours - fine
Selling DLC for a F2P game where you have to haggle with a dog - eh, fine
Selling DLC for Mario Golf and announcing it beforehand with a discount bundle - NINTENDO HAS BEEN CORRUPTED BEYOND REDEMPTION

Season pass has such a negative connotation, that's the issue. I have to admit, I had a negative initial reaction. Now that I've actually taken the time to look at what's being offered I'm thinking I'll be buying the season pass along with the game at launch.

 

[Salsa]

Selling DLC for Fire Emblem - fine
Selling DLC for Art Academy - fine
Selling DLC for NSMB2 - fine
Selling DLC for NSMBU (and in a retail form, too!) - fine
Selling DLC for Pikmin 3 -fine
Selling a pseudo-F2P game where you have to buy the whole thing to level up and can't even individually buy historical subs until you do - fine
Selling DLC for Wii Sports where you can either buy individual sports forever or rent a single sport for 24 hours - fine
Selling DLC for a F2P game where you have to haggle with a dog - eh, fine
Selling DLC for Mario Golf and announcing it beforehand with a discount bundle - NINTENDO HAS BEEN CORRUPTED BEYOND REDEMPTION

this is what happens when they sell DLC people actually care about

everyone looks away at what some would consider weird DLC practices when its something they don't really want

the whole DLC debacle is filled with double standards, it's interesting to see

 

[Berordn]

Oh my god, Golden Mario feels like such a cheap character. It´s basically a color change of the render of Metal Mario for MK7. Cheeeeeeap!

It's kinda funny how it's the only new render in the bunch and it's 90% a recolor.

 

[donny2112]

The official MSRP is $29.99, yo.

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CFR7UC2/?tag=neogaf0e-20 <- Shows MSRP at $40
http://www.gamestop.com/nintendo-3ds/games/mario-golf-world-tour/113873 <- Shows price at $35 ($30 download here, too!)
http://www.target.com/p/mario-golf-world-tour-nintendo-3ds/-/A-14619636 <- Shows $30
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Mario-Golf-World-Tour-Nintendo-3DS/24622523 <- Shows $30
http://www.kmart.com/nintendo-mario-golf-world-tour-for-nintendo-3ds/p-018W006382319001P <- Shows $30
http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=33790246 <- Shows $30

Could be $30, but could be higher, too. We'll see. A pre-announced DLC gives more reason for MSRP to be $30, but we'll see if that reasoning holds through release date.

 

[fredrancour]

My suspicion, as a consumer, revolves around this question: If you have DLC on Day One, why is it not in the game? It looks suspicious to me that such content can be ready on Day One, and yet here's the company telling us that they want more money for it.

If I don't buy the Day One DLC, am I still getting a "complete" experience? Arguments can be made both ways. Why not just price the game at $40 with the Day One DLC and let us know when the future content will be ready?

It's nice that Nintendo is telling people what the content is in advance, but the Day One stuff-- as it does with every other game, publisher, and developer that adopts this practice-- sets off red flags for me.

A price discrimination, possibly. Modern game companies get criticized for having inflexible retail price points. This could be an experiment to see what difference a lower MSRP makes, while still offering more stuff for big fans to spend their money on.

Releasing a game and its dlc in rapid succession could maybe lead to better dlc sales: If no dlc development happened until after launch, people may have moved on by the time the stuff comes out.

If the whole "this game has the most courses of any mario golf ever" factoid is actually true then I just can't see this as content held back from the main game, and therefore don't feel annoyed by it. Both points I made are admittedly speculation, but at the very least, I don't feel the "strike while the iron is hot" approach to dlc is inherently bs when the boxed product and dlc package both have enough content for their price tag

 

[Madao]

Selling DLC for Fire Emblem - fine
Selling DLC for Art Academy - fine
Selling DLC for NSMB2 - fine
Selling DLC for NSMBU (and in a retail form, too!) - fine
Selling DLC for Pikmin 3 -fine
Selling a pseudo-F2P game where you have to buy the whole thing to level up and can't even individually buy historical subs until you do - fine
Selling DLC for Wii Sports where you can either buy individual sports forever or rent a single sport for 24 hours - fine
Selling DLC for a F2P game where you have to haggle with a dog - eh, fine
Selling DLC for Mario Golf and announcing it beforehand with a discount bundle - NINTENDO HAS BEEN CORRUPTED BEYOND REDEMPTION

out of those, the only one i actually caved in and paid for was NSMBU.

Nintendo is learning the bad habits first. that sucks. now it makes sense why the game is $30.

 

[Salsa]

http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00CFR7UC2/?tag=neogaf0e-20 <- Shows MSRP at $40
http://www.gamestop.com/nintendo-3ds/games/mario-golf-world-tour/113873 <- Shows price at $35 ($30 download here, too!)
http://www.target.com/p/mario-golf-world-tour-nintendo-3ds/-/A-14619636 <- Shows $30
http://www.walmart.com/ip/Mario-Golf-World-Tour-Nintendo-3DS/24622523 <- Shows $30
http://www.kmart.com/nintendo-mario-golf-world-tour-for-nintendo-3ds/p-018W006382319001P <- Shows $30
http://www.toysrus.com/product/index.jsp?productId=33790246 <- Shows $30

Could be $30, but could be higher, too. We'll see. A pre-announced DLC gives more reason for MSRP to be $30, but we'll see if that reasoning holds through release date.

this is more infuriating than any DLC stuff. can already picture the meltdowns (started by me) if the game is more than $30 on the eshop and all the $30 other store pre-orders go up after its out, screwing over everyone waiting to buy directly from Nintendo. you know, the opposite of what they should do

 

[RM8]

In my mind NSLU is not DLC, it's one of the best Mario platformers I've played. I haven't even played the actual NSMBU game, lol.

 

[Neuromancer]

This would never have happened if we were still playing games on cartridges and the Internet was never made widely available to the general public.

 

[Shaanyboi]

I just lost a lot of respect for Nintendo.

This is the type of thing that makes me avoid buying from other major devs and manufactures.

No day 1 DLC is never worth it or reasonable in any circumstance as far as I'm concerned. I think gaming as whole just died a large amount for me...

No longer a leader. Just another follower. *sigh* Nintendo has finally joined the path of corruption.

holy shit dude lol

There is nothing inherently wrong with DLC, or a season pass. Has it been used poorly? Abso-fucking-lutely. But Nintendo has done a surprisingly good job of providing a good value for its downloadable content that doesn't feel like an insult to the consumer. And in this case, they are providing enough options, content, and information that this isn't and shouldn't feel like an overtly skeezy move on their behalf.

Granted, the Day 1 thing is an uncomfortable thing, but (in North America atleast) the game is being launched at a reduced price anyways, and you are getting a ton of content for what would be $5 more than the regular retail price you were prepared to pay this time last week.