So all of the content is on disc and they're making it sound like they're giving away free dlc?
Disgusting.
Tbh I think the answer is pretty simple. Nintendo doesn't have that many games coming out and they want this one to last so they held back content to release in different intervals to give the illusion that new content is consistently coming out, keeping players interested.Im not sure how it works, but perhaps the coding wasnt finished? Maybe thats part of the reason they staggered the updates.
They' rebalanced the grates on Urchin to favour the defenders too, and it looks like the chokepoint on Arowana was a lot longer.Man, a blast to the past, the stages have been tweaked quite a bit from last year E3. There used to be only 2 routes to the middle area in Urchin underpass instead of 2, and Saltspray Rig lower portion is unrecognizable.
It's Nintendo being Nintendo. Hand-holding and controlling. How would you feel if you paid for a bag of Oreo's but the grocery store only gave you a couple from the bag a week? No it's not as bad or anti-consumer as paying for on-disc content or DLC taken from complete games. It's still artificial and annoying though.
Just because its free doesn't make it exempt from criticism. Waiting for Nintendo to unlock game content for me is not a good experience compared to it being available from the start. That's it. From my point of view its poorly thought out and I'd prefer playing the content that's there right now.
I'd like to play the content that's on the disc instead waiting for the arbitrary unlock. Pretty reasonable right?
Here is an extreme scenario: The next Mario comes out and you can only play the first world. Every week the next world is unlocked by Nintendo's servers despite the data being on the disc. They rushed the game out so the last 2 worlds are downloadable for free, but that doesn't really matter because they'll be available months from now, as per the weekly schedule. It's free so why complain right? I am not saying this will happen, just an exaggeration so that you might see the problem, why someone can have criticism for locked on-disc content for a $60 game.
No, it's because their arrogant fanbase always does what Nintendo tells them to do and they like it.
Isnt all this extra content already on the disc (or in other words, been there since launch)? If so, i dont think we can blame the lack of content at launch on the developement cycle. Its more a business decision then, to give out smaller bits of the game, trying to keep the community alive for a longer period of time.And that's completly all right for you to feel that Way. It's just calling it Anti-Consumer that rubs me the wrong Way.
When i hear Anti-Consumer i think about shady practices to make the consumer pay horrendous amounts of Money for small stuff (like Vita Memory Cards i made a Thread about today). And what happens here in Splatoon can not even dream to be in the same ballpark, since what happens is drip-feeding content.
The only reason why people get so angry about that is because the Content at the start was so Barebones. Wich is expected from a Game with a short Development Cycle like Splatoon (The Game has been in Development for 2 years at best)
As for your Example: I would actually be thankful to the Grocery Store, since i would likely drown myself in Oreos eat them until my weight hits the Triple Digits (in kg) hahahha
Just because its free doesn't make it exempt from criticism. Waiting for Nintendo to unlock game content for me is not a good experience compared to it being available from the start. That's it. From my point of view its poorly thought out and I'd prefer playing the content that's there right now.
I'd like to play the content that's on the disc instead waiting for the arbitrary unlock. Pretty reasonable right?
Here is an extreme scenario: The next Mario comes out and you can only play the first world. Every week the next world is unlocked by Nintendo's servers despite the data being on the disc. They rushed the game out so the last 2 worlds are downloadable for free, but that doesn't really matter because they'll be available months from now, as per the weekly schedule. It's free so why complain right? I am not saying this will happen, just an exaggeration so that you might see the problem, why someone can have criticism for locked on-disc content for a $60 game.
Just because its free doesn't make it exempt from criticism. Waiting for Nintendo to unlock game content for me is not a good experience compared to it being available from the start. That's it. From my point of view its poorly thought out and I'd prefer playing the content that's there right now.
I'd like to play the content that's on the disc instead waiting for the arbitrary unlock. Pretty reasonable right?
Here is an extreme scenario: The next Mario comes out and you can only play the first world. Every week the next world is unlocked by Nintendo's servers despite the data being on the disc. They rushed the game out so the last 2 worlds are downloadable for free, but that doesn't really matter because they'll be available months from now, as per the weekly schedule. It's free so why complain right? I am not saying this will happen, just an exaggeration so that you might see the problem, why someone can have criticism for locked on-disc content for a $60 game.
No Octoling mode?
I thought it was known that they were increasing the longevity of the game's online by slowly rolling content out to keep people hooked. Why are people calling this shady all of a sudden? It's not like they're charging for any of this stuff.
Eh, it's still worth $60 to me. I'm a fan of the core gameplay. I just wish they went about this better for my benefit, other players, and even for Nintendo's benefit. I agree, releasing with a reduced price would have been acceptable.Then don't get the game at launch. It's not worth 60 dollars to you at that moment.
Why would it make a difference if the locked content was on the disc or not? How has this data mining revelation changed your opinion on the amount of content that the game has provided on launch?
Besides, I'd be more for the argument that the game should be reduced in price.
So I guess you folks think Animal Crossing is disgusting and anti-consumer?
You work with him in HHD...Tom Nook is undeniably anti-consumer.
Tom Nook is undeniably anti-consumer.
If all this shit was actually already available I'd probably pick the game up, damn.
Or pick it up now and wait until August to play, whatever floats your boat~So pick it up in a month and a half when it and more is.
Maybe not, but I still see it as a problem and makes for a greatly frustrating experience. Awesome gameplay and mechanics, but terrible feature set and structure.I don't think Splatoon is geared towards competitive shooter players, though. Else it would have launched with pre-made teams and voice chat.
You work with him in HHD...
Oh crap, they're going to make videos of everything now?
It looks hilarious.
Isnt all this extra content already on the disc (or in other words, been there since launch)? If so, i dont think we can blame the lack of content at launch on the developement cycle. Its more a business decision then, to give out smaller bits of the game, trying to keep the community alive for a longer period of time.
About Vita, i think it was said (or was it just speculated?) that the memory prices were priced like that to offset the price of the Vita itself. If that is the case, it might not have been that much difference in price if the Vita was priced higher and the memorycard were priced lower.
kind of a sketchy way to make people thing you are giving away free dlc.
This is an apples to oranges scenario because you're comparing a single player experience to a multiplayer one that is dependent on it's player base and the level of content that will change the surrounding meta game, as well as the way the collective base responds to the changes. Something that has it's rooting in the community's ability to be able to interact with one another in the context of the game can manage to earn itself a little leeway depending on the scenario that is proposed.
I realize what you're mentioning and what in fact most people are pointing out is a slippery slope exercise but Splatoon has yet to set a bad precedent with it's practice. The system is functional, it supports the general game and there's been no dishonesty in terms of how it's managed. Within the parameters of this particular game there are several, arguably justifiable reasons for why the rollout works. The same would not apply for a Mario platformer or some such.
I do get the general idea that it's not worth $60. For many people that probably is the case, and in that case it's better for them to just hold off. It's not like they're exactly getting suckered into this - almost all of the information about Splatoon's content schedule and content at current date is readily available.
There's a difference between a multiplayer game and a single player game. I don't need to rely on others to stay engaged with the game to fully enjoy a single player game.
Animal Crossings entire premise is the slow roll out. Difference is it works and justifies itself there. Applying these concepts to an online shooter hasn't worked, for me.Tom Nook is undeniably anti-consumer.
I agree. Charge full price, get full game.
It really merits a critical but respectful message to Iwata.
The single-player is a strange mix of Super Mario galaxy and a third person shooter. There isn't a lot to it but it basically it is a very extended tutorial. You'll learn enough of the basics, a lot of it is exclusive content and only 1/6 of it is fighting bots in recycled multiplayer maps. It also has a good final boss. Finally it also explains the lore and backstory of the game. It doesn't require any online at all so no, Nintendo can't stop you playing that.How is the single player? Or is single player mode only available when Nintendo feels like it?
(You could substitute this one for other posts in the thread.) Half this thread is clogged up by shitposts by people who don't give a shit about the game but rush to tell the world they think it sucks based on facts known about for months. Does it make them feel insecure to know that people are having fun with something so must attack it (or mock it becuase nintumb hurr hurr) in case it catches on and threatens their fun (like the Wii I can't call myself a gamer with that abomination existing). Or does somehow the content being complete but withheld bother them more? All forms of media have some projects held back for marketing and other strategic reasons.So wait, in the online portion of Splatoon, you can only play the maps that Nintendo lets you? And they change it every four hours?
And they're also telling me I can't use content in the game that I paid for until they're ready to let me? Yeah, that sounds like a really great game.
Double the Calie and Marie? I'm not sure if you're a genius or a monster. Staaaay Fresh...One change I'd like to see is to reduce the rotation timer to 2 hours instead of 4. Other than that I really like it how it is.
What's the confusion? The process was all explained perfectly well in the Splatoon Direct, long before release.
Isnt all this extra content already on the disc (or in other words, been there since launch)? If so, i dont think we can blame the lack of content at launch on the developement cycle. Its more a business decision then, to give out smaller bits of the game, trying to keep the community alive for a longer period of time.
About Vita, i think it was said (or was it just speculated?) that the memory prices were priced like that to offset the price of the Vita itself. If that is the case, it might not have been that much difference in price if the Vita was priced higher and the memorycard were priced lower.
Then the complaint should have been registered earlier.
It's a bad and anti-consumer practice.
Then the complaint should have been registered earlier.
It's a bad and anti-consumer practice. Did the Direct say all the content will be on the disc or download; you just won't be able to play it until we say so?
Music spoilers splatfestsSplatfests has its own stage opening, stage theme (only one) complete with last minute tune. The last minute tune is basically the normal one but Jpop Squid sisters. I'm guessing these might be the tracks missing in the sound test.
I believe they were. They even had it in the Direct.Jarmel brought up some good points as to why this is a bad practice/precedent. I see where you guys are coming from now now.
I think Nintendo should have been upfront with people on this.
I feel they used the extra time to balance-tweak the levels, as the ones in the single player, while having changes intended for the campaign, do have noticable design tweaks from the ones we have gotten.
congratz on derailing a hype thread. Jesus Christ. Some people actually play and enjoy this game, were aware of what their 60 dollar purchase meant, knew that all this stuff was on disc from the first update being automatically implemented.
100% can we agree that its not shady. It cannot be shady because it doesnt stem from corporate greed. You might disagree with Nintendo's handholding, denounce the game as a casual shooter ( as if most console shooters become even close to competitive) and what have you. But holy fucking hell, no one cares about your opinions. The vast majority of people who play this game enjoy it, and respond to this leak with excitement and not bitterness. And how the hell would you know if the handholding was even neceesary when you have not played Splatoon nor risen in the ranks. You have no clue if the learning curve warrants it or not.
Releasing more advanced maps later makes sense. Releasing tricky weapons after a meta has established also makes sense. A lot of people dont like the 4 hour 2 map rotation incluind me but thats irrelevant to the topic.