Nintendo Keen To Join Lucrative DLC Biz

[lord.jeff]

The easy way to have dlc with Nintendo's core franchises would be to add more worlds. The next Donkey Kong Country or Super Mario World could just have more worlds added on after release. Simple enough.

So you really want to give Nintendo more money for a full game? I can see it all now: "Oh silly us, we forgot to mention that there are a few extra planets in Super Mario Galaxy 2. We couldn't finish them before release but we'll sell them to you now for only 1000 Wii points." You're $50 game just became $60 and beyond.

Why would anyone be in favor of this after seeing how DLC has been abused thus far.

No no no. Not what I mean. Actually wait, yes that is what I mean except without your terribly negative spin. It's not like they'd be holding back content for DLC. I'm talking about something along the lines of the recent Fallout DLC - substantial editions, with possibly their own storyline.

What convinces you that they wouldn't hold back content? It's been going on for years on the other two consoles.

And before that PC games had it and we liked it. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, most PC RPGs had something very similar to DLC before all this hate for it started, we called them expansion packs and we looked forward to them, in fact I don't recall anyone ever hating them but now that it's done by download it's somehow evil.

I look forward to this, especially if it can get me classic pokemon, I want my Cubone and Rapidash back.

 

[Epona]

The easy way to have dlc with Nintendo's core franchises would be to add more worlds. The next Donkey Kong Country or Super Mario World could just have more worlds added on after release. Simple enough.

So you really want to give Nintendo more money for a full game? I can see it all now: "Oh silly us, we forgot to mention that there are a few extra planets in Super Mario Galaxy 2. We couldn't finish them before release but we'll sell them to you now for only 1000 Wii points." You're $50 game just became $60 and beyond.

Why would anyone be in favor of this after seeing how DLC has been abused thus far.

No no no. Not what I mean. Actually wait, yes that is what I mean except without your terribly negative spin. It's not like they'd be holding back content for DLC. I'm talking about something along the lines of the recent Fallout DLC - substantial editions, with possibly their own storyline.

What convinces you that they wouldn't hold back content? It's been going on for years on the other two consoles.

And way before then PC games had it and we didn't and we liked it. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, most PC RPGs had something very similar to DLC before all this hate for it started, we called them expansion packs and we looked forward to them, in fact I don't recall anyone ever hating them but now that it's done by download it's somehow evil.

I look forward to this, especially if it can get me classic pokemon, I want my Cubone and Rapidash back.

Expansion packs are not DLC. DLC is more akin to mods on the free side and Sims Stuff Packs on the paying side.

Most games, Sims aside, got one or two expansion packs. DLC is alot more frequent and has alot less content.

Anyway, you totally blew off my question. What makes you think that they (Nintendo or third parties) won't withhold content to sell to you later? Third parties will likely do exactly what they do on other consoles, some may even promise "2 years of DLC" before the game even fuckin' launches!

 

[Marohen]

The easy way to have dlc with Nintendo's core franchises would be to add more worlds. The next Donkey Kong Country or Super Mario World could just have more worlds added on after release. Simple enough.

So you really want to give Nintendo more money for a full game? I can see it all now: "Oh silly us, we forgot to mention that there are a few extra planets in Super Mario Galaxy 2. We couldn't finish them before release but we'll sell them to you now for only 1000 Wii points." You're $50 game just became $60 and beyond.

Why would anyone be in favor of this after seeing how DLC has been abused thus far.

No no no. Not what I mean. Actually wait, yes that is what I mean except without your terribly negative spin. It's not like they'd be holding back content for DLC. I'm talking about something along the lines of the recent Fallout DLC - substantial editions, with possibly their own storyline.

What convinces you that they wouldn't hold back content? It's been going on for years on the other two consoles.

And way before then PC games had it and we didn't and we liked it. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, most PC RPGs had something very similar to DLC before all this hate for it started, we called them expansion packs and we looked forward to them, in fact I don't recall anyone ever hating them but now that it's done by download it's somehow evil.

I look forward to this, especially if it can get me classic pokemon, I want my Cubone and Rapidash back.

Expansion packs are not DLC. DLC is more akin to mods on the free side and Sims Stuff Packs on the paying side.

Most games, Sims aside, got one or two expansion packs. DLC is alot more frequent and has alot less content.

Anyway, you totally blew off my question. What makes you think that they (Nintendo or third parties) won't withhold content to sell to you later? Third parties will likely do exactly what they do on other consoles, some may even promise "2 years of DLC" before the game even fuckin' launches!

Jumping in from the sidelines here, but can you cite examples of your claim--I'm not against you here, I just think that it'll help reinforce your argument.

 

[Epona]

The easy way to have dlc with Nintendo's core franchises would be to add more worlds. The next Donkey Kong Country or Super Mario World could just have more worlds added on after release. Simple enough.

So you really want to give Nintendo more money for a full game? I can see it all now: "Oh silly us, we forgot to mention that there are a few extra planets in Super Mario Galaxy 2. We couldn't finish them before release but we'll sell them to you now for only 1000 Wii points." You're $50 game just became $60 and beyond.

Why would anyone be in favor of this after seeing how DLC has been abused thus far.

No no no. Not what I mean. Actually wait, yes that is what I mean except without your terribly negative spin. It's not like they'd be holding back content for DLC. I'm talking about something along the lines of the recent Fallout DLC - substantial editions, with possibly their own storyline.

What convinces you that they wouldn't hold back content? It's been going on for years on the other two consoles.

And way before then PC games had it and we didn't and we liked it. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, most PC RPGs had something very similar to DLC before all this hate for it started, we called them expansion packs and we looked forward to them, in fact I don't recall anyone ever hating them but now that it's done by download it's somehow evil.

I look forward to this, especially if it can get me classic pokemon, I want my Cubone and Rapidash back.

Expansion packs are not DLC. DLC is more akin to mods on the free side and Sims Stuff Packs on the paying side.

Most games, Sims aside, got one or two expansion packs. DLC is alot more frequent and has alot less content.

Anyway, you totally blew off my question. What makes you think that they (Nintendo or third parties) won't withhold content to sell to you later? Third parties will likely do exactly what they do on other consoles, some may even promise "2 years of DLC" before the game even fuckin' launches!

Jumping in from the sidelines here, but can you cite examples of your claim--I'm not against you here, I just think that it'll help reinforce your argument.

You mean the "2 years of DLC planned"?

Sure: http://www.destructoid.com/dragon-age-origins-dlc-planned-for-the-next-two-years-151849.phtml

That's just the first link I clicked on but google "Two years of DLC" and choose your source.

Oh and another difference between expansion packs and DLC, when have expansion packs launched on the same day as the game? There are no Day 1 expansion packs.

 

[lord.jeff]

Snip

And way before then PC games had it and we didn't and we liked it. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, most PC RPGs had something very similar to DLC before all this hate for it started, we called them expansion packs and we looked forward to them, in fact I don't recall anyone ever hating them but now that it's done by download it's somehow evil.

I look forward to this, especially if it can get me classic pokemon, I want my Cubone and Rapidash back.

Expansion packs are not DLC. DLC is more akin to mods on the free side and Sims Stuff Packs on the paying side.

Most games, Sims aside, got one or two expansion packs. DLC is alot more frequent and has alot less content.

Anyway, you totally blew off my question. What makes you think that they (Nintendo or third parties) won't withhold content to sell to you later? Third parties will likely do exactly what they do on other consoles, some may even promise "2 years of DLC" before the game even fuckin' launches!

I've never seen a company hold back content that's part of the main story, it's always been extra armor or side stories, and Elder scrolls did plan for it's expansion packs, the shrines for the Knights of Nine quest were viewable before the expansion pack you just couldn't do anything with them. Until a game asks me to pay money to see the final cut scene, the DLC is extra content and optional to buy.

 

[Marohen]

The easy way to have dlc with Nintendo's core franchises would be to add more worlds. The next Donkey Kong Country or Super Mario World could just have more worlds added on after release. Simple enough.

So you really want to give Nintendo more money for a full game? I can see it all now: "Oh silly us, we forgot to mention that there are a few extra planets in Super Mario Galaxy 2. We couldn't finish them before release but we'll sell them to you now for only 1000 Wii points." You're $50 game just became $60 and beyond.

Why would anyone be in favor of this after seeing how DLC has been abused thus far.

No no no. Not what I mean. Actually wait, yes that is what I mean except without your terribly negative spin. It's not like they'd be holding back content for DLC. I'm talking about something along the lines of the recent Fallout DLC - substantial editions, with possibly their own storyline.

What convinces you that they wouldn't hold back content? It's been going on for years on the other two consoles.

And way before then PC games had it and we didn't and we liked it. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, most PC RPGs had something very similar to DLC before all this hate for it started, we called them expansion packs and we looked forward to them, in fact I don't recall anyone ever hating them but now that it's done by download it's somehow evil.

I look forward to this, especially if it can get me classic pokemon, I want my Cubone and Rapidash back.

Expansion packs are not DLC. DLC is more akin to mods on the free side and Sims Stuff Packs on the paying side.

Most games, Sims aside, got one or two expansion packs. DLC is alot more frequent and has alot less content.

Anyway, you totally blew off my question. What makes you think that they (Nintendo or third parties) won't withhold content to sell to you later? Third parties will likely do exactly what they do on other consoles, some may even promise "2 years of DLC" before the game even fuckin' launches!

Jumping in from the sidelines here, but can you cite examples of your claim--I'm not against you here, I just think that it'll help reinforce your argument.

You mean the "2 years of DLC planned"?

Sure: http://www.destructoid.com/dragon-age-origins-dlc-planned-for-the-next-two-years-151849.phtml

That's just the first link I clicked on but google "Two years of DLC" and choose your source.

Oh and another difference between expansion packs and DLC, when have expansion packs launched on the same day as the game? There are no Day 1 expansion packs.

Thank you for obliging. I'm not sure the notion of planned DLC is inherently a problem, since a lot of DA:O's DLC isn't central to the main storyline, they're novelty side-quests that expand the depth of game's environment where you're free to invest in as much as you please. Additionally, DA:O did come with a complete pack at the tail end of it, obtuse yes but I don't really think it's a good example of non-conducive use of the payment method.

Day-one DLC is a commonly regarded problem, and I make no claim that DLC can't be done poorly, but that's not necessarily a problem with DLC itself.

Honestly, though, Nintendo has to start providing games that I want to be interested in for me to care whether they botch DLC or not.

 

[Epona]

Snip

And way before then PC games had it and we didn't and we liked it. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, most PC RPGs had something very similar to DLC before all this hate for it started, we called them expansion packs and we looked forward to them, in fact I don't recall anyone ever hating them but now that it's done by download it's somehow evil.

I look forward to this, especially if it can get me classic pokemon, I want my Cubone and Rapidash back.

Expansion packs are not DLC. DLC is more akin to mods on the free side and Sims Stuff Packs on the paying side.

Most games, Sims aside, got one or two expansion packs. DLC is alot more frequent and has alot less content.

Anyway, you totally blew off my question. What makes you think that they (Nintendo or third parties) won't withhold content to sell to you later? Third parties will likely do exactly what they do on other consoles, some may even promise "2 years of DLC" before the game even fuckin' launches!

I've never seen a company hold back content that's part of the main story, it's always been extra armor or side stories, and Elder scrolls did plan for it's expansion packs, the shrines for the Knights of Nine quest were viewable before the expansion pack you just couldn't do anything with them. Until a game asks me to pay money to see the final cut scene, the DLC is extra content and optional to buy.

Did Bethesda say Knights of the Nine was planned before the game released? You know all those Ayleid ruins? What if they made an expansion involving those? Would it mean that they planned it from the beginning? If they did announce Knights of the Nine as being planned before the game released then that's bad and I wouldn't approve of that either, did they?

Oh I see, so it's ok to have Day 1 DLC as long as it's not part of the main story? What a low standard.

 

[Epona]

The easy way to have dlc with Nintendo's core franchises would be to add more worlds. The next Donkey Kong Country or Super Mario World could just have more worlds added on after release. Simple enough.

So you really want to give Nintendo more money for a full game? I can see it all now: "Oh silly us, we forgot to mention that there are a few extra planets in Super Mario Galaxy 2. We couldn't finish them before release but we'll sell them to you now for only 1000 Wii points." You're $50 game just became $60 and beyond.

Why would anyone be in favor of this after seeing how DLC has been abused thus far.

No no no. Not what I mean. Actually wait, yes that is what I mean except without your terribly negative spin. It's not like they'd be holding back content for DLC. I'm talking about something along the lines of the recent Fallout DLC - substantial editions, with possibly their own storyline.

What convinces you that they wouldn't hold back content? It's been going on for years on the other two consoles.

And way before then PC games had it and we didn't and we liked it. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, most PC RPGs had something very similar to DLC before all this hate for it started, we called them expansion packs and we looked forward to them, in fact I don't recall anyone ever hating them but now that it's done by download it's somehow evil.

I look forward to this, especially if it can get me classic pokemon, I want my Cubone and Rapidash back.

Expansion packs are not DLC. DLC is more akin to mods on the free side and Sims Stuff Packs on the paying side.

Most games, Sims aside, got one or two expansion packs. DLC is alot more frequent and has alot less content.

Anyway, you totally blew off my question. What makes you think that they (Nintendo or third parties) won't withhold content to sell to you later? Third parties will likely do exactly what they do on other consoles, some may even promise "2 years of DLC" before the game even fuckin' launches!

Jumping in from the sidelines here, but can you cite examples of your claim--I'm not against you here, I just think that it'll help reinforce your argument.

You mean the "2 years of DLC planned"?

Sure: http://www.destructoid.com/dragon-age-origins-dlc-planned-for-the-next-two-years-151849.phtml

That's just the first link I clicked on but google "Two years of DLC" and choose your source.

Oh and another difference between expansion packs and DLC, when have expansion packs launched on the same day as the game? There are no Day 1 expansion packs.

Thank you for obliging. I'm not sure the notion of planned DLC is inherently a problem, since a lot of DA:O's DLC isn't central to the main storyline, they're novelty side-quests that expand the depth of game's environment where you're free to invest in as much as you please. Additionally, DA:O did come with a complete pack at the tail end of it, obtuse yes but I don't really think it's a good example of non-conducive use of the payment method.

Day-one DLC is a commonly regarded problem, and I make no claim that DLC can't be done poorly, but that's not necessarily a problem with DLC itself.

Honestly, though, Nintendo has to start providing games that I want to be interested in for me to care whether they botch DLC or not.

So you too think Day 1 DLC is ok if it isn't part of the main story?

That they made a Ultimate edition for DAO doesn't help anyone who already bought the game and the DLC at full price. That doesn't even belong in this debate because those who bought the ultimate edition didn't buy the DLC at full price (unless they bought it twice).

Anyway, I don't care, you guys want to justify these money grabs? Go ahead, there isn't anything new for me to say. Enjoy your Epona Armor...LOL

 

[theultimateend]

DLC Pokemon?

I'm game. Getting older generation legendaries in new games is a pain in the ass.

dude if they offered increased spawns of previous gens for like 5 bucks a generation or something.

I'd buy that shit up.

Maybe 9.99?

Just like 10 bucks gets you gen 4, another 10 for gen 3. I could finally have a complete pokemon experience on one cartridge.

 

[Xman490]

I'd pay $1 or 2 for a monthly galaxy in Super Mario Galaxy 3 or 4. I'd also pay for an extra Zelda dungeon every once in a while. I really feel sorry for Galaxy and Twilight Princess; they play so well, but I've already played them dozens of hours.

 

[Sovereignty]

And now the Nintendo fans will suffer through DLC.

Hope you enjoy all your huge content games being split up into chunks and resold to you.


Seriously, it's been a long time since DLC has been anything but a cash in imo.

 

[lord.jeff]

Snip

And way before then PC games had it and we didn't and we liked it. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, most PC RPGs had something very similar to DLC before all this hate for it started, we called them expansion packs and we looked forward to them, in fact I don't recall anyone ever hating them but now that it's done by download it's somehow evil.

I look forward to this, especially if it can get me classic pokemon, I want my Cubone and Rapidash back.

Expansion packs are not DLC. DLC is more akin to mods on the free side and Sims Stuff Packs on the paying side.

Most games, Sims aside, got one or two expansion packs. DLC is alot more frequent and has alot less content.

Anyway, you totally blew off my question. What makes you think that they (Nintendo or third parties) won't withhold content to sell to you later? Third parties will likely do exactly what they do on other consoles, some may even promise "2 years of DLC" before the game even fuckin' launches!

I've never seen a company hold back content that's part of the main story, it's always been extra armor or side stories, and Elder scrolls did plan for it's expansion packs, the shrines for the Knights of Nine quest were viewable before the expansion pack you just couldn't do anything with them. Until a game asks me to pay money to see the final cut scene, the DLC is extra content and optional to buy.

Did Bethesda say Knights of the Nine was planned before the game released? You know all those Ayleid ruins? What if they made an expansion involving those? Would it mean that they planned it from the beginning? If they did announce Knights of the Nine as being planned before the game released then that's bad and I wouldn't approve of that either, did they?

Oh I see, so it's ok to have Day 1 DLC as long as it's not part of the main story? What a low standard.

I just don't get the big deal with it, it's optional content, do you like the game, are you willing to pay a few bucks for an extra level, you decide, why all the hate for something that is completely optional. The fact is if they didn't have DLC you would probably only see one or two of the ideas from it in the game, they have limited money and time for development DLC is a great way for companies to expand that time and money to deliever a larger game, if that's what you want. And if you consider that Elder Scrolls always had expansion packs for the games they knew they were going to do something even if they didn't know what.

 

[the spud]

You have picked up a distress signal on your pip boy radio. "The princess is in another castle, I repeat, the princess is in another castle!"

I want to play that fallout DLC

Bowser/minions=Enclave
Toadstool=Fawkes
Peach=Nova?

It writes (and sells) itself.

 

[RamirezDoEverything]

I still say that companies should give me a complete game or get out.

Thank you.

My first reaction to this news was, "God damn it."

Now, Microsoft and Sony will have even MORE competition for DLC.

 

[MB202]

Well, Nintendo always has been old fashioned in the ways of doing business, so it's no wonder it took them this long to join in.

 

[Epona]

Snip

And way before then PC games had it and we didn't and we liked it. Elder Scrolls, Fallout, most PC RPGs had something very similar to DLC before all this hate for it started, we called them expansion packs and we looked forward to them, in fact I don't recall anyone ever hating them but now that it's done by download it's somehow evil.

I look forward to this, especially if it can get me classic pokemon, I want my Cubone and Rapidash back.

Expansion packs are not DLC. DLC is more akin to mods on the free side and Sims Stuff Packs on the paying side.

Most games, Sims aside, got one or two expansion packs. DLC is alot more frequent and has alot less content.

Anyway, you totally blew off my question. What makes you think that they (Nintendo or third parties) won't withhold content to sell to you later? Third parties will likely do exactly what they do on other consoles, some may even promise "2 years of DLC" before the game even fuckin' launches!

I've never seen a company hold back content that's part of the main story, it's always been extra armor or side stories, and Elder scrolls did plan for it's expansion packs, the shrines for the Knights of Nine quest were viewable before the expansion pack you just couldn't do anything with them. Until a game asks me to pay money to see the final cut scene, the DLC is extra content and optional to buy.

Did Bethesda say Knights of the Nine was planned before the game released? You know all those Ayleid ruins? What if they made an expansion involving those? Would it mean that they planned it from the beginning? If they did announce Knights of the Nine as being planned before the game released then that's bad and I wouldn't approve of that either, did they?

Oh I see, so it's ok to have Day 1 DLC as long as it's not part of the main story? What a low standard.

I just don't get the big deal with it, it's optional content, do you like the game, are you willing to pay a few bucks for an extra level, you decide, why all the hate for something that is completely optional. The fact is if they didn't have DLC you would probably only see one or two of the ideas from it in the game, they have limited money and time for development DLC is a great way for companies to expand that time and money to deliever a larger game, if that's what you want. And if you consider that Elder Scrolls always had expansion packs for the games they knew they were going to do something even if they didn't know what.

You and I see DLC differently. I see DLC as them not putting things into a game because they can sell it separately. If not for DLC, they would have put it in the game in the first place because without DLC, they have only one chance to give the audience the full experience. For example, let's say DLC existed when Chrono Trigger was released and Robo or Ayla were left out of the game to be sold seperately? That's how I see DLC since Bioware did it with it Shale.

You say "do you like the game?". What does that have to do with anything? Is it now a requirement to pay MORE than the retail price if you like a game? Glad I can still like Final Fantasy VII without being billed.

 

[Svenparty]

And it will all be Mario themed.

It's no wonder it'd taken them so long: Surely pumping out the same game franchises with minor differences is just retail DLC anyway.

 

[Epona]

And it will all be Mario themed.

It's no wonder it'd taken them so long: Surely pumping out the same game franchises with minor differences is just retail DLC anyway.

If only that were true. On the Wii, we have had to wait for 5 years for a proper Zelda game and while we have had 2 3-D Mario platformers this gen and one 2-D Mario platformer, that is nothing compared to other franchises like Halo, Call of Duty and other AAA franchises.

I would much rather have more Mario platformers and real Zelda games (not ones you control with a plastic stick) than all the minigames they have pushed.

 

[night_chrono]

They already have DLC on the Wii.

Rock Band 3 (2 server's were shut down), and Samba Di Amago have songs to download. Animal Crossing got one or two DLC's, and hackers made a bunch of lightsaber axe's.

 

[Jfswift]

That's cool I guess. I don't mind DLC if it's new material for a game that's been out for a while already (like with the Fallout games).