That makes sense as an explanation, but there has to be a better way to do it. This does, however, seem to be the Nintendo way to go about it: solve a solution by severely hobbling options.Grumpy Ginger said:
Should Games Arbitrarily Withhold Content?
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
It's the internet age adjusting to games in their own way. Before it people would have to carve their way through a 6 hour game to see all the content, and it would take days. Solutions for puzzle games came in magazines or expanded through word of mouth. Now it's just as simple as a 2 second google search. Or you could just watch a LP and skip the game altogether. It's not about cost, but about value. And value is a perception. They manipulated it back then, and they're manipulating it now. The more thing change, the more they stay the same.
You think you're making some kind of point, but really you're not. I mean, we all know the difference between what we're talking about. Even you.Maze1125 said:
Thanatos2k said:
It's not about how much of a "difference" there is. It's all on a scale. Every example here is one of "developers withholding content until you pay". Some are considered "bad" some are considered "good".Gundam GP01 said:
Hence say that it's "always bad" is flat out wrong. Regardless of if people "know what we're talking about".
It's always bad when the content is not included in the full price of the purchased product. You know what we're talking about, you're attempting an intentionally dense semantics argument for no reason.Maze1125 said:
I suppose it depends on the context. Given Splatoon's context, the answer is no (it's not okay).
There is a difference, between the digital age of content(STEAM and etc). The only way to put out "DLC(and I use this term loosely)" is to put out expansions. Most expansions added MORE than what DLC does, sometimes anther whole game. Look at Diablo 2, Starcraft and other older games. Most of the game content that was put out or gobbled up back in the 90s were better.Maze1125 said:
I personally feel at times that most of the product is "left out" on purpose. Like Borderlands... As they were putting it together and or had ideas for the storylines... The ones that didn't "make it" or didn't "make sense" in the story was withheld till later. Hell most of the games nowadays coming out on steam you can buy a season pass. Like they purposely are planning DLC as they make their game. Sad to say I'm not going to be nickeled and dimed for extra 5 hours of content that could have been in the original game.
Warhammer 40k space marine reminded me of this, I wanted to make my fabulous pink marines in the multiplayer, but you have to unlock it all first. Not only is it a multiplayer graveyard a year in anyway, but the devs decided to divide everyone up depending on what exact DLC everyone had, meaning you couldn't get a game even if you wanted to at the time, so by their shitty multiplayer unlock design I don't get to make the Pink Marine.
I'm going to take this argument in a direction to where it applies negatively and positively and has been raging since it's inception. Specifically MMO games.
The problem with it being that the carrot on the stick has always been 'more content', to which players answer with 'more time' or more importantly 'more money'. And if the creators of the MMO cannot keep that treadmill running, the money... goes bye bye.
The content has to be gated, or players have no reason to keep running on the treadmill. They don't see the 'other players' who've braved the vast golden gate and come out with shinier gear and fancier mounts, and then ask themselves the damning question; 'Why am I still playing?' And depending on the individual they'll likely stop before making those social ties.
Now reapplying this argument back to splatoon, it's a very different beast with significantly less content, I feel that formula has been trying to creep more and more into the online functionality of games like splatoon because it's how MMO's function and how they see all that money thrown their way without the developers stopping to ask themselves how and why that formula worked there. They're simply told about it and and to work it into their 'game plan' somewhere because it was a buzz phrase heard at a dev convention or some bullshit.
It would and could work if the content was vast and varied enough, but...as you said...five maps, it's not quite a juicy enough carrot.
Edit: My bottom line is as a concept it is not inherently wrong, it is however applied to the wrong type of game here.
The problem with it being that the carrot on the stick has always been 'more content', to which players answer with 'more time' or more importantly 'more money'. And if the creators of the MMO cannot keep that treadmill running, the money... goes bye bye.
The content has to be gated, or players have no reason to keep running on the treadmill. They don't see the 'other players' who've braved the vast golden gate and come out with shinier gear and fancier mounts, and then ask themselves the damning question; 'Why am I still playing?' And depending on the individual they'll likely stop before making those social ties.
Now reapplying this argument back to splatoon, it's a very different beast with significantly less content, I feel that formula has been trying to creep more and more into the online functionality of games like splatoon because it's how MMO's function and how they see all that money thrown their way without the developers stopping to ask themselves how and why that formula worked there. They're simply told about it and and to work it into their 'game plan' somewhere because it was a buzz phrase heard at a dev convention or some bullshit.
It would and could work if the content was vast and varied enough, but...as you said...five maps, it's not quite a juicy enough carrot.
Edit: My bottom line is as a concept it is not inherently wrong, it is however applied to the wrong type of game here.
There is a simple solution in Splatoon's case, if you are interested in the game but want total control over what you play - wait until August. That's when custom lobbies and team matchmaking is released.
I don't know if it's the right idea to wall off content for users but for example Bayonetta would not allow you to play the highest difficulties until you had cleared the game on Normal. Certain players who are great at games like Bayonetta might view this as a problem since why would you waste time in a difficulty which is not challenging but due to most items requiring in game money to unlock it might be a decent option.
Personally I only have a problem with the in-game Amiibo specific missions - but that's a minor gripe. I don't personally plan to purchase Amiibos, but would like some additional SP Content. The missions only require you to do the same SP Missions with a different weapon but if it was something more substantial it would be bad for me. It's difficult stiking a balance with this plastic crap either it's features are just not worthy of the asking price in terms of functionality or you are locking content behind a plastic figure.
I don't know if it's the right idea to wall off content for users but for example Bayonetta would not allow you to play the highest difficulties until you had cleared the game on Normal. Certain players who are great at games like Bayonetta might view this as a problem since why would you waste time in a difficulty which is not challenging but due to most items requiring in game money to unlock it might be a decent option.
Personally I only have a problem with the in-game Amiibo specific missions - but that's a minor gripe. I don't personally plan to purchase Amiibos, but would like some additional SP Content. The missions only require you to do the same SP Missions with a different weapon but if it was something more substantial it would be bad for me. It's difficult stiking a balance with this plastic crap either it's features are just not worthy of the asking price in terms of functionality or you are locking content behind a plastic figure.