Smash 4 DLC Discussion (Free vs Paid/etc)

[Saito]

Oh look, I'm the OP of a new thread.

Concerning DLC, what are your opinions on it?

 

[Aninymouse]

I payed for so much DLC for Fire Emblem: Awakening. I practically payed for the game twice over. Was it worth the money? If you asked me before I got the game, I'd say not in a million years. After having played the game and wanting more? It was hard not to buy it.

If Smash 4 is as excellent as it seems to be, once I have that disc in my possession, $6 here and there will fly forth from my wallet with little provocation.

 

[Saito]

I payed for so much DLC for Fire Emblem: Awakening. I practically payed for the game twice over. Was it worth the money? If you asked me before I got the game, I'd say not in a million years. After having played the game and wanting more? It was hard not to buy it.

If Smash 4 is as excellent as it seems to be, once I have that disc in my possession, $6 here and there will fly forth from my wallet with little provocation.

I've got a nasty issue with paid DLC.

I don't really care how good a game is, even fire emblem awakening which I thought was stellar, I will not get any of that DLC.

When that game is in my possession, I'd rather not pay any more money for content that probably could have been added from the get go.

Unless it's an expansion of sorts that essentially adds another game, or enough content to warrant it, I'd rather not pay for it.

Edit : This post was an extreme generalization of DLC and my thoughts against it, but I will not change the original content as it takes away from the discussion. Refer to Post #15, #42 and Post #52 for my stance

 

[Aninymouse]

I've got a nasty issue with paid DLC.

I don't really care how good a game is, even fire emblem awakening which I thought was stellar, I will not get any of that DLC.

When that game is in my possession, I'd rather not pay any more money for content that probably could have been added from the get go.

Unless it's an expansion of sorts that essentially adds another game, or enough content to warrant it, I'd rather not pay for it.

See, that's the thing. I agree with you on principle completely, and yet, if I love the game enough, I can be persuaded to buy something I don't want to buy.

Now granted, there are games that do DLC terribly, and make you pay for one or two things that could have easily been included, anyway. Part of the appeal of the FE:A DLC is that it offers you so much extra junk that you want but don't need.

That's why characters should never be paid DLC for Smash, but maybe stuff like a new stage or custom B attack or niche power-up for Smash Run is fine. It's hard to draw a comparison between Smash 4 and FE:A, though. The games are vastly different.

 

[Saito]

See, that's the thing. I agree with you on principle completely, and yet, if I love the game enough, I can be persuaded to buy something I don't want to buy.

Now granted, there are games that do DLC terribly, and make you pay for one or two things that could have easily been included, anyway. Part of the appeal of the FE:A DLC is that it offers you so much extra junk that you want but don't need.

That's why characters should never be paid DLC for Smash, but maybe stuff like a new stage or custom B attack or niche power-up for Smash Run is fine. It's hard to draw a comparison between Smash 4 and FE:A, though. The games are vastly different.

The only things that I could even begin to say could be included as paid DLC and I mean CHEAP DLC. (We're talking $1 cheap) is additional modes for special brawl, 50+ challenges in event matches, board the platforms returning, or new target test maps.

The fire emblem DLC is great, I know because while I may not have paid for it, my brother sure did and "The Future Past 1-3" was just too damn good.
But it's something that could've been put as additional stuff at endgame that would of put the game even higher up in my book.

---------------------------
DLC is just something that puts games down in my opinion. If this content is provided from the start, it adds to the bulk of the game and makes it feel even more packed than it already is. The only way people don't really care if a game has DLC, is if it's free. If there are real time constraints that make you unable to put content into a game, and you have to add it later, why charge people for it?

It's just a moneymaking scheme to me. I'd much rather them make the DLC free, and make any later copies of the game just come with it normally.

Edit : This post was an extreme generalization of DLC and my thoughts against it, but I will not change the original content as it takes away from the discussion. Refer to Post #15, #42 and Post #52 for my stance

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Making the DLC free also means they don't get paid for their extremely hard work. People tend to forget that. But also carefully read the next paragraph as it's not that black and white.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of DLC now is additions well after the product is finished, and was never on the original game to begin with. You should be paying for completely new content that didn't ever exist on the disc period. That makes sense. Now, I dislike on-game paid dlc since that should've been available originally. It's one thing if they couldn't finish it in time and you have to download the finish stuff(but it should be free in that case, since it was already meant to be there from the start). But that's an exception.

And character bundles are a good way to cheapen it. Killer Instinct 3 did that beautifully.

 

[Saito]

Making the DLC free also means they don't get paid for their extremely hard work. People tend to forget that. But also carefully read the next paragraph as it's not that black and white.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of DLC now is additions well after the product is finished, and was never on the original game to begin with. You should be paying for completely new content that didn't ever exist on the disc period. That makes sense. Now, I dislike on-game paid dlc since that should've been available originally. It's one thing if they couldn't finish it in time and you have to download the finish stuff(but it should be free in that case, since it was already meant to be there from the start). But that's an exception.

And character bundles are a good way to cheapen it. Killer Instinct 3 did that beautifully.

I understand this argument, but paid DLC is probably the worst concept to me ever.

I'd rather wait extra time for people to release games with the content on the game and buy it at what would be the same retail price, instead of them releasing it sooner, then charging people extra to get content that reasonably should of been in the game.

I hate paid DLC, to put it bluntly.

Edit : This post was an extreme generalization of DLC and my thoughts against it, but I will not change the original content as it takes away from the discussion. Refer to Post #15, #42 and Post #52 for my stance

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I understand this argument, but paid DLC is probably the worst concept to me ever.

It's either that or the game costs even more. At least you have the option to not pay for stuff you don't care about. You don't need to buy every character, which is actually a good thing at times.

I'd rather wait extra time for people to release games with the content on the game and buy it at what would be the same retail price, instead of them releasing it sooner, then charging people extra to get content that reasonably should of been in the game.

I'd like you to reread my second paragraph in my earlier post. What you're talking about doesn't always exist. Many ideas come after the release. On-disc paid DLC and new paid DLC are completely different. New stuff is created well after the original release, to the point of being thought of even after the game was finished and out in stores. Any time you pay for something that wasn't in the data originally, you're buying a completely new item for the game. It's no different from buying something like a link cable for your GBA. It's effectively the same thing.

Nowadays, on-disc dlc is not very often used due to the backlash it's gotten. People are sick of paying more for stuff already on the disc. However, creating new stuff that's not even in the game and selling it later has gotten positive support since people know that it's actually new, and thus, they're paying for stuff that they could not have paid for(because it never existed). I don't have an issue downloading a finished character(say, Mewtwo in Brawl) for free, but that's because time constraints happened. It's not always time constraints. In addition, if they kept pushing it back, we'd never have games release. They have to release it(regardless of the type of dlc if any) soon enough, or lose money from the lack of sales period. It's not as easy as you think it is.

DLC is absolutely necessary to not just fix games, but to add unique ideas that they absolutely had no time for or even thought of yet. The money part isn't always as relevant as being able to do it in the first place. It does help to have fair deals on it, but $1 for a character is basically a rip-off towards the developers. Meanwhile, 5 is ideal since they need to be paid for their work as is. That's only under the condition they made new characters later, of course. As in, they were not partially in the game by the time of release at all. Or possibly never even had a concept till after the initial release.

 

[Oz37]

I'm with @ Saito . The only extra content that doesn't bother me to be payed DLC is special alternate costumes and music tracks (and they better be cheap, and it will still annoy me). I'm sorry, but I want a fully completed game. I don't mean to belittle the developer's work, but DLC just seems like such a transparently greedy ploy for squeezing an extra dime from dedicated fans.

 

[Saito]

It's either that or the game costs even more. At least you have the option to not pay for stuff you don't care about. You don't need to buy every character, which is actually a good thing at times.


I'd like you to reread my second paragraph in my earlier post. What you're talking about doesn't always exist. Many ideas come after the release. On-disc paid DLC and new paid DLC are completely different. New stuff is created well after the original release, to the point of being thought of even after the game was finished and out in stores. Any time you pay for something that wasn't in the data originally, you're buying a completely new item for the game. It's no different from buying something like a link cable for your GBA. It's effectively the same thing.

DLC is absolutely necessary to not just fix games, but to add unique ideas that they absolutely had no time for or even thought of yet. The money part isn't always as relevant as being able to do it in the first place. It does help to have fair deals on it, but $1 for a character is basically a rip-off towards the developers. Meanwhile, 5 is ideal since they need to be paid for their work as is. That's only under the condition they made new characters later, of course. As in, they were not partially in the game by the time of release at all. Or possibly never even had a concept till after the initial release.

Never in my right mind have I ever thought that I shouldn't have every character in a game. The more the merrier.

-----------------------
I reread it and it doesn't change anything for me.

I'm paying for content that wasn't on the game originally to expand my game. Like I said, I'd rather wait for a longer release date, or , even for them to release the next game to introduce those new and creative ideas.

I don't do paid DLC. I don't like paid DLC, and that's literally all that I could say about that.

The added functionality of things like a Gameboy link cable is a bit different because back then I want to assume that they didn't have the technology to do those things without those accessories. It's why we don't pay for link cables anymore, because the technology has advanced.

I'd consider that closer to a mode being unavailable until payed for. Such as online functionality or something along those lines.
Something back then, I could consider passable because of technological limitations. Nowadays though, where people can, and have provided those things without charge, I would consider ridiculous and not worth my money.

-----------------------------------

You couldn't convince me that paid character DLC is even remotely a good idea.

Edit : This post was an extreme generalization of DLC and my thoughts against it, but I will not change the original content as it takes away from the discussion. Refer to Post #15, #42 and Post #52 for my stance

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

@ Saito : I'll be blunt; You still are not understanding anywhere close to what I said.

You can't get a character from the start if they didn't exist till well after the release of the game.

In addition, in many cases, you're going to be paying for the DLC either the first time with the purchase of the game(it'll cost more) or when you download the DLC. You don't get jack for free nor do you deserve it. That's not how the world works. What you're talking about is ripping the developers off and making them make characters for you for free because you can't throw out a few more dollars.

Don't compare what I'm talking about to on-disc paid DLC. It doesn't exist here and it's irrelevant. That kind of stuff is dumb. That's worth complaining about. Paying for a new character created after the game's release, conceived due to fan ideas even(meaning it could never have existed on the first disc in any possible way)? Well, how can you pay for that back then? It doesn't make logical sense. If they make and develop a new character after the game's release(not finish one worked on during the development of the original game), you have to almost always pay for them, and to be perfectly honest, there is literally no reason you shouldn't be forced to. This is an unpopular opinion, yes.

If Smash 4 somehow has paid DLC after the game's release, and characters that were never playable or among the files for playable period, it makes sense. Let's say Ridley was not playable, and not a boss either(as in, you don't fight him specifically in a mode, meaning he has no moveset to speak of. Even the Brawl Bosses have a moveset, keep in mind). Because of the lack of a moveset, he has no character data. If Sakurai decided to add him, he has to do a ton of work on his moveset period. Never mind balance patches for the entire game to make whatever he does work(that's with all characters who never had character data. They have to patch the game and add a ton of stuff from the ground up just to make any new character work. Keep in mind even Project M and other hackers have to do a lot of work to make any unique character playable, not just a skin. I remember seeing a Shadow somebody made, with fully different moves, instead of just a skin or adding some moves from others). Assuming he were to do this period(meaning no previous character data for him to use either, which makes a difference), if he decided we had to pay for it, he'd be completely justified in doing so. Not much. Probably about 5 dollars. Which is cheap anyway. Now, if it was just unfinished data that he finished later(this is still different as noted, and I really do hope you pay attention to this point severely), then he doesn't have any reason to charge us(or charge us very much beyond maybe a single dollar perhaps). That's because it was just time constraints.

I'd like you to keep in mind most DLC these days are not because of time constraints, but completely new additions to the game's coding that never existed in any way. Them charging you for completely new stuff(no matter what it is) is 100% justified. It was never in the game at all, so there's literally no reason to hand it to you for free. They aren't being greedy in any way and that idea really needs to stop being thought. They just wanted to be paid for the new product they created, nothing more. Not unfinished product, but new product. And that's also why your "link cable" analogy backfires. It's a new product. So it gets charged for. It was never unfinished as a product. I pay for DLC and only feel I'm getting ripped off if it was just something they never finished in time(but had the data in there). If they didn't have the data in there, I'm clearly paying for something not in the game. I don't deserve it for free, and it's no surprise many developers feel the same way. I can't stop anyone for feeling like it's okay to rip them off(and that's actually what's happening, keep in mind, when it's not on-disc paid dlc for free), but one other note; If the game was free to begin with, and you got most of the game itself for free(not just a tiny snippet like Killer Instinct 3, which is why it doesn't count at all), there's no reason for them to charge you for the rest of the finished product. But once a game is actually completely finished with no leftover data? Or in this case, all the leftover data was given to you for free via DLC, anything completely new can reasonably be charged for(as long as it's not a severe price, of course) since it wasn't in the original product in any way, shape, or form. It's not just business(making sure people are paid for their work, something many gamers fail to appreciate, I won't lie. Nothing personal to anyone, mind you), it's definitely not greed(we aren't talking about on-disc paid DLC. And I hope you keep that in mind, because they're different in every way), it's people wanting to get what they deserve, money for their hard work, period.

--------------

Something to note; I wasn't planning on replying past this post. I think I made it clear what my overall point was, even going so far as repeating how different versions of DLC are. I don't expect anyone to agree/disagree with it. Understanding my point is all I ever cared about. It doesn't felt like you did, Saito, previously. Likewise, even if you still don't want to ever pay for any character(even if they're completely new to the game, as in were developed after the game's release period), that's fine. I wasn't expecting you to. I do hope you understand exactly why I think they should be paid for, since they actually count as entirely new content, respectively. Not agree with it, but understand why I believe so. I respect your opinion, of course.

 

[Shaya]

Magic~ (moved posts from the unpopular opinion thread)
have fun.

 

[Triangles]

Free, paid, no matter what, I'll be getting the DLC. At least I'll be supporting them if it's paid.

 

[Venus of the Desert Bloom]

I think free content should be patches and updates with potentially a freebie in the form of a trophy or something along those lines.

As for pay DLC, I personally believe characters and stages should be paid DLC for 50% off the original price the week of its release. This also extends to costumes and extra additions. If people are interested in it, they can purchase it. If not, they don't which might be a bit unfair especially if they can't afford it. However, DLC (especially paid) helps keep interest in the game and continues to make a profit for the developers.

Personally though, I do not see DLC characters for Smash.

 

[Saito]

@ Saito : I'll be blunt; You still are not understanding anywhere close to what I said.

I'm understanding, but I'm not replying well, and I apologize for that.
This should be better to understand though, since your significant amount of text put me on full alert.

You can't get a character from the start if they didn't exist till well after the release of the game.

This is a given.

In addition, in many cases, you're going to be paying for the DLC either the first time with the purchase of the game(it'll cost more) or when you download the DLC. You don't get jack for free nor do you deserve it. That's not how the world works. What you're talking about is ripping the developers off and making them make characters for you for free because you can't throw out a few more dollars.

What game has done that?
Can you name some examples?

As far as I am concerned DLC is like taking the extra dungeon of older games, and making them not apart of the game, but making them available as DLC.

Let's assume that this extra dungeon was made similarly like you explained above. Meaning it wasn't originally a part of the game and it was made much after the games release date.

This extra dungeon would be what it is, an extra dungeon but for a price. I don't mind that. It's something optional, and isn't extremely important to the game.
I believe it would be better for these things to be free, but if they want to charge for it, that's fine.

Don't compare what I'm talking about to on-disc paid DLC. It doesn't exist here and it's irrelevant. That kind of stuff is dumb. That's worth complaining about. Paying for a new character created after the game's release, conceived due to fan ideas even(meaning it could never have existed on the first disc in any possible way)? Well, how can you pay for that back then? It doesn't make logical sense. If they make and develop a new character after the game's release(not finish one worked on during the development of the original game), you have to almost always pay for them, and to be perfectly honest, there is literally no reason you shouldn't be forced to. This is an unpopular opinion, yes.

I'm not talking about on-disk paid DLC at all. If my wording has said otherwise, then i'm not catching it, but I'm referring to paid DLC.

As far as I'm concerned regarding this above paragraph, there shouldn't be any character DLCs then. Maybe in a single player game that's fine, but when it comes to something like a fighting game, people will be able to access those characters. Everyone elses games will be changed to adjust to that as well. Suddenly, if you look at it from a different perspective, it becomes a microtransaction that only the people who pay for the extra stuff have access to.

I don't like the idea of that at all.

If Smash 4 somehow has paid DLC after the game's release, and characters that were never playable or among the files for playable period, it makes sense. Let's say Ridley was not playable, and not a boss either(as in, you don't fight him specifically in a mode, meaning he has no moveset to speak of. Even the Brawl Bosses have a moveset, keep in mind). Because of the lack of a moveset, he has no character data. If Sakurai decided to add him, he has to do a ton of work on his moveset period. Never mind balance patches for the entire game to make whatever he does work(that's with all characters who never had character data. They have to patch the game and add a ton of stuff from the ground up just to make any new character work. Keep in mind even Project M and other hackers have to do a lot of work to make any unique character playable, not just a skin. I remember seeing a Shadow somebody made, with fully different moves, instead of just a skin or adding some moves from others). Assuming he were to do this period(meaning no previous character data for him to use either, which makes a difference), if he decided we had to pay for it, he'd be completely justified in doing so. Not much. Probably about 5 dollars. Which is cheap anyway. Now, if it was just unfinished data that he finished later(this is still different as noted, and I really do hope you pay attention to this point severely), then he doesn't have any reason to charge us(or charge us very much beyond maybe a single dollar perhaps). That's because it was just time constraints.

Of course he has the right to charge us. But our disagreement comes from what you consider should be charged for as DLC, as opposed to what I consider should be charged for as DLC.

I consider characters as integral to the game so I have a problem with them being DLC.

I'd like you to keep in mind most DLC these days are not because of time constraints, but completely new additions to the game's coding that never existed in any way. Them charging you for completely new stuff(no matter what it is) is 100% justified. It was never in the game at all, so there's literally no reason to hand it to you for free. They aren't being greedy in any way and that idea really needs to stop being thought. They just wanted to be paid for the new product they created, nothing more. Not unfinished product, but new product. And that's also why your "link cable" analogy backfires. It's a new product. So it gets charged for. It was never unfinished as a product. I pay for DLC and only feel I'm getting ripped off if it was just something they never finished in time(but had the data in there). If they didn't have the data in there, I'm clearly paying for something not in the game. I don't deserve it for free, and it's no surprise many developers feel the same way. I can't stop anyone for feeling like it's okay to rip them off(and that's actually what's happening, keep in mind, when it's not on-disc paid dlc for free), but one other note; If the game was free to begin with, and you got most of the game itself for free(not just a tiny snippet like Killer Instinct 3, which is why it doesn't count at all), there's no reason for them to charge you for the rest of the finished product. But once a game is actually completely finished with no leftover data? Or in this case, all the leftover data was given to you for free via DLC, anything completely new can reasonably be charged for(as long as it's not a severe price, of course) since it wasn't in the original product in any way, shape, or form. It's not just business(making sure people are paid for their work, something many gamers fail to appreciate, I won't lie. Nothing personal to anyone, mind you), it's definitely not greed(we aren't talking about on-disc paid DLC. And I hope you keep that in mind, because they're different in every way), it's people wanting to get what they deserve, money for their hard work, period.

As far as I'm concerned, I can live without most additional content.

Things that give the players some interesting side quests, backstory, and other type of things aren't something that I consider integral to the game and I don't feel like it's necessary in the game. It's available for purchase for people who want it. That's fine. I won't buy it though.

Characters though, I consider them as something that changes the game significantly. Even though the developers worked hard on getting these characters into the game, I don't think it's right for them to be paid DLC. Once again this is for something like a fighting game.

Things that change the game significantly, in an environment where potentially everyone doesn't have access to it, I don't consider should be paid for after the initial release. Whether or not a player likes those changes, they are apart of the game now, even if they don't purchase it, it will influence their gaming experience. I don't like that.
If it's a change that players will indeed be forced to adapt to, then why charge for it?

It's not something that can be avoided unless a player suddenly stops playing online with players that have access to that content.

I don't like the idea of paid DLC. That doesn't mean I outright say it's wrong and shouldn't exist. It doesn't mean I won't pay for it either.

Here's a small list of DLC that I think is acceptable. This does not mean the DLC that I would pay for, but the DLC that I think is fine to charge for.

• Single player game DLC that expands on the story is fine. As long as it doesn't hold things like how the game truly ends.
• Single player game DLC that adds additional things to do is fine.
• Single player game DLC that adds weapons and such is fine. The significance of these weapons are not great enough for it to bother me.
• Single player game DLC that adds character customization. This is sketchy to me. It's something that probably could have been added to the initial game. I don't like the idea of it, but it's still passable.
• Single player game DLC that adds new playable characters. This is fine. While they may change the game significantly, this is not something that a player will be forced to adapt to unless they want to.
• Multi-player game DLC that adds a new mode. Such as "board the platforms" This is fine. while significant, it's not something that everyone has to be exposed to.
• Multi-player game DLC that adds new storylines. Same as single player storyline expansion.
• Costumes for characters (Reasonably priced)

All those type of things are fine with me.

Characters in fighting games, real endings of games, core gameplay changes, all put up red flags for me on things that shouldn't be charged for as paid DLC.

 

[Morbi]

I feel as though the developers should create DLC content regardless and offer it to those who wish to purchase/download it. Post-launch support is a very common notion that is expected out of most "triple a" titles (I would assert that most do not expect such out of Nintendo though).

 

[Shin F.]

If I'm getting any major content that, for good reason, (time constraints, licensing rights not obtained in time for release, etc), was not included in the original release, I would expect to pay for it. To do otherwise is to have the people who made that content do so for free, and I don't know about anyone else, but there's no way I'd ever put that much time and effort into something for someone who wants it for free.

Saito, you're saying that you think things such as characters should be free because they're essential parts of the game. I see where you're coming from, but I can't fully agree. The integral characters are included from the beginning. Characters added after the fact are a bonus for the fans who are willing to support the developers. Yes, they do enhance the game. You're right about that. But you wouldn't expect to get free enhancements / upgrades for, say... a car, or a house, would you? It's the same thing. If something you own is getting improved or upgraded in a major way, it's only right to pay for it.

I'm sure you can agree that no one should go unpaid for overtime work. In the same way, the developers should not have to create content for which they are not being compensated. If they're not getting paid, they have no incentive to do anything.

 

[Artorias]

If they do in fact release characters as dlc, i think they should follow the lead of the fightingh game Skullgirls, where the character is free (permanently) for a limited time, and after that, if you didn't get it while it was for free (because you didn't have the game yet, for example) you have to pay for it. It incentivates people to buy the game early-
(As of now a character they released this month is for free to keep it but in a couple of months it will begin to be sold at $5)
I still think its a bad idea to add DLC to the smash series though

 

[Saito]

If I'm getting any major content that, for good reason, (time constraints, licensing rights not obtained in time for release, etc), was not included in the original release, I would expect to pay for it. To do otherwise is to have the people who made that content do so for free, and I don't know about anyone else, but there's no way I'd ever put that much time and effort into something for someone who wants it for free.

Saito, you're saying that you think things such as characters should be free because they're essential parts of the game. I see where you're coming from, but I can't fully agree. The integral characters are included from the beginning. Characters added after the fact are a bonus for the fans who are willing to support the developers. Yes, they do enhance the game. You're right about that. But you wouldn't expect to get free enhancements / upgrades for, say... a car, or a house, would you? It's the same thing. If something you own is getting improved or upgraded in a major way, it's only right to pay for it.

I'm sure you can agree that no one should go unpaid for overtime work. In the same way, the developers should not have to create content for which they are not being compensated. If they're not getting paid, they have no incentive to do anything.

What about passion? Some people love what they do and are willing to do it for free as well. Look at Project M.
Yes people can make money off of it, but I just don't agree with it in this case.

Things like a house upgrade or a car enhancement are things that I would consider closer to stuff like Alternate costumes, extra quests, and other things that fall in my list of acceptable things. Stuff that isn't necessary to enjoy the game to it's full extent.

Characters. and even to a lesser extent, stages; are things that I consider closer to necessities of the game once they have been released.

I decided to research others that might feel the same way as I do, and I feel even more relieved that I'm not the only one that thinks this way.

Here's a quote from Tekken developer Katsuhiro Haruda

I've been saying that, at least for Tekken, regarding techniques, characters and stages, these three things won't be charged for, even if they are DLC.

Actually this is something my bosses have been asking me for quite a while now - what are our plans for DLC?" How much money can we make? They are a company, obviously, in it to make money. So it's something I'm continually asked even now,

I haven't changed my stance. If you're making a fighting game, all of the elements necessary to enjoy it should be on the disc, or should at least be available for free.

Source
Source

I agree that people should be paid for the work that they do, but once again, I'd rather have no character DLC if that's the case.

 

[Shin F.]

People can have passion and want to add to their game just for the sake of adding to it, and that's admirable, but passion doesn't pay the bills. PMBR are a group of very talented people with a lot of passion. They don't get paid. But it's also not their job to develop this game. Everyone in PMBR probably has some source of income outside of it. Making Project M is their hobby, what they do in their spare time because they can and they love it. And I have no doubt that the developers working at Nintendo love their work as well, but unlike PMBR, working on these games is also the job that they get paid for. Project M is pure passion, Smash 4 is passion + career, if that makes sense. Of course Nintendo is going to pay their developers, even when they're making free products, but then Nintendo itself takes the hit. And you and I both know Nintendo can't afford to be putting its resources into something it's just giving away. It's taking a serious hit with the Wii U already. When Nintendo loses income, it hurts all of its employees from the top to the bottom. If they're going to have DLC, they shouldn't make it free.

If Tekken developers don't want paid character DLC, that's their choice. If Nintendo does the same, again, that's their choice and it's a choice I'd support, but I would never expect it of them.

The only DLC I'm adamantly against is Disc-locked Content. Because that's clearly content that could have been included from release, and selling that is bull**** no matter how you slice it.

 

[Saito]

People can have passion and want to add to their game just for the sake of adding to it, and that's admirable, but passion doesn't pay the bills. PMBR are a group of very talented people with a lot of passion. They don't get paid. But it's also not their job to develop this game. Everyone in PMBR probably has some source of income outside of it. Making Project M is their hobby, what they do in their spare time because they can and they love it. And I have no doubt that the developers working at Nintendo love their work as well, but unlike PMBR, working on these games is also the job that they get paid for. Project M is pure passion, Smash 4 is passion + career, if that makes sense. Of course Nintendo is going to pay their developers, even when they're making free products, but then Nintendo itself takes the hit. And you and I both know Nintendo can't afford to be putting its resources into something it's just giving away. It's taking a serious hit with the Wii U already. When Nintendo loses income, it hurts all of its employees from the top to the bottom. If they're going to have DLC, they shouldn't make it free.

It sounds like we are talking about profit now.
Specifically for Nintendo.

If we are strictly talking about profit, don't you think it would be much better to offer the characters as free, and additional things that don't pull up red flags for some people as paid DLC?

Offering the characters for free can increase interest in the game because it appeals to certain fans, and shows that Nintendo is willing to go that extra step for their consumers. It also improves the relationship between company and consumer far more than having a consumer pay for it. Better relationships, better for Nintendo in the long run.

Then you give consumers the option to buy things that might be nice but no where near affect the game entirely but may change things cosmetically. Things like alternate costumes that make fan favorite characters stand out even more in familiar outfits. I wonder if they would do that though since they put wireframe mac in which is essentially an alt costume.

Regardless, it's not like character DLC is the only option available to Nintendo.

The important point for us to remember is how to maintain the situation where a wide variety of our consumers can readily appreciate our offers. In terms of that priority, we cannot, and should not, ask our consumers to embrace the situation where they are required to make excessive payments. Doing such things might be good for short-term profit, but it will not serve our mid-term and long-term business developments.

Source

 

[Deleted member 245254]

People can have passion and want to add to their game just for the sake of adding to it, and that's admirable, but passion doesn't pay the bills. PMBR are a group of very talented people with a lot of passion. They don't get paid. But it's also not their job to develop this game. Everyone in PMBR probably has some source of income outside of it. Making Project M is their hobby, what they do in their spare time because they can and they love it. And I have no doubt that the developers working at Nintendo love their work as well, but unlike PMBR, working on these games is also the job that they get paid for. Project M is pure passion, Smash 4 is passion + career, if that makes sense. Of course Nintendo is going to pay their developers, even when they're making free products, but then Nintendo itself takes the hit. And you and I both know Nintendo can't afford to be putting its resources into something it's just giving away. It's taking a serious hit with the Wii U already. When Nintendo loses income, it hurts all of its employees from the top to the bottom. If they're going to have DLC, they shouldn't make it free.

If Tekken developers don't want paid character DLC, that's their choice. If Nintendo does the same, again, that's their choice and it's a choice I'd support, but I would never expect it of them.

The only DLC I'm adamantly against is Disc-locked Content. Because that's clearly content that could have been included from release, and selling that is bull**** no matter how you slice it.

I agree with basically everything except you're utterly wrong about Nintendo's finances.

Forbes themselves did a write up that displayed financially, how Nintendo could basically fall out of publicity for the next 20+ years without earning a dime and they'd still have plenty of money left.

Nintendo can VERY much afford to screw up. Of all the issues that face them, most notably the slow widespread uptake of the Wii U, money is easily on the way, way, bottom of that list.

 

[D-idara]

The only things that I could even begin to say could be included as paid DLC and I mean CHEAP DLC. (We're talking $1 cheap) is additional modes for special brawl, 50+ challenges in event matches, board the platforms returning, or new target test maps.

The fire emblem DLC is great, I know because while I may not have paid for it, my brother sure did and "The Future Past 1-3" was just too damn good.
But it's something that could've been put as additional stuff at endgame that would of put the game even higher up in my book.

---------------------------
DLC is just something that puts games down in my opinion. If this content is provided from the start, it adds to the bulk of the game and makes it feel even more packed than it already is. The only way people don't really care if a game has DLC, is if it's free. If there are real time constraints that make you unable to put content into a game, and you have to add it later, why charge people for it?

It's just a moneymaking scheme to me. I'd much rather them make the DLC free, and make any later copies of the game just come with it normally.

You don't really understand how people working works, don't you? You need to stop satanizing DLC because sometimes the DLC's not content they could've added to the game, it's content that they made later AFTER THE GAME IS FINISHED. They're not completing the game, they're adding extras to the complete experience, and people worked hard (In some cases...) to develop that DLC, why do you want them to work for free?

 

[Saito]

You don't really understand how people working works, don't you? You need to stop satanizing DLC because sometimes the DLC's not content they could've added to the game, it's content that they made later AFTER THE GAME IS FINISHED. They're not completing the game, they're adding extras to the complete experience, and people worked hard (In some cases...) to develop that DLC, why do you want them to work for free?

Those statements made in that post were rectified in a much more detailed post later. Post # 15

Reading that post, I have problems with specific types of DLC.

Characters in fighting games, real endings of games, core gameplay changes, all put up red flags for me on things that shouldn't be charged for as paid DLC.

Refer to those, and if you still have those complaints then Tag/quote me.

 

[Stompman]

I think the guideline for DLC should be this: Is the game on the disc that I purchased as complete as the predecessor? For example, Mario Golf for the 3DS contains the same number of courses as many of the prior games did, the DLC for that game is simply expanding that. So as long as Smash U/3DS has as much on disc content as Brawl did, I'll be ok with any paid DLC.

 

[dezeray112]

Well, the only thing that I believe that patching is what I believe is to be free at all times.

I personally do not mind paid DLC, although I only purchase DLC if it is something that I am interested in.

 

[QuickRat]

I think it depends on the content. First step: is DLC ok?

We'll have to analyze the game itself as it is launched. Is it balanced? Does it have enough 1P content? Is there a good amount of characters and stages? Are there reasons to spend 999 hours without paying anything else? If the answer to all of that is 'no', then I hope nobody buys any DLC and Nintendo goes into bankrupt. If the answer is 'yes', we can talk about step two: is it needed?

Some times, video game enterprises put useless crap as DLC. Alternative costumes, new trophies, dioramas... That would be non-needed DLC, what I actually call "sh¡t". Some other times, they try to improve the community and keeping it alife with new content. That would be needed DLC. So... step three: is it a fair price?

I would love they drop new content without any payment... But I'm realistic: it's Nintendo, it won't happen. Maybe if they could earn millions with competitive scene, such as Valve does, but I don't think it's the same case. Once we realize we'll need to pay, we'll have to compare the price and the content. For example: $30 for a stage and a character a week later is bullsh¡t. However, I could pay that amount of money if they launch an expansion pack in 2016 which includes 10 new stages, 10 new characters, lots of new 1P content, new mechanics and some corrections over the gameplay in order to find a perfect competitive game.

 

[spader13]

I'd expect balance patches/updates for free, especially if there's any major glitches or a huge character imbalance.

As for paid DLC, Stages and Characters are likely the only two things I'd consider. Of course, knowing Nintendo, they'll likely give you the first bit of DLC released for free or at a discount, and then have discounts for buying bundles too. The Fire Emblem Awakening DLC was well done in my opinion, though slightly more expensive than I'd have liked, but I still bought most of it. For the levels I cared less about, I was free to skip it, and that's how I'd treat Smash DLC too.

 

[Sour Supreme]

Nintendo needs money, I seriously doubt they'll be throwing down free DLC left and right.

I'm interested to see how Tourneys take the DLC. Every console present might need all the DLC, which could create roadblocks. And, if you've never downloaded the DLC you could be going up against a char that's totally unknown to you. Scurry, that's what that is.

On the other hand, there are also some Multiplayer Games that make DLC overpowered in relation to every on-game choice. This intends to make people want to buy it. But that would certainly remove DLC from the tournaments.

Idek man.

 

[Shin F.]

Regardless, it's not like character DLC is the only option available to Nintendo.

Source

It's the only one that I'd pay for, with maybe stages.

If Nintendo released characters for free and little things like trophies and items as paid DLC, I'd just download the characters and call it good, and from the sounds of things, you're the same way. If Nintendo did that, they'd never see another dime from me.

Let me try to explain this way. When you buy the game, the game is complete. The experience is 100% there. DLC are things the devs became able to add later that can enhance the experience. They're not a part of it by default, but you can pay to have them added. Just like going to the movie theater, you could say. When you buy the ticket, you can now go in and have the experience of seeing the movie. Once you do, there are also extra things you can pay for to enhance that experience. Popcorn, nachos, drinks, and things like that. The movie is the game just as it's sold, the extras are DLC. You don't have to have them to get the full experience of the game itself. They're just nice extras. Using the same analogy, you're saying that there's no point in going to the movies if you're not going to have popcorn and a drink. It's part of the experience. That's fine, plenty of people would agree with you. But you're saying that because it's part of the experience, it should be free. But in reality, it's not a necessary part of the experience. You've already got the necessities.

Nintendo needs money, I seriously doubt they'll be throwing down free DLC left and right.

I'm interested to see how Tourneys take the DLC. Every console present might need all the DLC, which could create roadblocks. And, if you've never downloaded the DLC you could be going up against a char that's totally unknown to you. Scurry, that's what that is.

On the other hand, there are also some Multiplayer Games that make DLC overpowered in relation to every on-game choice. This intends to make people want to buy it. But that would certainly remove DLC from the tournaments.

Idek man.

Now, see, as for having every character available for tournaments, something I would do as Nintendo is offer the characters for free or at a great discount just to the competitive community, specifically to tourney hosts (and for a limited time to everyone when it first comes out - maybe a week). That way, tourneys don't need to worry about not having some specific character, and it's not overly favoring the competitive (since casuals would still have a timeframe to get it for free as well).

 

[PillsBuryDopeBoy]

I honestly have no problem with paying for DLC providing that its good content.

 

[TheDMonroeShow]

Its pretty upsetting how many people here seem to think dlc = none complete game.

I personally think its amazing how devs can add to an already COMPLETE experience after the game is shipped by adding new content or ideas later down the road. It also allows less stuff to be cut since before dlc anything not finished would have to be scrapped

Granted you can do dlc wrong but so far nintendo seems to know what they're doing. I would love if smash dlc was done like mario golf with a pack having a stage a character and at in smashs case.

And also for the people saying they'll only get it if its free: Devs needed to be paid. That would be equivlent of you going to work and not recieving pay yourself.

 

[8-peacock-8]

A lot of posts in this thread that make me think a few people here don't understand how game development works, don't understand how a game developer's job works, or how DLC works. No offense.

 

[LancerStaff]

I'd rather not have any DLC just so it doesn't unbalance the game. I don't expect Nintendo to add DLC either, since roughly half of their customers haven't connected to the internet, and a couple other reasons.

 

[BioZelink]

There could be DLC, but i really doubt characters would be DLC. Stages could potentially be a possibility, but i kind of doubt it. But who knows, Nintendo does need money, and i know id pay for more characters.

 

[Saito]

It's the only one that I'd pay for, with maybe stages.

If Nintendo released characters for free and little things like trophies and items as paid DLC, I'd just download the characters and call it good, and from the sounds of things, you're the same way. If Nintendo did that, they'd never see another dime from me.

Let me try to explain this way. When you buy the game, the game is complete. The experience is 100% there. DLC are things the devs became able to add later that can enhance the experience. They're not a part of it by default, but you can pay to have them added. Just like going to the movie theater, you could say. When you buy the ticket, you can now go in and have the experience of seeing the movie. Once you do, there are also extra things you can pay for to enhance that experience. Popcorn, nachos, drinks, and things like that. The movie is the game just as it's sold, the extras are DLC. You don't have to have them to get the full experience of the game itself. They're just nice extras. Using the same analogy, you're saying that there's no point in going to the movies if you're not going to have popcorn and a drink. It's part of the experience. That's fine, plenty of people would agree with you. But you're saying that because it's part of the experience, it should be free. But in reality, it's not a necessary part of the experience. You've already got the necessities.

Things that I consider are unnecessary to enjoy a game to it's full extent are viable to be paid for. Since we consider characters as a different priority, I don't think we can agree on this point.

If we compare this scenario to a movie, I consider the DLC characters as apart of the movie. Whether it's a director's cut or whatever.

If the game was compared an amusement park, I would consider it as a new ride. not the food in the stands.

I have always said this, but I see the characters and their move sets as chess pieces - they are essential items necessary in the game and we would never sell any of those individually.

-------------------------------

Something to note; I wasn't planning on replying past this post. I think I made it clear what my overall point was, even going so far as repeating how different versions of DLC are. I don't expect anyone to agree/disagree with it. Understanding my point is all I ever cared about. It doesn't felt like you did, Saito, previously. Likewise, even if you still don't want to ever pay for any character(even if they're completely new to the game, as in were developed after the game's release period), that's fine. I wasn't expecting you to. I do hope you understand exactly why I think they should be paid for, since they actually count as entirely new content, respectively. Not agree with it, but understand why I believe so. I respect your opinion, of course.

I made the original reply to this post in about two hours, so I didn't even get to see this edit.

I understand why DLC characters should be paid for, but I don't think it's right that they have to be paid for. If there is some other way to get those characters, then I would have no gripes with that, but that won't be a thing at all.

Like I said earlier, I'd hate for the developers to do work that they won't end up getting paid for, so I'd rather there be no character DLC.

At least then I wouldn't have to be so critical regarding their decisions.

 

[EdgeTheLucas]

This' ll sound weird but bear with me. If Sakurai feels rushed and isn't able to include every single character that he wanted in time, what I'd like for him to do is release the game without it, but sell it for less than other games. For example, if he absolutely cannot include Ice Climbers in time but needs to ship the Wii U version soon, he can release it for $55 instead of the usual $60. Then when he's done he can include the Ice Climbers, along with other goodies like an IC's stage, their music, and stuff not about the Ice Climbers like a few for fun stages and some extra trophies--all as a pack for $5.

Then later versions come with the pack by default for the usual $60.

As for extra characters not intended to be in from the get-go (as in, not characters like Meta Knight but maybe Roy or Young Link or Squirtle or Ivysaur), I'd gladly pay another $10-15 for all the cut characters from Brawl (and Melee, except Dr. Mario ) so an already complete fighting game has a few extras for those who wanted to see how a a nonessential joke character like Pichu stacks up against everyone. It's only fair to the developers.

 

[Morbi]

This' ll sound weird but bear with me. If Sakurai feels rushed and isn't able to include every single character that he wanted in time, what I'd like for him to do is release the game without it, but sell it for less than other games. For example, if he absolutely cannot include Ice Climbers in time but needs to ship the Wii U version soon, he can release it for $55 instead of the usual $60. Then when he's done he can include the Ice Climbers, along with other goodies like an IC's stage, their music, and stuff not about the Ice Climbers like a few for fun stages and some extra trophies--all as a pack for $5.

Then later versions come with the pack by default for the usual $60.

As for extra characters, I'd gladly pay another $10-15 for all the cut characters from Brawl (and Melee, except Dr. Mario ) so an already complete fighting game has a few extras for those who wanted to see how a a nonessential joke character like Pichu stacks up against everyone. It's only fair to the developers.

I suppose that is possible, but at the same time he would not retail the game at $55 dollars even if he missed two or three characters. It would still cost $60. It would be easier to just offer the Ice Climbers (from your example) as individual DLC content rather than release an entire version of the game with them in.

 

[Johnknight1]

Making the DLC free also means they don't get paid for their extremely hard work. People tend to forget that. But also carefully read the next paragraph as it's not that black and white.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of DLC now is additions well after the product is finished, and was never on the original game to begin with. You should be paying for completely new content that didn't ever exist on the disc period. That makes sense. Now, I dislike on-game paid dlc since that should've been available originally. It's one thing if they couldn't finish it in time and you have to download the finish stuff(but it should be free in that case, since it was already meant to be there from the start). But that's an exception.

And character bundles are a good way to cheapen it. Killer Instinct 3 did that beautifully.

Quoted this for the truth.

Everyone should read this.

$100 for 2 high quality games in the smash series is actually super cheap if you think about it, especially compared to the money the people who make the game are making for their hard work.

 

[Thirdkoopa]

You couldn't convince me that paid character DLC is even remotely a good idea.

People need to get paid post-release, that's how game industry works. Here, have a video on it:

Are you done with that video? Now that we've got that out of the way, most of the time, DLC isn't because they love the game (Well, most of the time it's that too, but that's not the defining reason) - It's money. The way the Triple A model works is that publishers reap money after a while, and publishers don't get a good fraction of the money of the copies they sell anyways. To pay both developers and publishers better, especially on a big budget game, they sometimes come up with a few more ideas and sell them off. There's nothing sin-worthy or forbidden in that. It's business.

For your personal problem - Why? I don't see it. You pay for a director's cut anyways if you've seen the film in release. I agree that on it's own, it's a foul practice (Just having a character for six dollars, for example) but if it's in an expansion pack as well or viable via a pack together? I don't really see the point against it. I can see why you wouldn't like it, but being skeptical about a business choice (Especially for being there) for existing is not something as viable - That's not even giving it a fair chance considering Nintendo's done a great job with most of their DLC in games so far. Other fighting games do it and it's not shunned by them; only big time it was was the whole on-disc scenario, and that had plenty of reasons. Even then, that was a whole bad PR handled event.

- - -

Frankly it seems like you (among certain other people I've seen; this isn't me calling out anyone specific from this thread) are not even having an open mind about this. Seriously guys, what? What do you even fear about paid character DLC? Knowing Nintendo, it'd probably be in a pack some way (like expansion pack) is that suddenly a terrible idea? Here's your solution then: Don't buy it. Wait for it to go on sale. Write a letter about ways you think it can be changed in price. Anything more productive than "lol i'm going to question these choices" because frankly that just makes you sound entitled and privileged.