Could Patches and DLC Allow Nintendo to Release the Game Sooner?

[Ben Holt]

I've been wondering this recently, since Smash 4 is rumored to come out this year (referring to it being on a list of "Coming Soon" 3DS games where the others have confirmed 2013 releases). We all know that Brawl was released early at the cost of some content (like Mewtwo). But since the Wii U is obviously capable of DLC and patches, do you think Nintendo could use that to release the game earlier?
To avoid the rants about paying extra for DLC, let's just assume, for the sake of staying on topic, that all DLC is free.

 

[Shorts]

Could? Yes.

Will? No.

Sakurai doesn't work like, that. DLC as a whole (besides standard patches) is a BIG IF, let alone something this wild. It just doesn't seem practical at all.

 

[FalKoopa]

DLC shouldn't be used as an excuse for releasing an incomplete game earlier on, with the intention of fixing it up later with patches.

 

[Frostwraith]

DLC shouldn't be used as an excuse for releasing an incomplete game earlier on, with the intention of fixing it up later with patches.

This. ^

DLC should EXPAND the game with extra content, NOT be an excuse to release an incomplete game and cheaply nab money with that.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

DLC = Extra content.

 

[Big-Cat]

Actually, Shorts, Sakurai has implicitly said that he was at the very least open to the idea of patches, especially since this is one of the few genres that benefits from it minus glitch fixing.

 

[I.S FoxMkloud]

I think just like most "full game releases" nowadays, it can. But from what I read, Mr. Sakurai is not so fond of the idea of pushing out a product without as much polishing as he can give. So yes, while it can come out real early as patch and DLC capability has been improved with this new Wii U but expect it to be unbalanced (like Brawl is according to some) and buggy to a degree you would think you are paying for a beta test. Personally, I am not so fond of this DLC idea but I won't go into that.

 

[ndayday]

DLC shouldn't be used as an excuse for releasing an incomplete game earlier on, with the intention of fixing it up later with patches.

This is the best possible answer.
It's interesting though, as they could definitely add a character or something that in retrospect they really wish they could have put in at first. That's how DLC is supposed to work, not as a means to push out a product and sell or update unfinished segments later.

 

[Ben Holt]

I could see them doing it if it's delayed as much as Brawl, which was released early at the cost of a few characters, and possibly other content.

 

[Guybrush20X6]

This would mean that we'd have to find all the fun glitches like Giggglypuff real shapr before they disappear forever.

 

[final lap]

I have to wonder if such a thing might not be good for Nintendo. WiiU is already sort of known for its huge day one patch, and its long loading times which was recently patched.

 

[finalark]

Since when has pushing an unfinished game out the door then fixing it later ever not earned the ire of the gaming community?

 

[Norm]

I personally would like to see the game released when it's finished and patches used to simply fix issues that arise from the stress that being played by millions will generate. Patches could even be used to tweak balance issues and potential glitches that show up. And of course DLC all the way.

 

[Deleted member]

I'd rather have no DLC with a complete game that's functional than a broken game with tons of DLC. Like Miyamoto said "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever".

 

[I.S FoxMkloud]

Well, technically, a delayed game can be bad too! (I'm looking at you Duke Nukem) But I agree with you SSB Fan. I'd rather have no DLC with a complete game than to have a broken game with tons of DLC.

 

[Big-Cat]

I'd rather have no DLC with a complete game that's functional than a broken game with tons of DLC. Like Miyamoto said "A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game is bad forever".

At the same time, there are deadlines that need to be fulfilled. They can't just keep the game locked up until it's "perfect". This is when a patch is most ideal - when changes that couldn't be made at the time are made.

 

[Deleted member]

At the same time, there are deadlines that need to be fulfilled. They can't just keep the game locked up until it's "perfect". This is when a patch is most ideal - when changes that couldn't be made at the time are made.

I understand that a complete game is unrealistic due to deadlines, but my point is that it is better to try to complete the game as much as possible than to rush the game only to "fix" it later. Sakurai's philosophy is to do as much as he can with the game and then the team disband (with the exception of leftover contents they tried, but couldn't fit in), so I think he would agree with my statement.

 

[Big-Cat]

I understand that a complete game is unrealistic due to deadlines, but my point is that it is better to try to complete the game as much as possible than to rush the game only to "fix" it later. Sakurai's philosophy is to do as much as he can with the game and then the team disband (with the exception of leftover contents they tried, but couldn't fit in), so I think he would agree with my statement.

I never liked that whole disband thing, something he only has knowingly done for Brawl and Uprising whereas 64 and Melee had the same team. Wouldn't you want a consistent and experienced team to be working on the games in a series? Though I guess that's why they got Namco for this.

Actually though, his philosophy is to make (at least in the Smash series) each game as if they were the last game in their series.

 

[AnOkayDM]

I'd be okay with DLC characters and stages as well as bug/exploit fixes, as long as the game was completed when it was shipped. Don't need no half-finished Smash game fixed with patches after the release.

 

[Gingerbread Man]

Releasing a game not fully tested and in need of many patches is frowned upon in the gaming world. So its on nintendo's list of don't-do-this. They're usually good with those things so I imagine they'll take their time.

 

[Dark Phazon]

Releasing a game not fully tested and in need of many patches is frowned upon in the gaming world. So its on nintendo's list of don't-do-this. They're usually good with those things so I imagine they'll take their time.

I agree but...Yh but they always say they didnt have enough time...stuff left out due to time constraints...

How much time is truly enough time...

 

[Vintage Creep]

I think the game mustn't be rushed.
Patches though will most likely happen, I hope. If the roster turns out to be unbalanced like Brawl they can correct it later. Not counting glitches and stuff. And I hope DLC will happen too, hoping they're not cheap like a character for 10 bucks. But Nintendo seems pretty fair on that side for what it has done since now.

 

[Dark Phazon]

Another RUMOR sorta:

Supposed leaked spec sheet of upcoming games found this on ''WiiU daily''

At the bottom Sm4sh WiiU is supposed for ''Fall-Oct...?''

http://wiiudaily.com/2013/04/heres-a-look-at-the-internal-release-dates-for-nintendo/

 

[FalKoopa]

It's foolish to expect Smash 4 out so early. If it's october, then it will be out in just 1 year and 8 months; even less time than Melee, which is absurd. Probably it's Fall 2014.

 

[Dark Phazon]

It's foolish to expect Smash 4 out so early. If it's october, then it will be out in just 1 year and 8 months; even less time than Melee, which is absurd. Probably it's Fall 2014.

I agree just putting it out there.

 

[Vintage Creep]

Yeah sure. Everything gets released this year. EVERYTHING. Lol.

 

[Angiance]

More wait time = a polished game

Less wait time = Sonic 06

 

[Vintage Creep]

That's not a rule anyway.

 

[Pazzo.]

While DLC is a good option for Characters, stages, and such; the fact stands that an unfinished game = complaining.