Geno (♥♪!?): Return of the Starsend Savior

[MattX20]

I'm not going to rule Geno out of the Fighter Pass until the last two characters are confirmed, and then I'l consider bonus DLC a possibility. Until then, I'm keeping my eyes open.

 

[catsforlife1]

Man the Geno speculation as been going back and fourth lately. I really hope this means something good for out boy. For now we must wait and see what happens.

 

[EricTheGamerman]

Sorry for these late replies, I've been busy all weekend:

I have to disagree. Hero is definitely a corporate pick because Dragon Quest is Square Enix's biggest selling franchise in Japan and Dragon Quest 11 S was promoted alongside the character to advertise and try to gather a western audience. Although I did make a mistake of adding Isabelle to fan requests. She is a corporate pick for Animal Crossing new horizon, fixed that.

There have been lots of requests for Simon Belmont and Cloud even back in the Brawl days and have been popular picks during the Smash ballot. Sakurai even states that Simon was added due to the Smash Ballot.

King K Rool is a long unused Donkey Kong character and while Ridley comes from a re-surging franchise, he would most likely never be playable without fan demand and Sakurai would still be convinced to keep him as a boss. If there wasn't anyone requesting King K Rool or Ridley then there we would probably never see them appear as playable fighters in smash.

Hero counts for a lot more than just a corporate pick. I mean Eight exists as an equal alt because of Western fan demand and the Dragon Quest characters are beloved Japanese video game icons that also serve to satisfy fans of Dragon Quest on a wider level and fan demand for them in Japan. I know Simon Belmont got added thanks to the ballot, but it's also worth mentioning that Sakurai was also interested in adding Castlevania and clearly had a love for the franchise (which was also going through a bit of a resurgence thanks to the Netflix show). King K. Rool and Ridley also have the added benefits of advertising long running franchises that have had recent releases on 3DS and Switch.

My point is that it's hard to say that characters only fall into one side of such an overly simplified dichotomy. Characters get added for a summation of reasons and ideas, and usually most of them have additional benefits beyond just satisfying fan demand or being an advertisement. I just don't like the dichotomy period because we all know Smash characters get chosen for such a wide variety of complicated reasons and forcing them into the dichotomy doesn't allow room for a lot of the realities of certain characters and how they got in.

As opposed to what, other games that make seasons upon seasons of DLC? Yes, smash characters require a level of polish a ton of other games dont have, but we have remember that

A) this DLC is probably selling pretty crazy numbers given the selections so far

B) They work on characters at a staggered pace.

We cant assume Sakurai and team work any harder than any other companies with post launch support.

Aka, its reasonable to want more DLC if your game is the type for it. Other games release 2,3, even 4 seasons of post-launch DLC.


And as other people have said, Sakurai chooses to work on this. If he wants to make 5 more, he can make 5 more. If he doesnt, he wont.

Spoiler: Extended Thoughts on Smash DLC Moving Forward

It's worth pointing out that the "multiple seasons of DLC model" is a fairly new creation and has almost entirely come to exist in games that are treated as "live services." These are primarily games that launch with more minimal content and are supported by a heavy amount of microtransactions which makes these games more profitable than moving on to a new entry for most of these companies as they nickel and dime consumers. We see this in games like Rainbow Six Siege, Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive, Blazblue Cross Tag Battle (29 DLC fighters and counting for god's sake), etc. They all have much more advanced monetization schemes than Smash, so there's more direct profit in keeping people in that game to potentially contribute more and more money to the in game economies. None of these games have launched even halfway close to the content Ultimate offered at launch and there may be more fair arguments to be made about how these policies and ideas are doing more harm than good to fighting games as a whole.

Unless Nintendo makes some series moves, they will have paid the most to develop their game and will receive the least post game profit through monetization because they don't use the traditional microtransaction heavy routes. Assuming we get another 6 Mii Fighter costumes with each character content drop and that you paid individually for each fighter including Piranha Plant you'd be paying a maximum of $56.75 (more realistically, $51.75 because there is no reason to buy all the content and not buy the Fighter's Pass). Nintendo just doesn't benefit as much post launch, with the biggest boom arguably going to be reliant on selling new copies of Ultimate (Nintendo games don't decrease in price, meanwhile all the other fighting games drop dramatically within a few months or even just a few weeks to prices like $20 or $30). Arguably, the best way to do that is to go for big name characters that attract new people to Smash (Which is why I think that we're getting all third parties in the pass for example). But that gets increasingly expensive to support as DLC sells less and less moving forward and the production has to be kept going, and because of the inherent quality of Smash as the actual complete product and known IP in the Switch era, the game will continue to sell without further investment on Nintendo's part.

This is why I think Nintendo may not be as keen to keep Smash going as I feel like so many fans assume. I feel like too often people look to the models of other games when Smash doesn't even belong to the same field as those types of releases. I think this is why Sakurai highlighted long-term DLC as less beneficial compared to moving on to future games in his book. It's difficult to deliver a content complete game at launch and support it with DLC seemingly indefinitely without going into more unsavory territories in terms of practices (or rather, it's not really difficult as much as it doesn't yield the same kinds of results these other games with multiple seasons of DLC and MTX do, which may appear less beneficial to investors compared to moving on to new projects that result in bigger yields than just said indefinite DLC would). This is a lot of speculation on my part, I unfortunately don't have all of the numbers, but I could see a convincing case as to why Smash may be the one unlikely to get multiple seasons of DLC in comparison to the other fighting games on the market.

For what it's worth, I think that Nintendo will support Sakurai as long as he's willing to work and commit to Ultimate because I think he genuinely does have that pull with Nintendo and it's not that DLC characters are not profitable (They almost certainly are, it's just a question of HOW profitable compared to alternative decisions), but this is also why I think Nintendo may not push for more DLC as much as others seems to. They can benefit from the sells of Smash as an ever-green title without having to continue investing resources in it.

 

[KirbyWorshipper2465]

>single bonus DLC character theory being entertained
>again
You know, you can't imagine how much I want to bang my head on my desk right now. I am so tired of this.

Everything that comes after the base game is by definition a bonus, PP the straggler, fighter pass, fighter pass 2, whatever. This is so silly.

My point is that it's hard to say that characters only fall into one side of such an overly simplified dichotomy. Characters get added for a summation of reasons and ideas, and usually most of them have additional benefits beyond just satisfying fan demand or being an advertisement. I just don't like the dichotomy period because we all know Smash characters get chosen for such a wide variety of complicated reasons and forcing them into the dichotomy doesn't allow room for a lot of the realities of certain characters and how they got in.

Okay, for the sake of a complete hypothesis, let's assume that somebody lesser-known overall like Bonk gets picked, what combined reasons would there be for such a decision?

 

[MissingGlitch]

So hey I've been on vacation for a week what's up? Same ol' Same ol'?

 

[EricTheGamerman]

>single bonus DLC character theory being entertained
>again
You know, you can't imagine how much I want to bang my head on my desk right now. I am so tired of this.

Everything that comes after the base game is by definition a bonus, PP the straggler, fighter pass, fighter pass 2, whatever. This is so silly.



Okay, for the sake of a complete hypothesis, let's assume that somebody lesser-known overall like Bonk gets picked, what combined reasons would there be for such a decision?

I don't see any reason for there to be any issue with calling an additional Fighter post the Fighter's Pass a "Bonus DLC Character." That terminology just refers to the idea that such a character was not originally advertised or part of the Fighter's Pass, and may potentially be the only character beyond the pass, thus it is a "Bonus Character" that we would be getting (though still paying for).

As for Bonk, I mean it depends on any number of things that lead to that decision in the first place and that is independent of all characters. Maybe Bonk gets a legitimately large fan base that pushes for them, maybe Konami decides to poke around in Hudson Soft's grave for an IP and revives Bonk properly and wants to advertise them, maybe Sakurai has been a ****ing massive Bonk fan and has been waiting for the moment to revive him in Smash, maybe all of these things are true at once. There may be one factor that pushes a character more into becoming a fighter, but there are undeniable additional benefits to all the parties involved that may make that transition a more desirable one is what I'm saying.

Hero, for example, achieves many things: Satisfies fan desire for a DQ character, promotes Dragon Quest 11 S and other DQ games on Switch, introduces DQ to more people in the West as a series (this should be separate from the more direct Switch advertising), adds one of the most iconic JRPG series of all time to Switch, adds a series that specifically has roots with Nintendo, satisfies Sakurai as a fan of DQ, and represents many era of DQ in one character. There's fan interest, there's general public interest, there's Sakurai interest, etc.

 

[KirbyWorshipper2465]

So hey I've been on vacation for a week what's up? Same ol' Same ol'?

Basically. Well, there's Nindies coming earlier than past years, so there's that.

As for Bonk, I mean it depends on any number of things that lead to that decision in the first place and that is independent of all characters. Maybe Bonk gets a legitimately large fan base that pushes for them, maybe Konami decides to poke around in Hudson Soft's grave for an IP and revives Bonk properly and wants to advertise them, maybe Sakurai has been a ****ing massive Bonk fan and has been waiting for the moment to revive him in Smash, maybe all of these things are true at once. There may be one factor that pushes a character more into becoming a fighter, but there are undeniable additional benefits to all the parties involved that may make that transition a more desirable one is what I'm saying.

Hero, for example, achieves many things: Satisfies fan desire for a DQ character, promotes Dragon Quest 11 S and other DQ games on Switch, introduces DQ to more people in the West as a series (this should be separate from the more direct Switch advertising), adds one of the most iconic JRPG series of all time to Switch, adds a series that specifically has roots with Nintendo, satisfies Sakurai as a fan of DQ, and represents many era of DQ in one character. There's fan interest, there's general public interest, there's Sakurai interest, etc.

Hmm, fair enough. Basically an alignment of stars and whatnot. As it happens, several characters that aren't in Smash yet have gotten helpful factors without needing Smash, makes their likelihood increased (long-time Marioverse characters Pauline and Poochy getting more mainstream exposure, Earthworm Jim of all people rushing back in with a new sequel, a deluxe cart reprint and a comic deal, Crash and Spyro in general, etc).

And that leads us right back to Geno. He's had Sakurai's stated interest as far back as Brawl, his Mii costume had gotten extra fanfare, SMRPG got its 22th anniversary acknowledged by NOA out of the blue, his fan movement still supports him strongly, Ultimate has sprinkled references to SMRPG, there's rumors of SNES coming to the online service…Not to mention that his inclusion would symbolize Nintendo and Square burying the hatchet once and for all.

 

[wynn728]

It's worth pointing out that the "multiple seasons of DLC model" is a fairly new creation and has almost entirely come to exist in games that are treated as "live services." These are primarily games that launch with more minimal content and are supported by a heavy amount of microtransactions which makes these games more profitable than moving on to a new entry for most of these companies as they nickel and dime consumers. We see this in games like Rainbow Six Siege, Street Fighter, Soul Calibur, Dead or Alive, Blazblue Cross Tag Battle (29 DLC fighters and counting for god's sake), etc. They all have much more advanced monetization schemes than Smash, so there's more direct profit in keeping people in that game to potentially contribute more and more money to the in game economies. None of these games have launched even halfway close to the content Ultimate offered at launch and there may be more fair arguments to be made about how these policies and ideas are doing more harm than good to fighting games as a whole.

Unless Nintendo makes some series moves, they will have paid the most to develop their game and will receive the least post game profit through monetization because they don't use the traditional microtransaction heavy routes. Assuming we get another 6 Mii Fighter costumes with each character content drop and that you paid individually for each fighter including Piranha Plant you'd be paying a maximum of $56.75 (more realistically, $51.75 because there is no reason to buy all the content and not buy the Fighter's Pass). Nintendo just doesn't benefit as much post launch, with the biggest boom arguably going to be reliant on selling new copies of Ultimate (Nintendo games don't decrease in price, meanwhile all the other fighting games drop dramatically within a few months or even just a few weeks to prices like $20 or $30). Arguably, the best way to do that is to go for big name characters that attract new people to Smash (Which is why I think that we're getting all third parties in the pass for example). But that gets increasingly expensive to support as DLC sells less and less moving forward and the production has to be kept going, and because of the inherent quality of Smash as the actual complete product and known IP in the Switch era, the game will continue to sell without further investment on Nintendo's part.

This is why I think Nintendo may not be as keen to keep Smash going as I feel like so many fans assume. I feel like too often people look to the models of other games when Smash doesn't even belong to the same field as those types of releases. I think this is why Sakurai highlighted long-term DLC as less beneficial compared to moving on to future games in his book. It's difficult to deliver a content complete game at launch and support it with DLC seemingly indefinitely without going into more unsavory territories in terms of practices (or rather, it's not really difficult as much as it doesn't yield the same kinds of results these other games with multiple seasons of DLC and MTX do, which may appear less beneficial to investors compared to moving on to new projects that result in bigger yields than just said indefinite DLC would). This is a lot of speculation on my part, I unfortunately don't have all of the numbers, but I could see a convincing case as to why Smash may be the one unlikely to get multiple seasons of DLC in comparison to the other fighting games on the market.

For what it's worth, I think that Nintendo will support Sakurai as long as he's willing to work and commit to Ultimate because I think he genuinely does have that pull with Nintendo and it's not that DLC characters are not profitable (They almost certainly are, it's just a question of HOW profitable compared to alternative decisions), but this is also why I think Nintendo may not push for more DLC as much as others seems to. They can benefit from the sells of Smash as an ever-green title without having to continue investing resources in it.

I extremely disagree with this. With Smash Bros Ultimate they had to make 74 characters, 103 stages, include over 900 music tracks, make all the items, Pokemon & Assist Trophies, and do all the QA testing along with much other things then sell the game for $60. With Smash Bros Ultimate DLC they make 5 characters, 5 stages, a few music track and sell it for a total between $25 to $30. They're selling 5 characters for the equivalent of half the game base price. That to me sound extremely profitable seeing how it's much less work and cost more, which I ain't complaining since Smash Bros earns it's price. Most likely 90% of Smash Bros Ultimate owners are buying each DLC character, so they're making the money back. Plus like you stated more DLC character like Joker & Hero are attracting more people to pick up Smash Bros and buying the DLC. So more profit.

Also we got to take in account that Nintendo is okay with a game not making maximum profit because that game is help selling the Switch. With all these other games you mention that nickel & dime their customers are all third party games and they do that because they only have that game, so these third party companies are trying to make the most out of that one game and squeeze all the profits they can. For 1st Party developers like Nintendo & Sony they don't need to do that. For example, God of War, that's a game that doesn't need microtransactions and Sony can afford for it to not make all of it's money back immediately because that game is helping sell PS4 to people. These companies want to sell their consoles so the way to do that is by making an enticing game. So with Smash Bros Ultimate they come out of the gate with 74 characters and keep showing off DLC so people will be more interested to get Smash Bros and a Switch to play it. If Smash Bros help push the Switch then it's okay for them to take a little hit in terms of finances since consoles is where they really make their money. I can see Smash DLC still being profitable since it's a game that people will keep playing and wanting each new character and that in term help the Switch sell itself since that's the only place you can play that game.

 

[ForsakenM]

Woof, I can finally post. Been busy with training for work. 6AM comes early when you are someone who normally stays up past midnight!

Spoiler: I'm Not Greedy Or Entitled: I Just Want Better By Geno.

Let’s assume that the rumor is real. In that case, hypothetically, are you kidding me that you are going to complain that Geno is IN as a fighter but without a stage? For me it would be like a dream come true in terms of Smash and love for the character. Of course I would want Geno with a stage, more songs and probably the same deal that people on the FP is having. But either as part of the FP or as part of Bonus DLC, regardless the extra stuff (stage, songs, spirits); I will just be ****ing happy with Geno playable. Moreover, if somehow he is coming just with 2 songs; or with “less love” than other DLC, I wouldn’t care at all. He would be just IN and that’s all I can ask for. In fact, I would never ask for anything else in Smash. My dream roster would be complete.

Of course my most wanted character (Mega Man) came with thousand of songs, but it’s a different case and character. If Geno (second most wanted character) gets in, he would be totally bad-*** and epic, regardless of the extra stuff they add on him. Also, his moveset and design would be masterpiece, like Banjo-Kazooie.

*I don’t believe the leak/rumor is real, I’m just sure about 2 things:

-Regardless the “extra” stuff they would add on him, in that case, c’mon guys, Geno would be in, after 24 f*ucking years of Love, Demand & Memories. Everyone would want him with the same amount of details of other 3rd party characters; but learn to appreciate (hypothetically speaking, I repeat).
-Regardless of any leak or rumor, I DO believe that Geno will be IN, but no one knows if it will be as FP or later. Sakurai won’t let “Ultimate” ends without Geno in there. Trust me. It’s the last piece of the puzzle.

**If that’s true, he would be the 7th DLC: Legend of the 7 Stars and number #76.

***As you may note, my English is not native, so sorry

Patience is a virtue, let’s hope for the best!

I love it when someone says they say 'English is not my native language, I'm sorry!' and then they proceed to write my own language better than me.

OOF!

Also, yes I WOULD be disappointed if he came without a stage or with no music or only two tracks. Why? Because that would mean he got the shaft when he has so much more to offer.

When you look at K. Rool and Ridley, stages and music that represents them or their franchise was already in the base game before they were, but even they got more music. Geno is a 3rd-party character that has no representation in Smash Ultimate aside from a PNG. If Geno came in with no stage and no music, I would be very conflicted: on one hand, I got the only character I've ever wanted, but on the other they came with nothing else when all the others came with music and a stage and more! I would eventually settle with 'I'm happy that Geno is in and I'm sure Sakurai did his best because he and his team always does' and would eventually just be overall happy while every now and then being like 'Man, I wish we at least had some SMRPG music remixed for Ultimate...'

But at first I would be extremely upset and at war with myself.

Spoiler: We Gotta Stop Digging On Sora Fans.

Having sora be a mii costume for Geno's reveal would be the greatest thing ever. Please sakurai, please do this. Sora fans deserve this fate.

I remember a certain SSGuy holding an L over a similar situation.

Geno fans are better than this. Stop doing this. People who don't care about Geno about support us fans for our determination and length of wait time will leave when they see this, and their support goes with them.

So please, act like this is a work environment and don't step on any toes. Don't make the staff go all HR Department on yo ass.

Spoiler: Wow, Dante Could Actually Happen...But Will He?

I think we're definitely getting a Capcom character due to the datamined MH spirit slots.
RE is their biggest IP not represented yet but I honestly can't see that ever getting into Smash so I'm gonna bet my money on Dante instead.
As for the last fighter... no idea lol
I'm just gonna say Reimu since she's pretty much the biggest indie character out there and we still don't have a female character (not counting Kazooie)

Dante is basically deconfirmed. However, I don't think it was a guarantee, so I guess he could get it, though we did have the VA for Dante say he wasn't doing any more Dante work and Capcom acting like DMC needed to get on Switch and sell well to have a chance, making it seem like Dante was out of speculation for now.

Spoiler: Removing Bias From Character Labels

The way I see it, characters get chosen from either Fan requests or corporate picks.

Corporate picks may not be very requested (or as requested as certain characters) but are likely chosen for Super Smash Bros because the people involved in Smash (Including Sakurai) or third party companies approaching Nintendo want them in for personal reasons or to promote their franchise.

Recent examples: Ryu, Corrin, ... Isabelle Incineroar, Piranha Plant, Joker, Hero.

Then you have fan requests who are solely chosen to please the fans, hence the name.

Recent examples: Cloud, Ridley, King K Rool, Simon, Banjo & Kazooie.

If anyone calls Hero just a corporate push pick, I will challenge them with Mii Brawler and the Martial Artist set and whoop you with Discount Tien.

Seriously, as someone who kept saying months ago 'This is a shill pick.' or 'People will feel like this is a shill pick' I can tell you it isn't. Had it just been DQ11 or DQ3, I would have stuck with the same opinion, but Sakurai made it work so that all the big choices made it in:

• DQ11 is the most recent and most successful in the West and has a 'best-est ever EVER' version coming out on Switch and would be a face everyone would recognize
• DQ3 is for the hardcore nostolgia for Japan
• DQ4 was also really popular in Japan
• DQ8 is the most memorable one in the West.

Hero is actually all three in one: it promotes DQ in the West, it is a fan demanded character from Japan that also gives some acknowledgement to the West, and Sakurai loves the series and got to do MANY DQ first-time things in Smash...WHICH IS HIS GAME, HIS BABY! Imagine being a Japanese person who likely loves DQ and being given the honor to have them playable to fight one another and have voice acting for the first time?

Joker is a Sakurai pick, as he loves the series. Ryu is loved by many and is a gaming icon.

You guys keep trying to label characters as one thing when, in reality, they are either overlapping into multiple categories (which is easy to do with 'shill pick' since getting your character in Smash is a big deal for both getting money and getting your game out there even more) or your bias is placing them in a category they don't belong in.

Spoiler: Undertale Is Cool, But I Can't See It In Smash.

I came up with a pretty cool moveset for Frisk, actually. I already posted it in the Frisk supporter thread, but I'll repost it here if it helps you picture the whole pacifist/murderous thing.

Spoiler: Frisk Moveset

Frisk Moveset

General Idea:
Undertale is a game where you get stronger when you fight, but the ultimate goal is to spare everyone and be kind. Thus, the moveset will revolve around getting stronger by doing damage, but being able to spare enemies to get rid of bad karma

Gimmick:
Frisk has a LOVE meter (level of violence) above their percentage.
Whenever frisk deals damage it will fill up the meter proportionally to the damage dealt, and taking a stock will fill the meter by as much as doing 50%.
Taking damage has no effect on the meter, but losing a stock resets the meter to 0%/
The more full the meter is, the more damage/knockback some moves will have. However, the higher your LOVE is, the lower your mobility, and it becomes harder to dodge attacks. However, you can use certain moves to get rid of LOVE and do powerful sparing moves.

Stats:
Movement-
By default, ground and air speed would be similar to Ness, but with more air acceleration. this would make frisk easy to weave in and out and avoid attacks. They have 1 standard double jump.
However, when LOVE gets higher, air acceleration gets worse, and dash turnaround takes longer, making it easy to keep running in, but punishable if you run away. LOVE also reduces the invulnerability on dodges.
Weight would be average, at about 94. (similar to ness or inkling)

Special Moves:
Up B- Bird That Carries You Over A Disproportionately Small Gap
Similar to one of megaman's custom moves in smash 4, a bird will fly to frisk's hands and grab him, flying him straight up, with some variance in exact angle. no hitbox, standard recovery.
if your LOVE is too high, the bird won't want to help, not lifting as much. at 75-99% LOVE, the bird has a chance to not appear at all. at 100% LOVE, the bird will not show up, and this move will be about as good for recovery as Yoshi's up b, forcing you to rely on your double jump for recovery.

Side B- Shank
Frisk will use a knife, differing depending on how full LOVE meter is, and do a very short-range powerful attack that drastically scales with LOVE. this attack has a crumple effect similar to Ryu or Ridley's down b.
-at 0%-25% LOVE, they will use the toy knife, very little damage but enough hitstun to be positive on-hit
-at 26-75% LOVE, they will use the worn dagger, which deals decent damage (20-30%) and enough hitstun for a followup
-at 76%-100% LOVE, they will use the real knife, which can deal up to 50% damage, but not enough hitstun for a true followup (tech chase)

Down B- Spare
Frisk will try to hug the enemy, a command grab attack similar to Wario's bite. It can't be shielded.
Using this move, whether it hits or not, will lower your LOVE by 20%, but the more LOVE you have, the longer this move takes. Whiffing this move is likely to get you hit by a smash attack.
Damage dealt by this move will NOT fill up your LOVE meter.
-at 0% LOVE, this move will remove a stock from any opponent above 130%. (similar to some final smashes) Otherwise, it deals around 30% and has very high knockback that may kill before 130% near the ledge.
-at 1%-99% LOVE, it deals damage equal to about half of your LOVE and removes all of it (if it hits)
-at 100% LOVE, should this move actually hit your opponent, you get dunked on and lose a stock. With how slow the move is, your opponent can likely react and get hit on purpose to kill you.

Neutral B- SAVE
If you don't want to risk using spare to get rid of your LOVE, you have another option.
SAVE will fill frisk with determination, and slowly drain their LOVE, Similar to Cloud's down b. Using down b to get rid of LOVE is slightly faster, but this option is much less risky.
However, at 100% LOVE, this move will not reduce your meter. Instead, it will heal you very slowly. This is to make it a lot harder to lose your LOVE if you reach 100%, as you’re forced to use down b.

Normals:
For normals that involve a knife, frisk will use the same knife as in side b, but this is a cosmetic effect and has no impact on damage/knockback.
For certain moves, your LOVE being high will make you use an entirely different attack.
Jab- A simple 1,2,3 combo with tough gloves. The gentlemen 3rd hit is a jab with the knife, but rapid jab keeps using gloves.
-At 100% LOVE, you cannot use rapid jab.
F-Tilt- Frisk wields the empty gun, which doesn’t fire a bullet but the "BANG" hurts enemies.
D-Tilt- Frisk does a leg sweep with the ballet shoes.
U-Tilt- Frisk does a large sweeping anti-air with the knife.
Dash Attack- Similar to dedede's dash attack, Frisk falls flat on their face.
-When above 50% LOVE, dash attack is instead a very quick sliding stab (think cutter dash in kirby)

N-air- Frisk pulls out the torn notebook and closes it to puff out pages, similar in function to greninja's nair
F-air- Similar to ftilt, but it launches frisk backward with some momentum
-When above 50% LOVE, F-air is instead a horizontal knife slash
Bair- frisk pulls out the heart locket and swings it backward, this move has a shield effect similar to Palutena's B-air
-When above 50% LOVE, Frisk swings the frying pan backwards instead, no shielding effect, slower move
D-air- Ballet shoes tap dancing, similar to Lucas’s D-air.
U-air- Frisk swings knife upward in an arc, decent for juggling.

Smash attacks:
All of frisk's smash attacks have 3 variations. At 0% LOVE, they will not fill up the meter on hit but still deal damage and knockback.
Pacifist smash attacks are only available at 0% LOVE, Neutral smash attacks are at 1-74%, and Genocide smash attacks are at 75-100%.
Pacifist side smash- Frisk blows a kiss projectile.
Pacifist up smash- Frisk sings, music note projectiles float directly above them.
Pacifist down smash- Frisk flexes, hitting on both sides. (and grossing out temmie)
Neutral side smash- Frisk uses the frying pan, similar to Peach’s F-smash.
Neutral up smash- Frisk uses the tough gloves for a strong uppercut. Has a slow startup like Wolf’s F-smash.
Neutral down smash- Frisk crouches down and doesn't move, their soul turns blue, and a light blue knife passes over them to hit both sides.
Genocide smash attacks are generic knife smash attacks, Up and Forward Smash are pretty much the same as Joker’s, Down smash attacks both sides with a stab poke.

Frisk's dodges work like teleport dodges (Mewtwo/Palutena/etc), but Frisk doesn't disappear, instead being replaced by their soul (heart) while invulnerable.

Taunts:
Frisk has 2 taunts for each slot. One for 0-49% LOVE, and one for 50-100% LOVE.
Up taunt 1- Frisk pulls out a cell phone to talk to someone, then puts it away. Sound effects play to denote who they’re talking to, which is randomly chosen like Pacman’s Namco Roulette.
Up taunt 2- The “Spare” button appears in front of Frisk, before being sliced in half.
Side taunt 1- Frisk’s body disappears and is replaced by their soul, which floats around for a second before Frisk comes back.
Side taunt 2- A dummy appears, Frisk punches it, and then it gets angry with that sound effect.
Down taunt 1- An annoying dog appears and runs circles around Frisk while barking at them, making Frisk dizzy.
Down taunt 2- Chara’s demonic laugh, including the terrifying evil face.

Final Smash-
I’m sure after reading the rest of the moveset you never would’ve guessed- Frisk has more than one Final Smash. However, instead of being entirely based on LOVE, you can choose which one to use.
When activated, Frisk will dash forward and time will freeze around them and the person they hit. The screen will transition to look like an Undertale battle menu, with each fighter having white pixel art to match the style. The option to FIGHT or SPARE will show up, which can be selected similar to Shulk’s Monado Arts. (hold left or right to decide, it automatically selects after about a second)
-If you choose FIGHT, then the other character will disappear and be replaced by a white heart (soul) before Frisk attacks and makes the soul split and then shatter, like what happens when you kill a boss in Undertale. This instantly kills above 100%, but will cause your LOVE to instantly reach 100% as well.
-If you choose SPARE, Frisk hugs the enemy, causing them to fade out and puff out smoke as if you had spared an enemy in Undertale. This instantly kills above 100%, but will cause your LOVE to instantly reach 0% as well.

I'd like to say I'd read most of that, but it was a dozy so I may have accidentally missed some. I already have an issue with this idea though.

This works nothing like Undertale, and therefore doesn't represent it well at it's base.

Sure, at first glance it seems like everything is in it's place, but Undertale is not a game about balancing between good and evil: the game rewards you for being kind and challenges you for being evil. There is a neutral story that you will get just by playing the game like it's any other RPG, a good ending for playing the game the way that's encouraged in the beginning, and a bad ending for being an absolute psychopath. Nothing in the base gameplay is around balancing being good sometimes and being evil at other times.

Don't get me wrong, this idea is REALLY cool. As someone who used to be big about Undertale, I think the references are spot on and creative, but once again almost nothing here represents how combat is a weird and silly bullet hell or how you are either a pacifist or a genocidal maniac, not trying to maintain balance between the two sides. I think what would be best, since the best outcome is obviously the pacifist one, would be to make Frisk more like Phoenix right. Your ideas on Frisk attacking but not really attacking is definitely the way to go...but the ONLY way to go IMO.

This is one of the many reasons I think Undertale should stick to other titles and not Smash, or even should just stick to it's own franchise. Undertale is just so different of a game that it's hard to incorporate it into a game outside of it's scope and genre. However, an AT would be easy and make much more sense, as you could do more outlandish stuff similar to what happens in Undertale's actual combat (San's crazy lasers, Undyne with spears flying all around, Asgore with fire spreading out all around you) and would do the series better justice as I feel like trying to get Undertale's experience outside of Undertale is very difficult and could easily be a disservice to the game and Toby.

Also, hot DAMN is that a lot of work for a single character. I'm sure Phoenix Wright in UMVC3 also took a lot of work with having essentially 3 movesets, but it was a stance-switch style character rather than a bar-filling character, unless you count the evidence as a bar.

Spoiler: ALL BOW BEFORE KING MALLOW, SON OF ODIN!

Following on what @ZelDan mentioned in regards to a Mario RPG extended party, I'd like to see the following members in the squad:

-Mario (obviously)
-Luigi (specials more akin to Luigi's Mansion abilities)
-Yoshi (his different special abilities could be related to either his Yoshi's Island attribute Melons, or the Super Mario World Yoshi's)
-Toad (with his Bazooka as main weapon)
-Peach
-Mallow (KING Mallow)
-Geno (maybe... possessing a different doll? Geno Mk-II?!?!)
-Bowser (debatable cause he could also end up being the final boss)
-Vivian
-Kooper (this time, with the ability to dawn different shell types, including winged shells)
-Ms. Mowz (why not?)

I NEED King Mallow in my life, STAT! AHHHHHHH~!

Spoiler: Nintendo's Big Picks Are Pretty Much 'Everyone Is Here!' Already...

Not sure why people seem to think we're out of first party characters to add to smash. If you count spirits as a full-on disconfirmation (which you shouldn't) then we STILL have characters who could get in smash. I personally don't count assist trophies as viable options (if it did happen, it would only be once IMO) but even still I could name at least 20 1st parties that would be perfect for Smash. I don't think the fighter pass will have any, but considering how likely a second (and third) pass is, after this first pass 1st parties are back on the table.

If you don't believe me,

Spoiler: 20 1st party characters that are popular and would be good DLC

not including assist trophies
1. Dixie Kong
2. Bandana Waddle Dee
3. Karate Joe (or any Rhythm Heaven character)
4. Another form of Mii Fighter (Mii Spellcaster?)
5. Andy/Sami from Advance Wars
6. Grookey's Final Evo/Sceptile/Decidueye since we don't have a grass type
7. Literally any other pokemon tbh?
8. Octolings
9. Urbosa/Revali/Daruk/Mipha
10. Beast Ganon
11. Pauline
12. Mach Rider
13. Any F-Zero rep
14. Elma (Xenoblade X)
15. Funky Kong
16. I don't want it to happen but literally any fire emblem character
17. King Hippo/Mr. Sandman
18. Kamek (Yoshi's Island Villain)
19. Ashley/Mona/Jimmy T./WarioWare Rep
20. Medusa/Viridi/Hades/Kid Icarus Rep

Eh, I don't want to be rude here, but most of those I saw don't REALLY have much demand.

Like, don't get me wrong: EVERY character has some sort of demand, but some clearly have more than others. Only some of these really have big demand, and the rest are just characters that would be accepted at best. Meanwhile, hitting up those hype-af 3rd-party reps? Good LORD that is where the hype and the money is.

It's not that Nintendo doesn't have any more choices, but it's that all the big first part characters have either been in the game for a while, returned for Ultimate, or are deconfirmed.

Spoiler: Pattern: New IPs Get Royal Treatment, But Not New Character For Existing IPs.

Also, I think it was Glitch-EGamer that pointed out how the Nintendo characters for DLC really didn't come with much new if anything, but the 3rd parties get red carpet royal treatment and come with a stage and music. The days kinda blend together for me now, but if I didn't talk about it in this post then I'm positive I mentioned it earlier, but whatever I'll just say it again here: this isn't even limited to DLC.

Look at Ultimate. It brought in these two powerhouses of Nintendo fan picks and yet, they only came with themselves and some new music. No stage, just some new music (of course they have a Classic Mode and Spirits and stuff, but not the same kind of hurrah as others). You may suggest , but it's not quite the same comparison, as the only inclusion they had in Smash was being costumes in Sm4sh. They are brand new to Smash as a Nintendo IP, and thus they come with a character, stage, lots of music and more. The big reptilian bois already had their respective IPs represented in Smash for years now, hence why they didn't bring anything big to the table other than themselves. fall under this category as well.

Now look at . They are 3rd party, and they come with a stage, a metric crap-ton of music, and all the same goodies. Look at the 3rd party in the base game, and now look at the 3rd party in the Fighter's Pass. these titans are all getting that same treatment that the Holy Bros got. Are you seeing the pattern yet? 3rd party characters are like high-maintenance guests in Smash and are treated like celebrities, while 1st Party fan picks who already have their IP in Smash get just the character and minor amount of music treatment. Still important, but much less so.

It gets better though: this happened in Sm4sh as well! Look at and . Both are 3rd Party in the base game, yet they get stages as well as music and more. Now look at the new 1st Party in Sm4sh: . They are all new Nintendo IPs being brought into Smash, therefore they get that royal treatment (though clearly is questionable as was in Brawl, however there is some Sakurai-bias in play here). However, and his siblings didn't get their own stage.

Now, look at the Sm4sh DLC: . Now, which of these got their own stage and which ones didn't? Do you see the pattern here?

It's all about whether or not your series has been represented prior to your inclusion or not, and with 3rd Party they simple have not. The only outliers here are the Big 3: --. They are outliers because they will likely get new forms of representation because of how bug they are. We got no new LoZ characters but we got a veteran one and a reworked one and a new stage. Pokemon gets a new Pokemon rep in every new Smash release...although there was no new Pokemon stage this time, just returning ones...and Mario is Mario. He is Mr. Nintendo and Mr. Video Games. His series will always get new support in Smash in one way or another. It feels like Fire Emblem may be creeping up to that status as well but it also just recently took a step back with no new stages and only getting an Echo Fighter in Ultimate thus far.

Spoiler: What Does That Mean For Our Star Boi?

Now where does that leave our boy Geno?

Well, it really depends on what is behind the works here, and even then I think he could easily end up with a stage and a decent amount of music no matter what. Think about it.

If Geno is 3rd Party, then he will come with a stage and at minimum two music tracks (though with this new relationship that Sakurai has been blooming with Square and Yoko already having worked on Ultimate, I think we could get more pretty easily) and all that other good stuff each new 3rd party character gets. I say this because no single 3rd Party character has gotten anything less than the full package when they were introduced to the series. Even and came with music and stages way back then, so the idea that Geno comes with anything less is absurd.

If Nintendo somehow did something crazy and got Geno to be 1st Party...then I would still bet he would have a stage. Think about it: the only Mario characters to not come WITH a new stage in some capacity are and , and even then we still have new Mario stages in each game and Mario stages that fit them that are already in the game. No current stage would even fit Geno aside from the Mario Galaxy stage, and that is stretching it. Also, he would be tied to Nintendo's biggest IP and would be one of the last big fan picks left from the Brawl Era. Yes, I get that PP didn't come with a stage and that may concern some of you in regards to Geno if he's 1st Party, but frankly there is no comparison: one is a generic enemy given some extra personality and the other is a main character from his game that is essential to the plot AND is highly demanded. To me, there is no way Geno gets in as some 'Bonus DLC' unless he STILL comes with a stage and all that jazz and isn't part of the pass. That is why I'm so sure and expectant of Geno getting all the extra goodies.

If he's 3rd Party, he gets the royal treatment.

If he's 1st Party, he's a Mario character, which is basically the same thing.

Also, as a last note before I pass out and get up at 5AM, we need to do two things:

We need to support Geno in the King For Another Day tournament when it starts after the delay. Last year he lost in his first round. We need to do our best to push him to the Top 3 at the very least.

The second thins is we need to continue supporting art of SMRPG that we find, and that includes animation. If (more like when) this new Super Mario Bros GT thing puts Geno into the plot, we need to share that content and like the video and comment on the channel. Why?

Because as confident as I am in Geno's chances, he isn't a lock, and the last thing we need to do is disappear or not go full-force in our support just because we think he's close. He could easily not be there, and thus we need to support anything he's in and anything SMRPG just as hard as FF7 fans and Ridley fans and K. Rool fans...

We need to go ham!

 

[EricTheGamerman]

I extremely disagree with this. With Smash Bros Ultimate they had to make 74 characters, 103 stages, include over 900 music tracks, make all the items, Pokemon & Assist Trophies, and do all the QA testing along with much other things then sell the game for $60. With Smash Bros Ultimate DLC they make 5 characters, 5 stages, a few music track and sell it for a total between $25 to $30. They're selling 5 characters for the equivalent of half the game base price. That to me sound extremely profitable seeing how it's much less work and cost more, which I ain't complaining since Smash Bros earns it's price. Most likely 90% of Smash Bros Ultimate owners are buying each DLC character, so they're making the money back. Plus like you stated more DLC character like Joker & Hero are attracting more people to pick up Smash Bros and buying the DLC. So more profit.

Also we got to take in account that Nintendo is okay with a game not making maximum profit because that game is help selling the Switch. With all these other games you mention that nickel & dime their customers are all third party games and they do that because they only have that game, so these third party companies are trying to make the most out of that one game and squeeze all the profits they can. For 1st Party developers like Nintendo & Sony they don't need to do that. For example, God of War, that's a game that doesn't need microtransactions and Sony can afford for it to not make all of it's money back immediately because that game is helping sell PS4 to people. These companies want to sell their consoles so the way to do that is by making an enticing game. So with Smash Bros Ultimate they come out of the gate with 74 characters and keep showing off DLC so people will be more interested to get Smash Bros and a Switch to play it. If Smash Bros help push the Switch then it's okay for them to take a little hit in terms of finances since consoles is where they really make their money. I can see Smash DLC still being profitable since it's a game that people will keep playing and wanting each new character and that in term help the Switch sell itself since that's the only place you can play that game.

Spoiler: Large Response

Again, I'm not arguing against the profitability of DLC, it has to be in order to exist. I'm saying that it may not be as financially sound as people say it is (and by sound, I mean, making the profits Nintendo desires for their investments made, which I imagine is a pretty high bar). Trying to compare the amount of content of the base game to the DLC and saying, "See, look at how much they're charging compared to what they developed" is a bit of an exercise in futility when you consider what the goals of a base game release are (at least in the Nintendo context) versus DLC. The base game of Ultimate will sell as an ever-green title and will have greater sells than the DLC by definition. It's a $60 product made to incentivize people buying a $300 product and hopefully beyond. There is lots of profitability involved in a game release, hence why such an expensive entertainment industry exists and why it's so hard to narrow things down sometimes. DLC serves the same purpose to some extent, but it's harder to get people to buy a Switch for a DLC character than it is for a full game, so DLC becomes more of selling the game to people who may already own the system. They both exist to make profit on their own of course, but they also serve other important purposes.

I suspect your 90% is much too high. Ultimate is a complete product without DLC (hell, the free updates make it even more so), so people aren't going to be as incentivized to buy DLC on that aspect alone. Lots of people aren't invested enough in Smash to buy the DLC since they bought it to just be a fun party game to play every now and then alone. Other people may be more limited by their own monetary situation and decide to put future funds towards other new entertainment endeavors. Some people will also not buy DLC on their own principles such as being anti-DLC or just against certain fighters. Lots of people will not buy Mii costumes. I'd say 50% is more reasonable, if not something lower. Anecdotally, I'm one of eight people I know that owns a Switch and Smash. Of those eight people, only one person besides myself has bought the DLC and has had any interest in buying any DLC. A lot of Ultimate's sells (hell, probably the majority seeing as how it's the best selling fighting game which have traditionally been a more niche market) are by what we would call "more casual Smash fans." They're not in it for the long haul and a complete game will satisfy them.

The issues arise with how much Nintendo makes from DLC versus how much they could be making with a new title (This doesn't have to be Smash, it can be any game). With a smaller player base that's buying the DLC that requires already purchased content ($60 is what it will stay at until they've sold it to basically everyone, whereas other fighting games drop super soon after release), you're appealing to fewer people overall with more complicated expenses since those expenses are specific to that character and production and not an entire product to sell your $60 game and system. Other titles have fully embraced the games as a service moniker and are able to monetize their products to produce incredibly high profitability. More content can help inspire people to stay within the game's ecosystem and thus more likely to continue investing in said ecosystem from a monetary standpoint. Those models create predatory psychological manipulation to often create more spending and thus increase the profitability of the individual game's DLC cycle and thus create more money to fund future DLC.

Now I'm not saying you need those profits to make DLC. I'm just saying higher profitability is more attractive to companies. As a developer, your options are: Monetize the game further, Make a New Game, or Develop DLC. If you're Nintendo, you're against the first on console so it's out. Then it becomes a decision between more DLC or a new game. And Develop DLC brings the least benefits. It's costly to develop, it won't make as much as a new game probably would, and it doesn't add in a meaningful way to the Switch's catalogue and is harder to use to sell new people Switches. God of War doesn't have DLC, so it's not a good example to really bring up here. I'm not trying to defend MTX here either, I've been vocal against them many times and will continue to be.

But there's a clear pattern of MTX bringing in huge profits and that has coincided with the rise in longer post-game support periods for games. While that isn't directly causation, it's an extremely valid stance to say that MTX have played a large part in such decision making since companies are all about maximizing profit while minimizing costs of production in capitalism. Meaningful content costs a lot of money to develop. New skins, a car added to GTA Online, and building an ecosystem that promotes player spending are all super easy to develop and implement for higher profits than traditional DLC. For games that we've seen be able to get away with going all in on such stuff, they absolutely have. Fighting games can't quite get away with that entirely, so we still see traditional fighters brought out as DLC to help justify the game's continued existence and thus hopeful further purchase of additional content that makes the big money for the new era. What especially feeds into this are incomplete games at launch that feel hollow. If you feel like your initial experience is lacking something or doesn't have enough content, you're more likely to buy DLC to get a "complete" or "more fulfilling" one.

I just think Smash and Nintendo play by different, more traditional rules. And those dictate that a new game that expands the Switch catalogue while potentially selling new Switches is probably the better call for the company's resources in most situations. Smash DLC may be able to make money, but you'd make a hell of a lot more with a new hot game that attracts all kinds of attention. This is why I think Nintendo may not be as keen to force more DLC.

 

[Ze Diglett]

Now where does that leave our boy Geno?

Well, it really depends on what is behind the works here, and even then I think he could easily end up with a stage and a decent amount of music no matter what. Think about it.

If Geno is 3rd Party, then he will come with a stage and at minimum two music tracks (though with this new relationship that Sakurai has been blooming with Square and Yoko already having worked on Ultimate, I think we could get more pretty easily) and all that other good stuff each new 3rd party character gets. I say this because no single 3rd Party character has gotten anything less than the full package when they were introduced to the series. Even and came with music and stages way back then, so the idea that Geno comes with anything less is absurd.

If Nintendo somehow did something crazy and got Geno to be 1st Party...then I would still bet he would have a stage. Think about it: the only Mario characters to not come WITH a new stage in some capacity are and , and even then we still have new Mario stages in each game and Mario stages that fit them that are already in the game. No current stage would even fit Geno aside from the Mario Galaxy stage, and that is stretching it. Also, he would be tied to Nintendo's biggest IP and would be one of the last big fan picks left from the Brawl Era. Yes, I get that PP didn't come with a stage and that may concern some of you in regards to Geno if he's 1st Party, but frankly there is no comparison: one is a generic enemy given some extra personality and the other is a main character from his game that is essential to the plot AND is highly demanded. To me, there is no way Geno gets in as some 'Bonus DLC' unless he STILL comes with a stage and all that jazz and isn't part of the pass. That is why I'm so sure and expectant of Geno getting all the extra goodies.

If he's 3rd Party, he gets the royal treatment.

If he's 1st Party, he's a Mario character, which is basically the same thing.

Alright, but consider that Geno would (most likely) represent an already represented series if he were ever added to Smash. For that reason alone, I can easily see him just not coming with a stage like Ridley and K. Rool (you said it yourself, new IPs in Smash get the red carpet treatment, whereas already represented ones receiving new reps do not), which I would be totally fine with if it meant getting Geno period. And in regards to your bit about Geno not having a stage that "fits him", you say that like Bowser has a stage that fits him. After all these years on the Smash roster, the closest he has to a stage of his own is one third of Paper Mario, a stage literally named for his nemesis. Shucks, even Piranha Plant at least has Mushroomy Kingdom to call home. Hell, Bowser's not even the only Mario character with this problem; look at Dr. Mario. Sure, he was a clone when he was introduced, but still, where does he fit?

I extremely disagree with this. With Smash Bros Ultimate they had to make 74 characters, 103 stages, include over 900 music tracks, make all the items, Pokemon & Assist Trophies, and do all the QA testing along with much other things then sell the game for $60. With Smash Bros Ultimate DLC they make 5 characters, 5 stages, a few music track and sell it for a total between $25 to $30. They're selling 5 characters for the equivalent of half the game base price. That to me sound extremely profitable seeing how it's much less work and cost more, which I ain't complaining since Smash Bros earns it's price. Most likely 90% of Smash Bros Ultimate owners are buying each DLC character, so they're making the money back. Plus like you stated more DLC character like Joker & Hero are attracting more people to pick up Smash Bros and buying the DLC. So more profit.

Wh- 90%, mate?! Are you joking? I mean, I think Smash fans are sheep, and even I think 90%'s a generous guess for the reasons laid out in EricTheGamerman 's post. Let's bump it down to 75% at most.

 

[KirbyWorshipper2465]

Putting aside nonsensical assumptions about what Geno will or won't come with aside, our gal leaked a few things straight off the bat that are unrelated to the Nindies:

Spoiler

There was a problem fetching the tweet

Luckily, all of those titles are third party, so no one will particularly care if they're leaked.

 

[Paperchampion23]

Alright, but consider that Geno would (most likely) represent an already represented series if he were ever added to Smash. For that reason alone, I can easily see him just not coming with a stage like Ridley and K. Rool (you said it yourself, new IPs in Smash get the red carpet treatment, whereas already represented ones receiving new reps do not), which I would be totally fine with if it meant getting Geno period. And in regards to your bit about Geno not having a stage that "fits him", you say that like Bowser has a stage that fits him. After all these years on the Smash roster, the closest he has to a stage of his own is one third of Paper Mario, a stage literally named for his nemesis. Shucks, even Piranha Plant at least has Mushroomy Kingdom to call home. Hell, Bowser's not even the only Mario character with this problem; look at Dr. Mario. Sure, he was a clone when he was introduced, but still, where does he fit?

Wh- 90%, mate?! Are you joking? I mean, I think Smash fans are sheep, and even I think 90%'s a generous guess for the reasons laid out in EricTheGamerman 's post. Let's bump it down to 75% at most.

Hell, even when i was saying that Smash DLC was selling well, I was thinking of like 50% of buyers. DLC isnt THAT lucrative unless it is a service and people are addicted to a particular loop in rewards. This is why League is so popular and why Apex Legends is subject to a bunch of controversy rn.

Now, imo, I think Nintendo could ask Sakurai to make another 10 characters and it probably would be worth it. I think each makes back a certain multiplier of the money put in. But yeah, its really dependent on if Nintendo even wants more than 5 more characters.

Alot of us however feel that the game is a little different from the others. This may be the one time where we have everything in one game. I dont think it can feasibly happen again.

 

[FalconFire93]

Putting aside nonsensical assumptions about what Geno will or won't come with aside, our gal leaked a few things straight off the bat that are unrelated to the Nindies:

Spoiler

There was a problem fetching the tweet

Luckily, all of those titles are third party, so no one will particularly care if they're leaked.

Nice about Samurai Shodown, I have the very first game on my Switch, here’s hoping we get a release date for the new one on the Switch soon.

 

[Dynamic Worlok]

This may be the one time where we have everything in one game. I dont think it can feasibly happen again.

It seems very unlikely that it will. That's why it'd be so much cooler to have geno in this one, than a later entry. Since it seems to be supplanting melee, more or less as the definitive smash bros experience.

 

[Evil Trapezium]

Hero counts for a lot more than just a corporate pick. I mean Eight exists as an equal alt because of Western fan demand and the Dragon Quest characters are beloved Japanese video game icons that also serve to satisfy fans of Dragon Quest on a wider level and fan demand for them in Japan. I know Simon Belmont got added thanks to the ballot, but it's also worth mentioning that Sakurai was also interested in adding Castlevania and clearly had a love for the franchise (which was also going through a bit of a resurgence thanks to the Netflix show). King K. Rool and Ridley also have the added benefits of advertising long running franchises that have had recent releases on 3DS and Switch.

My point is that it's hard to say that characters only fall into one side of such an overly simplified dichotomy. Characters get added for a summation of reasons and ideas, and usually most of them have additional benefits beyond just satisfying fan demand or being an advertisement. I just don't like the dichotomy period because we all know Smash characters get chosen for such a wide variety of complicated reasons and forcing them into the dichotomy doesn't allow room for a lot of the realities of certain characters and how they got in.

Sure, there are some long term benefits from characters being chosen but the reasons they're chosen are mostly simplified to just fan requests or corporate picks when you break it down. No one expected or wanted Piranha Plant but Sakurai chose him just to make a unique character so Piranha Plant is a corporate pick. Decidueye was the most requested Alolan Starter and it was almost chosen but Sakurai chose Incineroar instead to make a wrestler character. Banjo & Kazooie is full on fan requested and there is no sign of a game coming soon. Sure the Castlevania series is seeing a resurgence in recent years but Simon has been requested since Brawl, did very well in the Smash Ballot and uses his older design rather than his modern one.

I haven't heard anything about Eight being included due to fan demand considering that Dragon Quest's fanbase in the west is a lot smaller than most. Eight being included is most likely due to how well that game did in the west compared to the other games in the series and chose him so there is something for the west to relate to in terms of the Dragon Quest series. Hero 4 I could agree with but the other two and the sole reason for their inclusion is to advertise Dragon Quest through the Dragon Quest 11 Switch port, Dragon Quest Builders 2 and the Dragon Quest movie, thus they are a corporate pick.

I find it hard to believe how King K Rool advertises the Donkey Kong franchise when there is no new game coming out. The last one that was advertised was the Tropical Freeze port and that was released in May of last year so it was old news by the time King K Rool was revealed. If he was revealed along side a new Donkey Kong game where he is also the main villain, I'd get your point but we aren't even sure if King K Rool will be in another game afterwards so he's purely a fan requested character. Even with Ridley, they could keep him as a boss and still advertise him for Metroid Prime 4, even then Metroid Prime 4 in itself is a game conjured from fan requests, The only reason Ridley is a Playable Fighter is solely due to the fans who requested it to happen.

But this is just what I think and helps puts things into perspective. You don't have to think like this and I'm not telling you that you should. It just gives a simplified explanation to who influenced a characters inclusion.

Seriously, as someone who kept saying months ago 'This is a shill pick.' or 'People will feel like this is a shill pick' I can tell you it isn't. Had it just been DQ11 or DQ3, I would have stuck with the same opinion, but Sakurai made it work so that all the big choices made it in:

• DQ11 is the most recent and most successful in the West and has a 'best-est ever EVER' version coming out on Switch and would be a face everyone would recognize
• DQ3 is for the hardcore nostolgia for Japan
• DQ4 was also really popular in Japan
• DQ8 is the most memorable one in the West.

Hero is actually all three in one: it promotes DQ in the West, it is a fan demanded character from Japan that also gives some acknowledgement to the West, and Sakurai loves the series and got to do MANY DQ first-time things in Smash...WHICH IS HIS GAME, HIS BABY! Imagine being a Japanese person who likely loves DQ and being given the honor to have them playable to fight one another and have voice acting for the first time?

Joker is a Sakurai pick, as he loves the series. Ryu is loved by many and is a gaming icon.

You guys keep trying to label characters as one thing when, in reality, they are either overlapping into multiple categories (which is easy to do with 'shill pick' since getting your character in Smash is a big deal for both getting money and getting your game out there even more) or your bias is placing them in a category they don't belong in.

Sakurai is part of the corporation picks. If he advertises games to sell to you, he is a corporate person. Joker is a Sakurai pick so Joker is a corporate pick. I want Doom Guy for Super Smash Bros Ultimate but is my request along with a few other people going to be the reason for his inclusion, over getting in because Bethesda wants to advertise Doom Eternal for the Switch? Not really because the corporate decision would outweigh the fan requests.

 

[RetrogamerMax]

Excuse u, XENOBLADE CHRONICLES X SWITCH PORT AND/OR XENOBLADE CHRONICLES X PART 2??

That's a strange way of spelling "Banjo-Threeie".

It seems very unlikely that it will. That's why it'd be so much cooler to have geno in this one, than a later entry. Since it seems to be supplanting melee, more or less as the definitive smash bros experience.

That's why it would also be so much cooler to have Dixie Kong in this game as well so the DK roster would be complete in the Smash game that has everything.

 

[wynn728]

Wh- 90%, mate?! Are you joking? I mean, I think Smash fans are sheep, and even I think 90%'s a generous guess for the reasons laid out in EricTheGamerman 's post. Let's bump it down to 75% at most.

People are going to be buying the DLC characters, you mean to tell me that people who got Smash Bros are just going to say no to playing characters like Joker, Hero and Banjo when they cost $6? A good majority are buying the DLC (not talking about Mii Costumes), we see that Smash Bros for Wii U sold the most DLC out of any Nintendo title. And if we are saying that it's just 75% that are buying the DLC characters then 75% of 13.81 million is a lot of money. Also let's take into account that the budget for the DLC is going to be less then the base game budget and so it won't take that much for them to sell in order to make a profit, and that the base game more than likely double it's money when compare to the budget it received.

I don't get why a lot are acting like Smash Bros DLC is becoming unprofitable and is close to being a failure, Smash Bros DLC is most likely making a lot of money for Nintendo.

 

[Sigran101]

At the very least smash dlc is going to make more money than any other Nintendo dlc.

 

[EricTheGamerman]

People are going to be buying the DLC characters, you mean to tell me that people who got Smash Bros are just going to say no to playing characters like Joker, Hero and Banjo when they cost $6? A good majority are buying the DLC (not talking about Mii Costumes), we see that Smash Bros for Wii U sold the most DLC out of any Nintendo title. And if we are saying that it's just 75% that are buying the DLC characters then 75% of 13.81 million is a lot of money. Also let's take into account that the budget for the DLC is going to be less then the base game budget and so it won't take that much for them to sell in order to make a profit, and that the base game more than likely double it's money when compare to the budget it received.

I don't get why a lot are acting like Smash Bros DLC is becoming unprofitable and is close to being a failure, Smash Bros DLC is most likely making a lot of money for Nintendo.

Nobody’s acting like that with regards to Smash DLC being “unprofitable” or “close to failure.” I’m outlining how a company like Nintendo would approach the question of DLC or moving on to other projects. Like, yes, Nintendo has the money to fund basically everything and potentially take losses on most of that stuff and be fine, but that’s not how a huge corporation functions and there are limits to how much you invest in internal projects.

You’re doing cost/benefit analysis between different ideas. Smash DLC makes money, it has to in order to exist, but is it a more beneficial option to Nintendo compared to others? If you could sell your product and the limited DLC with the project for your desired profits without investing further in the game, that’s an attractive option. DLC will inevitably retain fewer and fewer players as time moves forward regardless of the characters chosen and they’d be experiencing diminishing returns.

And no, you’re greatly overestimating the population of Ultimate players. For ****’s sake, only 1.8 million people voted in the Smash ballot of the 10 million players in the Smash 4 era. Competitive ultimately accounts for a tiny percentage of game sales. And again, I can’t emphasize how many people are more casual fans of Smash once you step away from Smash forums. Many of those types of fans don’t care to expand the game and no amount of Banjo & Kazooie’s, Joker’s, etc. are going to change that. They didn’t buy Smash to have every character, they bought it to have another fun party game to break out every now and then.

I originally thought more along the lines of your thinking, but the more I’ve thought about it and seen how Smash has been received, the more I realize DLC isn’t the complete home run I thought it was and how many people DLC isn't going to be sold to.

 

[MemeSaucy]

So.... what did I miss?

 

[Door Key Pig]

It seems very unlikely that it will. That's why it'd be so much cooler to have geno in this one, than a later entry. Since it seems to be supplanting melee, more or less as the definitive smash bros experience.

Yeah if I got my big two in this Smash game with everyone in it (rhythmheavenandcrash), I'd honestly not ask Sakurai for anything ever again!

 

[MattX20]

So.... what did I miss?

Not much, just more speculation.

 

[Slime Scholar]

You’re doing cost/benefit analysis between different ideas. Smash DLC makes money, it has to in order to exist, but is it a more beneficial option to Nintendo compared to others? If you could sell your product and the limited DLC with the project for your desired profits without investing further in the game, that’s an attractive option. DLC will inevitably retain fewer and fewer players as time moves forward regardless of the characters chosen and they’d be experiencing diminishing returns.

Exactly. Sakurai even referenced this in his book.

- If it's a one time purchase type of game, then it's more efficient for the company to start making the next game than keep updating. (p59)
- DLC developments in general take time, so by the time of the release, the market will be much smaller than it used to be. DLC business is very risky than people might think. (p165)

It's not a matter of whether or not DLC makes money (of course it does), it's about whether it makes enough money to justify doing it, or if the investment in DLC would be better spent on a new game/project that will bring in higher profits.

 

[wynn728]

Nobody’s acting like that with regards to Smash DLC being “unprofitable” or “close to failure.” I’m outlining how a company like Nintendo would approach the question of DLC or moving on to other projects. Like, yes, Nintendo has the money to fund basically everything and potentially take losses on most of that stuff and be fine, but that’s not how a huge corporation functions and there are limits to how much you invest in internal projects.

You’re doing cost/benefit analysis between different ideas. Smash DLC makes money, it has to in order to exist, but is it a more beneficial option to Nintendo compared to others? If you could sell your product and the limited DLC with the project for your desired profits without investing further in the game, that’s an attractive option. DLC will inevitably retain fewer and fewer players as time moves forward regardless of the characters chosen and they’d be experiencing diminishing returns.

And no, you’re greatly overestimating the population of Ultimate players. For ****’s sake, only 1.8 million people voted in the Smash ballot of the 10 million players in the Smash 4 era. Competitive ultimately accounts for a tiny percentage of game sales. And again, I can’t emphasize how many people are more casual fans of Smash once you step away from Smash forums. Many of those types of fans don’t care to expand the game and no amount of Banjo & Kazooie’s, Joker’s, etc. are going to change that. They didn’t buy Smash to have every character, they bought it to have another fun party game to break out every now and then.

I originally thought more along the lines of your thinking, but the more I’ve thought about it and seen how Smash has been received, the more I realize DLC isn’t the complete home run I thought it was and how many people DLC Ian r going to be sold to.

Well you don't have the exact numbers on how Smash Ultimate DLC is selling, I'm more positive that a good majority of the players are buying it then you think. Also you should take into consideration that Smash Bros is used as a promotional material so hypothetically they can have a character release as DLC, get talked about, and that in turn is used for marketing for that up coming game. There's many different benefits to continuing Smash Bros DLC. There are casual fans that are still buying DLC, it's not just the competitive market that's getting it.

But whatever, this debate doesn't matter because Nintendo & Sakurai are going to do whatever they want to. I think there's so many other benefits to continue Smash Bros DLC, and there's a good chance there isn't. So whatever. Also I honestly don't get where you're getting this info on the DLC not being a complete homerun, I'm seeing nothing but talk about these characters and them crashing the eShop in number of volumes. And there's a great chance that every Japanese owner already bought Hero for Smash Bros.

 

[EricTheGamerman]

Well you don't have the exact numbers on how Smash Ultimate DLC is selling, I'm more positive that a good majority of the players are buying it then you think. Also you should take into consideration that Smash Bros is used as a promotional material so hypothetically they can have a character release as DLC, get talked about, and that in turn is used for marketing for that up coming game. There's many different benefits to continuing Smash Bros DLC. There are casual fans that are still buying DLC, it's not just the competitive market that's getting it.

But whatever, this debate doesn't matter because Nintendo & Sakurai are going to do whatever they want to. I think there's so many other benefits to continue Smash Bros DLC, and there's a good chance there isn't. So whatever. Also I honestly don't get where you're getting this info on the DLC not being a complete homerun, I'm seeing nothing but talk about these characters and them crashing the eShop in number of volumes. And there's a great chance that every Japanese owner already bought Hero for Smash Bros.

You're right, I don't have the numbers and nobody does. I took issue with your 90% figure because it sounds ludicrously high for a retention rate. Smash is the only fighting game to sell like it does and I've outlined in detail multiple times why that figure is much more likely to be inaccurate that you continue to ignore and seem unwilling to address. What we do know is that Smash 4 DLC sold the best out of DLC sales in the 2015-2016 period of the Wii U/3DS era... and Sakurai still made those comments about DLC being a riskier idea: (Report given in 2016 by the President that comments on IR information and discusses DLC Sales) https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/events/160428/03.html.

I'm trying to piece together many separate elements of the game's industry as I see it now to work through the question of DLC in Ultimate. Nintendo hasn't released any major financial reports since April with just a minor update in June, so we have to work through speculation. What we can observe is the trends throughout the rest of the industry such as, "What does Ultimate do differently from comparable releases in the industry?" Where things start to get interesting is just how downplayed DLC overall seems in all of their financial reports (Please feel free to look through the financial information here: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/index.html). Yes, it gets mentioned throughout and there are general trends that Nintendo sees of rising DLC sales... but they're mostly just extra notes compared to the discussion of new, big titles launching for their systems and especially the Mobile games division which has been yielding excellent profits. Nintendo largely lumps in add-on content with all digital sales, so it's difficult to get a read on more recent data in that regard. They express interest in continued customer engagement for a single title and DLC support, but again, it's not particularly emphasized or utilized as the "meat and potatoes" of their reports and analysis.

I'm bringing it up because the question of future DLC is an inherently interesting one and I feel like there's still a lot to explore on that topic, with it potentially having great impact on Geno's chances as well depending on if we get more or not. Saying it doesn't matter because "Sakurai and Nintendo" will do what they want is just being defeatist and shutting down discussion, and you constantly bring it up in your pessimism. And I think it's really worth exploring too because of how Sakurai's book paints the issue of DLC in a fundamentally different light than I suspect many people think of it in. So, how do we resolve our expectations of DLC versus the reality that Sakurai seems to be highlighting and how do we make sense of his comments? I'm still developing those ideas and overall argument, but I'm bringing it here to spark a little bit of discussion and deeper diving into this idea. I'm also not saying "Only competitive people buy Smash DLC" or that it isn't profitable. It's always been about how profitable DLC is in comparison to other options and why our assumptions about the inherent profitability of such content may be incorrect.

And of course you're seeing nothing but talk about DLC, you're a part of the Smash community and a part of the Nintendo community where these things are naturally going to seem like earth-shattering events all the time, that's the hype we create as the most vocal and active fans. Yes, these crossover moments are big and notable with general excitement for the game rising, but there are multiple issues at play that I'm trying to discuss and make note of. And some servers having issues mean nothing when Nintendo has literally never had decent infrastructure and they positioned Joker in particular around updates that created all sorts of problems.

 

[Firox]

For my own two cents on the DLC topic, I would still argue that the making of DLC is profitable enough to continue doing. Does it make as much as creating a whole new game? Obviously not, however, it also requires insanely less effort. One character, one stage and some music for about 10% of the full game's value is a pretty sweet deal for the developers when you consider the cost to profit ratio. Also consider the other issues that would arise from making a whole new game as opposed to adding DLC characters:

A) Re-obtaining the rights. Sakurai himself pointed out the extreme difficulty it would be to reassemble such a massive roster as we have it today. Between legalities and hardware limitations, we could very well see the loss of several characters in Smash games to come. What good would it be to gain new characters if we lose a bunch of beloved ones in return? Could you imagine getting Geno in Smash 6 only to lose Banjo instead? Don't think for a second that Smash won't end up just like the Pokemon franchise, reaching critical mass and being forced to cut characters because of the sheer volume of them. This fact alone is why I think Nintendo is going to milk Ultimate for as long as humanly possibly, porting this beast until the sprockets fall off.

B) What would be the selling point of a new smash? Don't get me wrong, Smash is like pokemon. Even if the next game were a giant steaming pile of monkey feces, people would still buy it. (Hence why the industry only gets lazier) But what could a new Smash offer that Ultimate doesn't already have? Better graphics? Not likely. With the nature of Smash and its characters, there's a limit to how much better graphics could bring out the pink in Kirby or the 2D-ness of Game and Watch. Not to mention the fact that Nintendo has never put much stock in high-end graphics/hardware to begin with. What about better mechanics? WhY CaN't iT PlAy MoRe LiKe MeLeE?! In my honest opinion, Smash has never been smoother or more polished when it comes to overall mechanics. Maybe we could reduce some input lag, but overall, I'd say Ultimate is as fast and fluid as Smash can get without having the exploitable glitches that comprised Melee's "Advanced Mechanics". What about new characters? See point A above. What about new modes? Like what? Home Run Contest? Break the targets? As both a fighting game AND a party game, I don't see additions like those pushing demand over the top. My point is, Ultimate's surprise factor wore off faster than any Smash game I'd ever played. Why? Because it was more similar to Sm4sh than any other Smash gamed was to its predecessor. Ultimate basically tore out Sm4sh's engine, revamped it, added a few more newcomers, replaced trophies with spirits and VOILA! NEW SMASH GAME! With this in mind, I would argue that future Smash games are going to start showing diminishing returns. Would it be profitable for Nintendo to make them anyway? Probably, but I can almost guarantee you that we'd see schisms arise in the fanbase just as we did between Melee, Brawl and Sm4sh. The only things that finally united the fanbase were the faster mechanics and the addition of ALL characters that had come before. I doubt we'll get this lucky again, and even Sakurai himself agrees with this sentiment.

In conclusion, I would say from both a consumer, casual, and competitive point of view, maintaining consistency with the current game would be our best-case scenario. Continuing to add DLC is not only insanely profitable for relatively low input, but also keeps Ultimate relevant longer and successfully pulls in new fans with each varied pick. Why else do you think that Smash Ultimate has continued to top the charts almost a year after its release? People beyond the usual fanbase are getting interested by both the growing competitive scene (which dominated EVO) and the addition of their favorite characters/franchises outside of Nintendo. Add this to the fact that Nintendo wants to maintain the Switch's life as long as possible, and since I don't see their next gen anywhere on the horizon, I don't see the need for a brand new Smash any time soon.

 

[Sigran101]

You're right, I don't have the numbers and nobody does. I took issue with your 90% figure because it sounds ludicrously high for a retention rate. Smash is the only fighting game to sell like it does and I've outlined in detail multiple times why that figure is much more likely to be inaccurate that you continue to ignore and seem unwilling to address. What we do know is that Smash 4 DLC sold the best out of DLC sales in the 2015-2016 period of the Wii U/3DS era... and Sakurai still made those comments about DLC being a riskier idea: (Report given in 2016 by the President that comments on IR information and discusses DLC Sales) https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/events/160428/03.html.

I'm trying to piece together many separate elements of the game's industry as I see it now to work through the question of DLC in Ultimate. Nintendo hasn't released any major financial reports since April with just a minor update in June, so we have to work through speculation. What we can observe is the trends throughout the rest of the industry such as, "What does Ultimate do differently from comparable releases in the industry?" Where things start to get interesting is just how downplayed DLC overall seems in all of their financial reports (Please feel free to look through the financial information here: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/index.html). Yes, it gets mentioned throughout and there are general trends that Nintendo sees of rising DLC sales... but they're mostly just extra notes compared to the discussion of new, big titles launching for their systems and especially the Mobile games division which has been yielding excellent profits. Nintendo largely lumps in add-on content with all digital sales, so it's difficult to get a read on more recent data in that regard. They express interest in continued customer engagement for a single title and DLC support, but again, it's not particularly emphasized or utilized as the "meat and potatoes" of their reports and analysis.

I'm bringing it up because the question of future DLC is an inherently interesting one and I feel like there's still a lot to explore on that topic, with it potentially having great impact on Geno's chances as well depending on if we get more or not. Saying it doesn't matter because "Sakurai and Nintendo" will do what they want is just being defeatist and shutting down discussion, and you constantly bring it up in your pessimism. And I think it's really worth exploring too because of how Sakurai's book paints the issue of DLC in a fundamentally different light than I suspect many people think of it in. So, how do we resolve our expectations of DLC versus the reality that Sakurai seems to be highlighting and how do we make sense of his comments? I'm still developing those ideas and overall argument, but I'm bringing it here to spark a little bit of discussion and deeper diving into this idea. I'm also not saying "Only competitive people buy Smash DLC" or that it isn't profitable. It's always been about how profitable DLC is in comparison to other options and why our assumptions about the inherent profitability of such content may be incorrect.

And of course you're seeing nothing but talk about DLC, you're a part of the Smash community and a part of the Nintendo community where these things are naturally going to seem like earth-shattering events all the time, that's the hype we create as the most vocal and active fans. Yes, these crossover moments are big and notable with general excitement for the game rising, but there are multiple issues at play that I'm trying to discuss and make note of. And some servers having issues mean nothing when Nintendo has literally never had decent infrastructure and they positioned Joker in particular around updates that created all sorts of problems.

You can throw around in depth speculation all you want, but just the fact that Nintendo's president specifically said they were going to focus on doing more DLC speaks volumes. Also, the fighter pass is $25. That's almost half the price of the full game. For people who got discounts on places like Amazon for preordering it is exactly half the price. Just imagine how much less the fighter pass costs to make than the full game. It's not even comparable. Even if only 20% of the player base buys it, there's absolutely no way it's not incredibly lucrative. And a crossover fighting game is probably the biggest seller of dlc as far as genres go anyway. I think the only real question is whether or not Sakurai will be up for it.

 

[EricTheGamerman]

For my own two cents on the DLC topic, I would still argue that the making of DLC is profitable enough to continue doing. Does it make as much as creating a whole new game? Obviously not, however, it also requires insanely less effort. One character, one stage and some music for about 10% of the full game's value is a pretty sweet deal for the developers when you consider the cost to profit ratio. Also consider the other issues that would arise from making a whole new game as opposed to adding DLC characters:

A) Re-obtaining the rights. Sakurai himself pointed out the extreme difficulty it would be to reassemble such a massive roster as we have it today. Between legalities and hardware limitations, we could very well see the loss of several characters in Smash games to come. What good would it be to gain new characters if we lose a bunch of beloved ones in return? Could you imagine getting Geno in Smash 6 only to lose Banjo instead? Don't think for a second that Smash won't end up just like the Pokemon franchise, reaching critical mass and being forced to cut characters because of the sheer volume of them. This fact alone is why I think Nintendo is going to milk Ultimate for as long as humanly possibly, porting this beast until the sprockets fall off.

B) What would be the selling point of a new smash? Don't get me wrong, Smash is like pokemon. Even if the next game were a giant steaming pile of monkey feces, people would still buy it. (Hence why the industry only gets lazier) But what could a new Smash offer that Ultimate doesn't already have? Better graphics? Not likely. With the nature of Smash and its characters, there's a limit to how much better graphics could bring out the pink in Kirby or the 2D-ness of Game and Watch. Not to mention the fact that Nintendo has never put much stock in high-end graphics/hardware to begin with. What about better mechanics? WhY CaN't iT PlAy MoRe LiKe MeLeE?! In my honest opinion, Smash has never been smoother or more polished when it comes to overall mechanics. Maybe we could reduce some input lag, but overall, I'd say Ultimate is as fast and fluid as Smash can get without having the exploitable glitches that comprised Melee's "Advanced Mechanics". What about new characters? See point A above. What about new modes? Like what? Home Run Contest? Break the targets? As both a fighting game AND a party game, I don't see additions like those pushing demand over the top. My point is, Ultimate's surprise factor wore off faster than any Smash game I'd ever played. Why? Because it was more similar to Sm4sh than any other Smash gamed was to its predecessor. Ultimate basically tore out Sm4sh's engine, revamped it, added a few more newcomers, replaced trophies with spirits and VOILA! NEW SMASH GAME! With this in mind, I would argue that future Smash games are going to start showing diminishing returns. Would it be profitable for Nintendo to make them anyway? Probably, but I can almost guarantee you that we'd see schisms arise in the fanbase just as we did between Melee, Brawl and Sm4sh. The only things that finally united the fanbase were the faster mechanics and the addition of ALL characters that had come before. I doubt we'll get this lucky again, and even Sakurai himself agrees with this sentiment.

In conclusion, I would say from both a consumer, casual, and competitive point of view, maintaining consistency with the current game would be our best-case scenario. Continuing to add DLC is not only insanely profitable for relatively low input, but also keeps Ultimate relevant longer and successfully pulls in new fans with each varied pick. Why else do you think that Smash Ultimate has continued to top the charts almost a year after its release? People beyond the usual fanbase are getting interested by both the growing competitive scene (which dominated EVO) and the addition of their favorite characters/franchises outside of Nintendo. Add this to the fact that Nintendo wants to maintain the Switch's life as long as possible, and since I don't see their next gen anywhere on the horizon, I don't see the need for a brand new Smash any time soon.

You can throw around in depth speculation all you want, but just the fact that Nintendo's president specifically said they were going to focus on doing more DLC speaks volumes. Also, the fighter pass is $25. That's almost half the price of the full game. For people who got discounts on places like Amazon for preordering it is exactly half the price. Just imagine how much less the fighter pass costs to make than the full game. It's not even comparable. Even if only 20% of the player base buys it, there's absolutely no way it's not incredibly lucrative. And a crossover fighting game is probably the biggest seller of dlc as far as genres go anyway. I think the only real question is whether or not Sakurai will be up for it.

You're both still missing the point of what I'm bringing up. It's not about DLC not being profitable or making a new Smash game at all and never has been. It's about taking the funds that are used to develop DLC for Smash and pushing them towards new projects, full games, mobile markets, a damn amusement park, etc. I've never stated that it's about DLC for Ultimate versus a brand new Smash game, because that's entirely different from what I'm arguing and yes, more DLC makes sense in that scenario if you're dead set on continuing Smash content.

People keep bringing up Nintendo's supposed commitment to DLC, but they've not really done that have they? Super Mario Odyssey had the Luigi's Balloon World update and that was it. They moved on to a new sequel to Breath of the Wild as opposed to just releasing DLC. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, despite being the highest selling game on Switch, has only gotten the Master Cycle as an update. They ended Splatoon 2's support this summer despite that game relying on it more than any other release. They ended ARMS' support after 6 months. Nintendo has yet to really do indefinite DLC with any of their existing major titles. I think we forget how significant that 2020 end date is. That's a full year and two months of additional content released, with tons of it coming in the form of brand new modes for free as is, which would officially be the second longest supported Switch title.

So, their actions don't reflect this continued commitment to DLC and neither do their financial reports, presentations, and internal statements where DLC only gets limited mentions. Yes, they are in the DLC market and will continue implementing it into titles for continued player engagement, but this doesn't express that it will be their primary model moving forward and they are much more serious and committed to their development of new titles and other projects.

 

[wynn728]

For my own two cents on the DLC topic, I would still argue that the making of DLC is profitable enough to continue doing. Does it make as much as creating a whole new game? Obviously not, however, it also requires insanely less effort. One character, one stage and some music for about 10% of the full game's value is a pretty sweet deal for the developers when you consider the cost to profit ratio. Also consider the other issues that would arise from making a whole new game as opposed to adding DLC characters:

A) Re-obtaining the rights. Sakurai himself pointed out the extreme difficulty it would be to reassemble such a massive roster as we have it today. Between legalities and hardware limitations, we could very well see the loss of several characters in Smash games to come. What good would it be to gain new characters if we lose a bunch of beloved ones in return? Could you imagine getting Geno in Smash 6 only to lose Banjo instead? Don't think for a second that Smash won't end up just like the Pokemon franchise, reaching critical mass and being forced to cut characters because of the sheer volume of them. This fact alone is why I think Nintendo is going to milk Ultimate for as long as humanly possibly, porting this beast until the sprockets fall off.

B) What would be the selling point of a new smash? Don't get me wrong, Smash is like pokemon. Even if the next game were a giant steaming pile of monkey feces, people would still buy it. (Hence why the industry only gets lazier) But what could a new Smash offer that Ultimate doesn't already have? Better graphics? Not likely. With the nature of Smash and its characters, there's a limit to how much better graphics could bring out the pink in Kirby or the 2D-ness of Game and Watch. Not to mention the fact that Nintendo has never put much stock in high-end graphics/hardware to begin with. What about better mechanics? WhY CaN't iT PlAy MoRe LiKe MeLeE?! In my honest opinion, Smash has never been smoother or more polished when it comes to overall mechanics. Maybe we could reduce some input lag, but overall, I'd say Ultimate is as fast and fluid as Smash can get without having the exploitable glitches that comprised Melee's "Advanced Mechanics". What about new characters? See point A above. What about new modes? Like what? Home Run Contest? Break the targets? As both a fighting game AND a party game, I don't see additions like those pushing demand over the top. My point is, Ultimate's surprise factor wore off faster than any Smash game I'd ever played. Why? Because it was more similar to Sm4sh than any other Smash gamed was to its predecessor. Ultimate basically tore out Sm4sh's engine, revamped it, added a few more newcomers, replaced trophies with spirits and VOILA! NEW SMASH GAME! With this in mind, I would argue that future Smash games are going to start showing diminishing returns. Would it be profitable for Nintendo to make them anyway? Probably, but I can almost guarantee you that we'd see schisms arise in the fanbase just as we did between Melee, Brawl and Sm4sh. The only things that finally united the fanbase were the faster mechanics and the addition of ALL characters that had come before. I doubt we'll get this lucky again, and even Sakurai himself agrees with this sentiment.

In conclusion, I would say from both a consumer, casual, and competitive point of view, maintaining consistency with the current game would be our best-case scenario. Continuing to add DLC is not only insanely profitable for relatively low input, but also keeps Ultimate relevant longer and successfully pulls in new fans with each varied pick. Why else do you think that Smash Ultimate has continued to top the charts almost a year after its release? People beyond the usual fanbase are getting interested by both the growing competitive scene (which dominated EVO) and the addition of their favorite characters/franchises outside of Nintendo. Add this to the fact that Nintendo wants to maintain the Switch's life as long as possible, and since I don't see their next gen anywhere on the horizon, I don't see the need for a brand new Smash any time soon.

Honestly I think after Smash Bros Ultimate they should just stop making new Smash Bros game and just keep porting it to new systems. When the new console comes around no need to make a new one, just port Ultimate over with some added features just like Mario Kart 8 Delux. It's likely that Sakurai & Nintendo could've made a deal where they can easily negotiate the use of these characters for only "Smash Bros Ultimate" so they might just need to renew the contract or something for when they make a port to a new console. Honestly I don't know, but Ultimate should be the basework for all future Smash Bros game and just keep porting it while adding new stuff to it.

You're right, I don't have the numbers and nobody does. I took issue with your 90% figure because it sounds ludicrously high for a retention rate. Smash is the only fighting game to sell like it does and I've outlined in detail multiple times why that figure is much more likely to be inaccurate that you continue to ignore and seem unwilling to address. What we do know is that Smash 4 DLC sold the best out of DLC sales in the 2015-2016 period of the Wii U/3DS era... and Sakurai still made those comments about DLC being a riskier idea: (Report given in 2016 by the President that comments on IR information and discusses DLC Sales) https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/events/160428/03.html.

I'm trying to piece together many separate elements of the game's industry as I see it now to work through the question of DLC in Ultimate. Nintendo hasn't released any major financial reports since April with just a minor update in June, so we have to work through speculation. What we can observe is the trends throughout the rest of the industry such as, "What does Ultimate do differently from comparable releases in the industry?" Where things start to get interesting is just how downplayed DLC overall seems in all of their financial reports (Please feel free to look through the financial information here: https://www.nintendo.co.jp/ir/en/index.html). Yes, it gets mentioned throughout and there are general trends that Nintendo sees of rising DLC sales... but they're mostly just extra notes compared to the discussion of new, big titles launching for their systems and especially the Mobile games division which has been yielding excellent profits. Nintendo largely lumps in add-on content with all digital sales, so it's difficult to get a read on more recent data in that regard. They express interest in continued customer engagement for a single title and DLC support, but again, it's not particularly emphasized or utilized as the "meat and potatoes" of their reports and analysis.

I'm bringing it up because the question of future DLC is an inherently interesting one and I feel like there's still a lot to explore on that topic, with it potentially having great impact on Geno's chances as well depending on if we get more or not. Saying it doesn't matter because "Sakurai and Nintendo" will do what they want is just being defeatist and shutting down discussion, and you constantly bring it up in your pessimism. And I think it's really worth exploring too because of how Sakurai's book paints the issue of DLC in a fundamentally different light than I suspect many people think of it in. So, how do we resolve our expectations of DLC versus the reality that Sakurai seems to be highlighting and how do we make sense of his comments? I'm still developing those ideas and overall argument, but I'm bringing it here to spark a little bit of discussion and deeper diving into this idea. I'm also not saying "Only competitive people buy Smash DLC" or that it isn't profitable. It's always been about how profitable DLC is in comparison to other options and why our assumptions about the inherent profitability of such content may be incorrect.

And of course you're seeing nothing but talk about DLC, you're a part of the Smash community and a part of the Nintendo community where these things are naturally going to seem like earth-shattering events all the time, that's the hype we create as the most vocal and active fans. Yes, these crossover moments are big and notable with general excitement for the game rising, but there are multiple issues at play that I'm trying to discuss and make note of. And some servers having issues mean nothing when Nintendo has literally never had decent infrastructure and they positioned Joker in particular around updates that created all sorts of problems.

Sure Sakurai express that DLC might be risky, but that's just his opinion. Not everything that a person says is going to be right all the time. DLC back in Smash Bros 4 was probably risky because they were making two separate version of the characters and a good chance that the 3DS DLC wasn't selling well. We do see fighting games that continue to have DLC without the need of microtransactions like Dragon Ball FighterZ to be profitable. Maybe what Sakurai says has weight or maybe he's too cautious. All I'll say is that sometimes what Sakurai says just doesn't feel right, like how there will be no story cutscenes in Smash Bros because they were uploaded to YouTube.

Also for the casual audience they do have a way to incentives for them to buy those characters without them going on Twitter or looking up news feeds to know what's happening. Every time a new character is release there's an update message telling you about that character when you turn on Smash Bros Ultimate, they see that picture and that gets them curious. There's also online battles (which about half of Switch owners have) and they come across that DLC character, they see the way they fight and they want to get it. That's how a lot of games get casual audience to get that extra content, best example would be Fortnite. You see people online with that stuff and in turn it makes you want it. It's like a social pressure that influence people to get it, that's why Fortnite makes so much money despite it being predominately played by kids and casual audience.

And lastly I will say that if Nintendo orders more DLC then it doesn't matter what Sakurai's concerns are. Nintendo is the one that will provide the budget to pay Sakurai and his team, so it's up to Nintendo to consider the risk and reward for DLC. Sakurai get's paid regardless and continues to have a job, sure the budget would be a lot better if it was a brand new game, but that's Nintendo decision on how to go about it since Sakurai is a contractor.

People keep bringing up Nintendo's supposed commitment to DLC, but they've not really done that have they? Super Mario Odyssey had the Luigi's Balloon World update and that was it. They moved on to a new sequel to Breath of the Wild as opposed to just releasing DLC. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, despite being the highest selling game on Switch, has only gotten the Master Cycle as an update. They ended Splatoon 2's support this summer despite that game relying on it more than any other release. They ended ARMS' support after 6 months. Nintendo has yet to really do indefinite DLC with any of their existing major titles. I think we forget how significant that 2020 end date is. That's a full year and two months of additional content released, with tons of it coming in the form of brand new modes for free as is, which would officially be the second longest supported Switch title.

So, their actions don't reflect this continued commitment to DLC and neither do their financial reports, presentations, and internal statements where DLC only gets limited mentions. Yes, they are in the DLC market and will continue implementing it into titles for continued player engagement, but this doesn't express that it will be their primary model moving forward and they are much more serious and committed to their development of new titles and other projects.

They did specifically state that they went with a sequel of Breath of the Wild because they had a lot of ideas for DLC that they decided to just make a new game out of it.
You also forgot that there was DLC for Captain Toad.
Splatoon 2 Support lasted for a really long time.
Mario Kart 8 Deluxe was probably so they can get a Mario Kart game out as quickly as they can so they can make Mario Kart 9.
ARMS had free updates, nothing else was paid.

Honestly Nintendo is a wild card when it comes to DLC. People seems to be expecting the level of DLC that third party developers have implemented when it comes to Nintendo, but they're more selective on what to focus on as DLC. Just because every one their game doesn't have DLC doesn't mean they're not committed to it. Smash Bros might be a different case for them when compare to Mario Odyssey. Nintendo can make some of the smartest, dumbest, predicable and wildest decisions. Trying to predict them on how they're going to manage DLC is just improbable. I don't think the way things are going now are telling of what to come in the future.

 

[Ura]

So uhh...any sign of a Starling in the Indie World presentation?

 

[Evil Trapezium]

So uhh...any sign of a Starling in the Indie World presentation?

Nah. Even if one did appear, it probably isn't it. I think I saw one of Fatman's comments say that the person isn't interested in Indie games.

 

[Firox]

People keep bringing up Nintendo's supposed commitment to DLC, but they've not really done that have they? Super Mario Odyssey had the Luigi's Balloon World update and that was it. They moved on to a new sequel to Breath of the Wild as opposed to just releasing DLC. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, despite being the highest selling game on Switch, has only gotten the Master Cycle as an update. They ended Splatoon 2's support this summer despite that game relying on it more than any other release. They ended ARMS' support after 6 months. Nintendo has yet to really do indefinite DLC with any of their existing major titles. I think we forget how significant that 2020 end date is. That's a full year and two months of additional content released, with tons of it coming in the form of brand new modes for free as is, which would officially be the second longest supported Switch title.

But all the games you reference are terrible examples of both DLC content and commitment except for MAYBE Splatoon 2. Mario Kart 8 had a massive amount of added content after it was initially released, but as a direct port, it's obvious that Nintendo wouldn't dedicate much more to Deluxe. Meanwhile, ARMS kinda flopped in its attempt to be the next big competitive IP and didn't really deserve the additional effort. As for Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild, those particular franchises have never really lent themselves to the concept of DLC, period. Honestly, what could you possibly add to them that wouldn't break the balance of the game anyway? You could dress up Mario or Link as much as you do a Barbie doll but that doesn't do crap in the way of adding replay value to the game. Smash bros is a COMPLETELY different animal when it comes to potential DLC. Each of the new characters are both modular and interchangeable, adding a completely new dimension to the game or none at all if the player so chooses. The characters are balanced against the entire roster and often times represent an entirely new franchise. Not to mention that Sm4sh gives us a historical precedent for Smash games in particular. Comparing it to those others doesn't really say much.

Lastly, I don't see the point in reallocating funds from Smash DLC development for "other projects", etc. We have no idea what Nintendo internally prioritizes so speculation about something like that doesn't really serve a purpose. I was merely pointing out the logic behind continuing the DLC as opposed to either a new game or stopping altogether.

 

[KirbyWorshipper2465]

So uhh...any sign of a Starling in the Indie World presentation?

Never mind that, the event's entire highlight was leaked before it even started, so there was no point in watching this.

At this stage, the starling thing must only be related to first parties, so we should see if a Nintendo Direct comes up in a couple of weeks. I still think it'll be Nintenbirds.

 

[Firox]

Never mind that, the event's entire highlight was leaked before it even started, so there was no point in watching this.

At this stage, the starling thing must only be related to first parties, so we should see if a Nintendo Direct comes up in a couple of weeks. I still think it'll be Nintenbirds.

Sorry for being uninformed, but what was the event's highlight?

 

[KirbyWorshipper2465]

Sorry for being uninformed, but what was the event's highlight?

Ori and the Blind Forest, which VRPlant leaked.

 

[Glitch-EGamer]

Sorry for being uninformed, but what was the event's highlight?

I thought Hat in Time and Ori were pretty nice

 

[KirbyWorshipper2465]

I thought Hat in Time and Ori were pretty nice

Hat in Time wasn't shown on Indie World at all, tho. Unless you saw a different version of IW.

 

[SuperNintendoDisney]

Nintendo would be ecstatic if even a third of consumers purchased DLC for any of their games. The average rate of purchase for DLC is between 10% and 20%, with higher quality DLC being on the higher end, Zelda, for example.

The community overestimates their numbers. If Ultimate sold 15 million units, less than a million of those buyers are actual core fans who participate in online communities such as this, and bought every single piece of DLC. Even amongst the most hardcore fans, there are sure to be those who don’t buy every piece of DLC, so imagine the buying habits of the average consumer.

If there were a game series where DLC broke any records, it would be Super Smash Bros., but speculating anything more than half of consumers buying DLC for Ultimate is insane.

 

[SSGuy]

Hat in Time wasn't shown on Indie World at all, tho. Unless you saw a different version of IW.

It was shown a week earlier. Shame it never got that royal carpet treatment from Nintendo but they will still outperform every game shown off in that showcase so they probably aren't too concerned.