Is $5 too much for a character?

Princess Rescuer

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
101
#1
Smash already had over 70 characters when Ultimate first released. Additional characters are $5 each. Five extra unknown characters can be pre-ordered for almost half the price of the game. And more Fighter’s Passes are coming. Personally, I think each extra character should be $1. With the success Nintendo’s having lately, they can afford them to all be free. Ultimate still sells for $60 these days and probably will still sell for that much until the next one.

The Switch has been a testing ground for what Nintendo can get away with. And it’s working thanks to a good economy. They already have paid online and DLC in Pokemon that costs half of what the game costs. We have less ownership over classic games and we’re paying more for controllers. This is building bad habits. Nintendo needs to reverse this before it’s too late.
 
Joined
Jan 16, 2020
Messages
2
Location
El Mirage, AZ, USA
#2
Most fighting games do $5.99-$7.99, for JUST the character. In Smash, you get the character, the stage, and the music pack, for only $5. So I see $5 as a steal.

As for the rest, paid online is hardly anything, $20/year ain't bad. Pokemon confirmed that the expansion pass is cutting away with the arguably worse habit of releasing the game all over again. I wouldn't worry so much of "ownership of classic games," because it just comes along with the affordable online. I will agree on controllers, $80 ($40/per) is remarkably steep for cheaply made plastic controllers.

Overall, don't use a company's success as a way to convince them to go cheap. They need to sustain just as much as anyone else in this economy.
 

Oddball

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
883
#3
Maybe I'm just the old man here, but I can remember the days when if you wanted to go from having eight players in Street Fighter 2 to 12 players in Street Fighter 2 Championship edition it cost you an entire $70 bucks.

If you wanted to go from 12 to 16 in Super, that's another $70.

I'm fine with just a few dollars for a character.
 

Princess Rescuer

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
101
#4
If a company is successful, why get more expensive? Giving out things for free, especially on games that will remain popular holiday gifts for years, is a positive. It gives a competitive edge. The online was free on the Wii U, a much less popular console, and the Switch's online is no better. So why can't the additional characters at least be free now that the online is paid? Why not some sort of compromise or trade-off to offset certain things? Nintendo only gets greedier as they get more successful.

Also, I don't mind having a full game be a minor update due to the fact that anyone getting into it later only needs to buy the best/most recent one. And if it's physical, it can be bought at a discount.

The way I see it, if the $60 game gives me 70+ characters, that's less than a dollar per character. So $5 for 1 character is a jump. And pre-ordering them is the worst option in every way due to the fact that they are 4.99 individually and 24.99 in full, so you're not only not getting a discount, it's 4 cents more! Pre-ordering characters you don't know about should at least give you a $1 or more discount, not be the same or more expensive.

Besides, Smash Ultimate's online mode is, IMO, not as good as For Glory in Smash 4. In For Glory, you could get into a new match almost instantly instead of the convoluted lobbies and wait lists they have in Ultimate. Smash 4 also has a better Classic mode, Brawl has a better Adventure mode, Melee has better minigames. The only thing superior about Ultimate is the local multiplayer and the amount of controllers you're able to use, something the next Smash game will likely blow out of the water, provided it's not a husk of DLC like it's shaping up to be. Otherwise, the single player parts of the game are comparatively disappointing.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 31, 2019
Messages
885
Location
Germany
#5
No.
Mostly because it's hard to properly a new character into a new game. I think it may even be too low but ok, I guess they know more about their consumer's behaviors than I do.
I think one should still appreciate the work the team puts into these characters. This isn't Jump Force where a new character gets just slapped into the roster but the char is pretty well balanced and Ult is a very balanced game.



As for the Online mode: That argument shouldn'T be made here. You can still use the new fighter offline. In this regard you should probably complain about the 20€/$ Nintendo wants for Nintendo Online. If you are right in this regard: Dunno, maybe?
 

lucasla

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
478
#6
Other games like Overwatch add characters for free... in a game with dedicated servers... and Overwatch 2 will add tons of maps and characters for free for everyone that has the first game...

Well... companies are different...
just saying...
 
Last edited:
Joined
Aug 24, 2018
Messages
3,544
Location
Ravnica
#7
Take a shot every time you see a post by this user overly criticizing reasonable decisions made by the development team.

In most, if not all, states in the USA, working over the standard weekly limit rewards the employee with 1.5 or double pay. This is similar. I don't know how much the team working on the DLC is being paid, but they're certainly working overtime and beyond the original contract that was probably terminated on Ultimate's release date. So no, it's not too much to fork over $5 for a fighter, stage, songs, and spirits. Get real.
 

scoobymcsnack

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 3, 2015
Messages
403
#8
Other games like Overwatch add characters for free... in a game with dedicated servers... and Overwatch 2 will add tons of maps and characters for free for everyone that has the first game...

Well... companies are different...
just saying...
That's a unique situation. Just because the Overwatch team has nicely decided that doesn't mean you should expect every developer to do extra work for free. Especially since we know that the DLC team is much smaller than the team that made the original game.
 

Blutrausch

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jan 16, 2020
Messages
12
#11
Wasn't the concept one character, one stage, and five music tracks? Joker's had ten tracks from what I recall. Given that, let's work with a single bundle consisting of one character, one stage, and five tracks. I believe the Fighter Pass was $24.

If each character comes with these items, then you have 35 items. $24/35 items is $0.69/item. Of course, each character seems to have had more than five tracks. This means for the entire Fighter Pass, each item was less than $1, and probably less than $0.50.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
1,141
Location
San Clemente, California
#13
If I were directing the game I would make all DLC's completely free, no charge!!!
And deprive your employees of any extra money they could earn from working overtime, even with breaks?

If it were me, I’d make each pack of the Vol. 2 pass $4.99, which still adds up to $30 total.
 

Khao

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
1,428
Location
Lying about my country.
#15
Other games like Overwatch add characters for free... in a game with dedicated servers... and Overwatch 2 will add tons of maps and characters for free for everyone that has the first game...

Well... companies are different...
just saying...
There's three humongous differences between Overwatch and Smash.

1: There's no such thing as offline Overwatch play. You buy Overwatch, you play online, that's how the game works and there's really no other way to do it. Why is this relevant? Unlike Smash, Overwatch needs a large active playerbase 24/7 to even function as a video game. The playerbase dies, and the game can't be played anymore even if you open it and there's still running servers. How do you make sure the playerbase sticks around to ensure Overwatch can still be played by someone buying the game in 2020? You add new content. You create events. You introduce new cosmetics. You add new modes. You update content. You rebalance. You keep the game fresh, and players come back to it. Players quit Overwatch all the time, but they come back if something interesting is introduced like a brand-new character that shakes up the metagame, especially since they already own the game and don't have to pay for it. Smash, however, still functions as a game even if the servers die, or if you are the only person in the world still playing the game.

2: Picking a character in Overwatch is not like picking a character in a fighter. 80% of Overwatch's gameplay revolves around team composition. Absolutely all players need to have absolutely all options available at absolutely all times. Characters counter eachother. If the enemy team chooses a character that wrecks your entire team, you need to pick something to counter it. If you don't own all existing characters... Well, you're quite simply ****ed and the game becomes pay to win. In Smash, you can play a single character in the entire game's lifetime and you're not missing out on any options because your options are provided by the character you choose. In Overwatch, the character list is an additional layer of options you need full access to at all times. To put it into perspective, paying for an Overwatch character would be like paying to unlock down tilts in Smash.

3: While all gameplay-related content is free, Overwatch still has microtransactions. It's free, but Blizzard still gets the money elsewhere. If Smash were to hand out characters for free, it'd need an entirely new monetization method to justify the extra work.

...

tl;dr: Overwatch needs to do that or it literally ceases to function as a game.
 
Last edited:

MastaMario

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jan 17, 2020
Messages
9
#19
if you don't like the character you dont have to buy it. i usually only buy characters that I am planning to use allot so what's 5$ for a potential main or time sink for casual battles.

the old street fighter examples are pretty flawed though. people are looking to much in only the roster while each version changed the gameplay

Faster play speed, different stun mechanics. different characters dominating the meta

Dictatator Mbison was S tier in stree fighter II champion edition. not to mention introcution of super moves. later on alpha counters parries. a ton of street fighter games had different strategies compared to each other in how you play the game.
 
Last edited:

lucasla

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
478
#20
There's three humongous differences between Overwatch and Smash.

1: There's no such thing as offline Overwatch play. You buy Overwatch, you play online, that's how the game works and there's really no other way to do it. Why is this relevant? Unlike Smash, Overwatch needs a large active playerbase 24/7 to even function as a video game. The playerbase dies, and the game can't be played anymore even if you open it and there's still running servers. How do you make sure the playerbase sticks around to ensure Overwatch can still be played by someone buying the game in 2020? You add new content. You create events. You introduce new cosmetics. You add new modes. You update content. You rebalance. You keep the game fresh, and players come back to it. Players quit Overwatch all the time, but they come back if something interesting is introduced like a brand-new character that shakes up the metagame, especially since they already own the game and don't have to pay for it. Smash, however, still functions as a game even if the servers die, or if you are the only person in the world still playing the game.

2: Picking a character in Overwatch is not like picking a character in a fighter. 80% of Overwatch's gameplay revolves around team composition. Absolutely all players need to have absolutely all options available at absolutely all times. Characters counter eachother. If the enemy team chooses a character that wrecks your entire team, you need to pick something to counter it. If you don't own all existing characters... Well, you're quite simply ****ed and the game becomes pay to win. In Smash, you can play a single character in the entire game's lifetime and you're not missing out on any options because your options are provided by the character you choose. In Overwatch, the character list is an additional layer of options you need full access to at all times. To put it into perspective, paying for an Overwatch character would be like paying to unlock down tilts in Smash.

3: While all gameplay-related content is free, Overwatch still has microtransactions. It's free, but Blizzard still gets the money elsewhere. If Smash were to hand out characters for free, it'd need an entirely new monetization method to justify the extra work.

...

tl;dr: Overwatch needs to do that or it literally ceases to function as a game.
I'm not really saying they shouldn't charge, just comparing other games that add free content. But I dont see how your point number 1 doenst apply to Smash. Arent they releasing new characters to make people return to the game? Offline or Online, doesnt matter, new content makes the game feel alive and makes people return to the game for some time, charging for this content or not. Actually, these things that Overwatch does are pretty great and I think it should be applyed to Smash, since it is the biggest online title that Nintendo has (despite they way they treat it - like trash) and will have for the rest of the life of the Switch. They are also adding singleplayer/cooperative content to Over 2, so people that buy this game kind of have even more options of "offline" play, even if it is far from the way the developers want you to play the game (again, kind of like smash, it is a party-fighting game, right?).

I dont see how your point 2 is relevant to the fact that they are not charging for characters in Over and charging for Smash.

And your point 3.. Overwatch doesnt have microtransactions. Only for skins, that you can have all of them easily. I play Overwatch since year 2 of the game and there's nothing more to get on the game anymore, never bought or felt I needed to buy any loot box that only has cosmetics.

But again, I just bringing it to compare Smash to other games that add free content, that includes new characters. I think they are on their right to charge for new content. Other main online games like Rainbow Six Siege and Apex Legends also charge for new characters.
 
Last edited:

Diem

Agent of Phaaze
Premium
Joined
Jun 16, 2018
Messages
1,638
Location
Agon Wastes
NNID
Luminoth_Prime
#22
If a company is successful, why get more expensive? Giving out things for free, especially on games that will remain popular holiday gifts for years, is a positive. It gives a competitive edge. The online was free on the Wii U, a much less popular console, and the Switch's online is no better. So why can't the additional characters at least be free now that the online is paid? Why not some sort of compromise or trade-off to offset certain things? Nintendo only gets greedier as they get more successful.
That's not how business works.

The $5 ($6 individually) you're paying is for a planned, fully-modeled, animated, tested, voiced, and licensed character, including a stage that's also planned, fully-modeled, animated, tested, voiced, and licensed, as well as music that needs to be licensed and in some cases is remixed. Each new fighter also has a unique Classic Mode, which needs to be designed and executed. There's also the spirits that they come with, which requires implementation as well as design and execution of the spirit battles.

On top of all of this, the level of detail in the DLC fighters and their stages is above average compared to everything else. There's an absurd amount of work put into each new character and stages.

That's work that involves dozens of different people, who all need to be paid varying amounts depending on what's required. The licensing is the big thing, especially, since four of these characters are third-party and not owned by Nintendo. Music is also a big thing, because in Japan, sometimes the original composer owns the licensing rights to the music, meaning they need to be paid quite a bit to be willing to license their work (this is why Final Fantasy VII has no music).

All these employees and license-holders need to get paid, and at the end of the day, you want to have a profit, too, for financial security and growth. If you worked a job, and you only earned enough to pay for your basic bills and expenses, and didn't have enough spare money to do anything else, you wouldn't think that was a good job. Or, if you had a job where what you earned wasn't enough to pay for a home or food, then you wouldn't be alive for very long. You want a job that can pay for all your needs and give you some extra cash to be financially secure and let you buy other things you want.

That's not greed. That's common sense.

In fact, during the Wii U era, Nintendo was actually losing money. As in, for like two years, the amount of money they spent was significantly greater than the money they earned. For most companies, that would lead to layoffs--people losing their jobs--as the company strained to cut costs and become profitable again. But Iwata, in one of the most solid testaments to his character, slashed his own salary so they could avoid any layoffs.

Just because companies are big doesn't mean that they're infinite money machines, and that there aren't hundreds of normal people working there just trying to put food on the table.

Also, I don't mind having a full game be a minor update due to the fact that anyone getting into it later only needs to buy the best/most recent one. And if it's physical, it can be bought at a discount.
Ultimate is not a minor update. There's thousands of major and minor changes in almost every facet of the game, including 6 returning characters from Melee and Brawl, as well as 13 newcomers before DLC.

A minor update would be something akin to the many Wii U ports, like Captain Toad or Mario Kart 8 Deluxe. Smash Ultimate is built from the foundation of Smash 4, but is still so radically different that it's an entirely new game.

The way I see it, if the $60 game gives me 70+ characters, that's less than a dollar per character. So $5 for 1 character is a jump. And pre-ordering them is the worst option in every way due to the fact that they are 4.99 individually and 24.99 in full, so you're not only not getting a discount, it's 4 cents more! Pre-ordering characters you don't know about should at least give you a $1 or more discount, not be the same or more expensive.
$60 gives you 70+ characters, 100+ stages, almost 900 music tracks, over 1000 spirits, and the dozens of modes and features across the whole game. Relative to other fighting games that can launch for $60 with under 30 characters and about a dozen stages, Smash Ultimate is one of the most content-packed games ever made. You don't have to like or enjoy every piece of content it offers, but you're getting your money's worth.

So you're not paying $1 per character with the base game. If you were, then you'd be playing just one game mode on a single blank stage with no music, and that'd be the entire game.

Also, your math is off. The characters are $5.99 individually, which is about $30 if all bought individually, but the Fighter's Pass is $24.99, so you save $5 if you buy the fighter's pass. But multiple times, Sakurai has warned everyone to only buy the pass if you are absolutely confident you will like the characters regardless of who they are/don't care who the characters are. You never hear people or companies say to not buy something they're selling, but it shows how sincere Sakurai is.

And like I said, each of these DLC characters is getting extra special treatment. More work is being put into them and their stages than almost all of the previous content. So even if you argued that they're being sold at a slight premium, it's because you're getting premium content.

Besides, Smash Ultimate's online mode is, IMO, not as good as For Glory in Smash 4. In For Glory, you could get into a new match almost instantly instead of the convoluted lobbies and wait lists they have in Ultimate. Smash 4 also has a better Classic mode, Brawl has a better Adventure mode, Melee has better minigames. The only thing superior about Ultimate is the local multiplayer and the amount of controllers you're able to use, something the next Smash game will likely blow out of the water, provided it's not a husk of DLC like it's shaping up to be. Otherwise, the single player parts of the game are comparatively disappointing.
I agree that the single-player components are lacking compared to Melee and Brawl, though I think the Classic Mode is more interesting and unique in Ultimate. Online modes and functionality are also not great, but you'll be hard-pressed to find a Japanese fighting game that has good online. It's a country-wide problem, not just Smash. Western fighting games have had great netcode for years.

Ultimate has a lot more going on than just the "local multiplayer" and "amount of controllers you're able to use." Again, Ultimate is not a minor update. There's hundreds of gameplay tweaks and changes that differentiate it from Smash 4, along with all the new and returning content that's been updated. Whether or not they're changes or content you care about doesn't mean they don't exist.

The next Super Smash game will not be like Ultimate. Sakurai has stated that the choice was either to build a new Smash game from the ground-up, with about 33% the roster size, or build on the foundation of Smash 4 and refine the gameplay and bring in as many characters as possible. He went with the latter decision, and it's why we're going to have a game with all the characters and (almost) stages from every previous game, including ones that were difficult like Cloud.

So the next Super Smash game is actually going to have probably a quarter of the content as Ultimate does, and would essentially be a reboot of the series with completely new gameplay. So if you're looking at Ultimate and feeling ripped-off, be prepared for what the next game will be like. It certainly won't be a "husk of DLC" as you're speculating.
 
Last edited:

lucasla

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
478
#23
Actually, Overwatch does have micro-transactions, as you can buy lootboxes in bulk with real money.
Skins and emotes you can get by playing. Except for skins of overwatch league. You need to really want to spend unnecessary money to care about this.
 
Last edited:

MaddaD

Smash Apprentice
Writing Team
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
124
#24
Skins and emotes you can get by playing. Except for skins of overwatch league. You need to really want to spend unnecessary money to care about this.
You can get them for free by playing, yes. I'm not arguing that, but selling services/items in a game for real life money is a micro-transaction. It's relying on being an easier convenience than getting the item the normal way. Before Blizzard was called out on it early in Year 1, the XP system was developed so that using these was a far better way of getting items and skins you wanted after Level 300+

I'm curious now, can you please show us your Collections tab in Overwatch?
 

lucasla

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
478
#25
You can get them for free by playing, yes. I'm not arguing that, but selling services/items in a game for real life money is a micro-transaction. It's relying on being an easier convenience than getting the item the normal way. Before Blizzard was called out on it early in Year 1, the XP system was developed so that using these was a far better way of getting items and skins you wanted after Level 300+

I'm curious now, can you please show us your Collections tab in Overwatch?
I understand what you want to say, but I really dont care about cosmetics, they are not really relevant to me. They dont affect the gameplay, and since it's not a thing that affect gameplay, as an entire character or skills, I think that selling them for real money have no impact on the game.
 
Last edited:

lucasla

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
478
#26
You can get them for free by playing, yes. I'm not arguing that, but selling services/items in a game for real life money is a micro-transaction. It's relying on being an easier convenience than getting the item the normal way. Before Blizzard was called out on it early in Year 1, the XP system was developed so that using these was a far better way of getting items and skins you wanted after Level 300+

I'm curious now, can you please show us your Collections tab in Overwatch?
and sure, I forgot the image... I play the game for two years, and I really dont care about any cosmetic anymore, but I have all skins of the game (maybe 98%.. there are some specific from events I had not participated) for a long time already.

over.png
 
Last edited:

MaddaD

Smash Apprentice
Writing Team
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
124
#27
I understand what you want to say, but I really dont care about cosmetics, they are not really relevant to me. They dont affect the gameplay, and since it's not a thing that affect gameplay, as an entire character or skills, I think that selling them for real money have no impact on the game.
I see your point, but you seem to be misunderstanding. There are still micro-transactions at the end of the day, by all definitions, even if you want to totally ignore them on the basis of cosmetics.

Let's say I buy a $60 game. It gives me access to playing the base game and everything. If an in game shop wants to sell me a cosmetic hat for 20 ungabungas (in game currency), that has no effect on the gameplay and is not a micro-transaction. If the same game has a coat for sale for $9.99 and is still cosmetic, that is a micro-transaction because it's asking for additional real life money after the initial purchase.
 

Wigglerman

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 6, 2019
Messages
376
Location
Maine
#28
I used to be on the train of 'cosmetics don't matter so it's fine' but I've come around on my opinion and find them quite manipulative. Especially after I found myself in a trap of trying to get said cosmetic on a game I liked a lot. While it has no impact on gameplay, cosmetics are just as damaging to a player and the game as a whole because it feeds into your desire to not look 'basic'/'default'. Some people can avoid caring, but those people I do believe are the minority. Many more players don't want to look 'boring'. They want the cool ****. So when the game makes it difficult or near impossible to get the cool stuff just by playing for free, it really drives the wedge between your restraint and desire to have said item you like so much.

Overwatch and the 'loot box' craze has been one of the most impacting (and not in the good way) monetization methods ever. It IS a micro transaction (You pay a small sum (micro) for in game items. That's a purchase, thus transaction. Micro transaction. 'It's just cosmetic' doesn't invalidate what it actually is.

As to the question: 5 bucks is a steal for what you get in Smash. Full character, full stage, music tracks, spirits and challenge route. Quite a hefty sum of stuff when competitors charge you more for JUST the character. Street Fighter, for example, doesn't bundle the fighter with their respective stage/music. They're separate transactions and cost double (or more) what you pay for a Smash pack.
 
Last edited:

lucasla

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
478
#29
I see your point, but you seem to be misunderstanding. There are still micro-transactions at the end of the day, by all definitions, even if you want to totally ignore them on the basis of cosmetics.

Let's say I buy a $60 game. It gives me access to playing the base game and everything. If an in game shop wants to sell me a cosmetic hat for 20 ungabungas (in game currency), that has no effect on the gameplay and is not a micro-transaction. If the same game has a coat for sale for $9.99 and is still cosmetic, that is a micro-transaction because it's asking for additional real life money after the initial purchase.
The only in-game shop is for skins from the overwatch league. There's no in game shop for the regular skins of the game. If you want to buy anything in Overwatch, you need to buy loot boxes on the website, you need to enter the website store and buy it, not in the game, and they are super expensive (in comparison with the price of the game and the fact that you win loot boxes frequently on the game). But all right, yes there are some micro transactions of cosmetics.. fine. I really never knew anyone that bothered with this, and is never a thing that pop in during the game, neither in any game menu.
 
Last edited:

MaddaD

Smash Apprentice
Writing Team
Joined
Apr 25, 2019
Messages
124
#31
The only in-game shop is for skins from the overwatch league. There's no in game shop for the regular skins of the game. If you want to buy anything in Overwatch, you need to buy loot boxes on the website, you need to enter the website store and buy it, not in the game, and they are super expensive (in comparison with the price of the game and the fact that you win loot boxes frequently on the game). But all right, yes there are some micro transactions of cosmetics.. fine. I really never knew anyone that bothered with this, and is never a thing that pop in during the game, neither in any game menu.
That's still incorrect. It doesn't matter if the Lootboxes are bought in game or out of the website, it's an additional charge for an in game feature that is one of the main selling points of the game

Nobody has a problem with it either, we're just correcting you when you say that there's no MTX in Overwatch when there very well are. It's why I asked to see your collections tab, because I thought you didn't even have an account.
 

lucasla

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
478
#32
That's still incorrect. It doesn't matter if the Lootboxes are bought in game or out of the website, it's an additional charge for an in game feature that is one of the main selling points of the game

Nobody has a problem with it either, we're just correcting you when you say that there's no MTX in Overwatch when there very well are. It's why I asked to see your collections tab, because I thought you didn't even have an account.
I understand, but I was saying about anything related to content that impactates the gameplay, like items, weapons, skills, or level improvement. Skins are just skins, color variations, whatever. And since the game is pretty generous (at least today) with the boxes, this is not a negative point in Overwatch in any way, at least the way I see.

But back to the original discussion, I thought the answer of #Khao just justifies why Overwatch works that way, but it hasn't convinced me that it couldnt work that way for Smash too. Anyway, I'm not bashing this decision, I would like to hear more opinions. Cause I had the feeling that Smash as a main online Nintendo game, it deserves a treatment more like Blizzard does with Overwatch, with dedicated servers, constantly receiving new heroes during it's life cicle, new stages.. for free or not, new modes, events, trying to do a better ranked system...

Smash is different than all other fighting games, cause I see most of the fighting games as secondary, tertiary games in any other plataform. No other fighting game has the same amount of players, life time, or importance for their plataforms of release as smash has for the nintendo consoles. And Smash is an expensive game, with an online mode that doesnt work properly.. they say they want to focus in local gameplay but with that they just ruin the way people play the most today.. or would if it worked better.,.
 
Last edited:

EricTheGamerman

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
2,853
#33
When a game launches with 76 playable fighters, 103 stages, and tons of content, I have no issue paying $5 for a character. That's cheaper than basically any movie ticket these days and it's really easy to spend $5 on nothing these days, and a fighter in Smash will keep me entertained for hours on end and add to my roster. Even as far as DLC for fighting games go, $5 a piece fighter DLC is a little closer to the cheap side and they all come with so much more than what most fighting games do in terms of content with the Stages, Music, Spirit Boards, and Classic Mode routes.

For as much time and effort as they require, $5 is perfect in my mind for them. And as a huge Smash fan, I'm glad they're relatively cheap because I would probably easily pay more given how much I love the game if they did charge more... Don't get any ideas Sakurai/Nintendo!
 

Khao

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
1,428
Location
Lying about my country.
#35
I'm not really saying they shouldn't charge, just comparing other games that add free content. But I dont see how your point number 1 doenst apply to Smash. Arent they releasing new characters to make people return to the game? Offline or Online, doesnt matter, new content makes the game feel alive and makes people return to the game for some time, charging for this content or not.
Well, yes. The difference is that Overwatch quite literally relies on returning players to work. if 99% of Overwatch players stopped playing Overwatch tomorrow, the game would be borderline unplayable for the remaining 1%. If 99% of Smash players stopped playing Smash tomorrow, the remaining 1% can still continue to have the full Smash experience excluding online play. Overwatch quite literally simply dies.

As for point 2, it's relevant because Overwatch's very design relies on all player having access to the same options, while Smash doesn't. You charge for an Overwatch character, and you're going to have unbalanced matches when one team has access to more characters than the other simply because they spent more money. If there's any percentage of the playerbase that has access to a character that the rest doesn't, the vast majority of matches are going to be unfair for one said.

Buuuuut you charge for a Smash character and it quite simply doesn't matter, you can keep playing the same game. I guess it could be argued that a DLC character could be the best character in the game, so in that sense people wouldn't be in the same playing field, but the difference is that when picking a character in Smash, you're picking your set of options and those are your options for the entire match. In Overwatch, your set of options is every individual character.

Also, I don't say that Overwatch has microtransactions to attack the game. I've been playing since the beta, and have also quite literally never spend any money on it after buying the base game. All I'm saying is that that's their monetization method, and even if the majority of players don't spend money, the fraction that does makes it worth it for the developers. The combination of that, plus the influx of new players, is enough to justify the creation of extra content for free. Without those microtransactions, free content likely wouldn't be possible.

But back to the original discussion, I thought the answer of #Khao just justifies why Overwatch works that way, but it hasn't convinced me that it couldnt work that way for Smash too. Anyway, I'm not bashing this decision, I would like to hear more opinions. Cause I had the feeling that Smash as a main online Nintendo game, it deserves a treatment more like Blizzard does with Overwatch, with dedicated servers, constantly receiving new heroes during it's life cicle, new stages.. for free or not, new modes, events, trying to do a better ranked system...
It's less that it wouldn't work (it would) and more that it's not what they need. If they don't need to do it, it's probably not convenient to them. If Blizzard could afford to sell Overwatch characters without compromising the quality of the game and therefore its playerbase, I'm 100% sure they would, but that's simply not how the game works. With Smash, Nintendo can in fact sell characters without compromising the quality of the game, so they have no reason not to do it. It's also why just about every fighting game operates on the same logic as Smash. Companies will choose the monetization method they deem most convenient to them and their game, and in Smash's case, it's more convenient to sell additional characters separately than turning the game into a live service.
 
Last edited:

BTHK_Nydus

Smash Rookie
Joined
Jan 11, 2019
Messages
17
#36
I think the cost is totally reasonable and, to be honest, we should be glad it isn't more. You know that if the fighter pass was $40 instead we would all still pay it. Smash players are married to the game and we don't get new Smash games often enough to pass on DLC; this game will be the Smash staple for the next couple of years and we're stuck with it. And while I don't know anyone on this forum personally, I feel confident saying "we" because anyone reading this is a member of "smashboards" haha
 

Lenidem

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
301
#37
I think the cost is totally reasonable and, to be honest, we should be glad it isn't more. You know that if the fighter pass was $40 instead we would all still pay it. Smash players are married to the game and we don't get new Smash games often enough to pass on DLC; this game will be the Smash staple for the next couple of years and we're stuck with it. And while I don't know anyone on this forum personally, I feel confident saying "we" because anyone reading this is a member of "smashboards" haha
I'm a Smash Bros fan, obviously, but I did not and will not buy the first pass, not because it's not a good deal (I think it is), but because only one character appeals to me (Banjo & Kazooie). And I think I'm not the only one.
 
Joined
Nov 3, 2018
Messages
18
Location
Bochum, Germany
#38
The cost is too low, if anything lol.

The Smash team offers additional content at a bargain price compared to other developers, especially considering the care that goes into making everything they add feel just right.

It makes me think that if they increased their budget by ramping up monetization a bit, we'd be able to get more extra content like more Bonus stages / modes for Classic, Boss Rush, etc.
 
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
1,141
Location
San Clemente, California
#39
It makes me think that if they increased their budget by ramping up monetization a bit, we'd be able to get more extra content like more Bonus stages / modes for Classic, Boss Rush, etc.
https://smashboards.com/threads/combined-classic-route-ideas.496756/
One mode for Classic I was thinking of (specifically two-player) was special routes for specific combinations of any two characters (the second character, I was thinking as well, could be controlled by the CPU if P1 didn’t have a buddy).
 
Top