-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
My Smash Ultimate DLC Conspiracy Theory
- Thread starter gzmee
- Start date
XigmunGothar
Smash Cadet
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2018
- Messages
- 41
While I see your point, we must consider Sakurai's typically heavy involvement in character decisions. We are fairly confident he has spoken directly with third parties to get characters in the past. I think that if Nintendo was pitching all the potential DLC fighters to Sakurai, their aim is surely to boost the success of the Switch as opposed to 'creative interest.' Nintendo might think Geno is cool and has Nintendo history, but does he boost future game sales? (Spoiler: Probably not.) As you stated, Corrin was able to do that. Ryu, Cloud, and Bayonetta did as well with at least some of their games eventually coming on Switch.
I think it is very unlikely Nintendo will not boost their self-owned IPs at all. I think 1-3 (most likely 2) of the DLC Fighters will be from Nintendo properties. [Yes, maybe Bandana Dee.] Having said that, I agree the remainders will be third-parties -- but only viable ones.
For instance, despite popularity, Geno and Banjo & Kazooie (though I love them both, too) are unlikely. I don't see them making a comeback in any new games. Some might argue the potential of Classic N64 on Switch boosts Banjo-Kazooie, but I don't think it does by any significant margin among many other N64 games.
Rayman and Crash are on Switch ….. already. While they could make it in due to this, it is wiser from an economic perspective to use new and future Switch IPs. For instance, if Nintendo really had some interest in having Fallout Switch, though I don't see it as Nintendo's M-O, there might be an option there. I know there's been a whole waiting will-they-won't-they-when deal with Spyro, so maybe that. You get my point.
The other option is that the third-party reps and existing third-party Switch games that aren't selling as expected. I don't know the sales records, but you get the point here, too. It could be a Rayman or Crash motive if they aren't selling, though I doubt that they aren't.
I think it is very unlikely Nintendo will not boost their self-owned IPs at all. I think 1-3 (most likely 2) of the DLC Fighters will be from Nintendo properties. [Yes, maybe Bandana Dee.] Having said that, I agree the remainders will be third-parties -- but only viable ones.
For instance, despite popularity, Geno and Banjo & Kazooie (though I love them both, too) are unlikely. I don't see them making a comeback in any new games. Some might argue the potential of Classic N64 on Switch boosts Banjo-Kazooie, but I don't think it does by any significant margin among many other N64 games.
Rayman and Crash are on Switch ….. already. While they could make it in due to this, it is wiser from an economic perspective to use new and future Switch IPs. For instance, if Nintendo really had some interest in having Fallout Switch, though I don't see it as Nintendo's M-O, there might be an option there. I know there's been a whole waiting will-they-won't-they-when deal with Spyro, so maybe that. You get my point.
The other option is that the third-party reps and existing third-party Switch games that aren't selling as expected. I don't know the sales records, but you get the point here, too. It could be a Rayman or Crash motive if they aren't selling, though I doubt that they aren't.
SmashyNess
Smash Rookie
I really hope they're not all third party characters. I don't mind the occasional guest character, but we have enough of them already I think.
If one of the DLC turns out to be a third party character I would be fine with it. But 5? Oh, please no.
If one of the DLC turns out to be a third party character I would be fine with it. But 5? Oh, please no.