Official Newcomer/DLC Speculation Discussion

[The_Naraotor]

Would Elma and Rex together would be possible a la Ice Climbers ?

I also hop to have Doomguy I would love to have him.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Would Elma and Rex together would be possible a la Ice Climbers ?

Elma and Rex?

Do you mean Rex and Pyra/Mythra?

 

[The_Naraotor]

Elma and Rex?

Do you mean Rex and Pyra/Mythra?

Huh yeah sorry my bad.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Huh yeah sorry my bad.

Ah well then, yes.

Rex needs Pyra/Mythra to even fight so they would be a team character of some sort.

 

[MisterMike]

Would Elma and Rex together would be possible a la Ice Climbers?

I think it's possible, though unlike Nana she wouldn't physically attack anyone and would instead work towards buffing Rex himself. Haven't played much of XC2 so I'm not sure if that's the case in game, though.

 

[EricTheGamerman]

What a lot of people need to understand is that there isn't a right or wrong answer to this. No matter how much effort we put in our responses, no matter how strongly we feel toward our stances, all this really boils down to is personal opinions and different perspectives. One side of the argument might be more popular than the other, but it's opinions are truthfully no more valid than the other side's.

I've heard the counterarguements, and I'm aware of how most of the users in this thread feel. I made my decision, and I'm standing by it regardless of whether or not the majority agrees. I want Smash to keep its focus on first-parties because that's truly how I think it should be handled. There aren't as many people who agree with me as there were in previous entries, but I still see quite a few who understand where I'm coming from. That reassures me that I'm not alone on this.

We'll probably never agree on this, and that's fine. However, I do wish more people would be respectful of different opinions. For every person who feels like they're being attacked for wanting more third-parties, there's someone who's feeling attacked for wanting more first-parties. It also doesn't do any good when people decide, "I prefer first-parties over third-parties and would like the latter to he spaced out more," is the equivalent of saying, "I hate all third-parties because they're stealing the spots for my precious Nintendo characters." It's a ridiculous assumption, and it's absolutely wrong if it's being directed at me. While not as abundant as first-parties, I've voiced my support for a few select third-parties, and I'd be absolutely ecstatic if we got a second Sonic character.

I'm not trying to beat you over the head in submission of third parties, I'm just saying I don't really think "I grew up with Nintendo consoles only" is as meaningful explanation of your biases as you seem to think it is. That's what I tried to illustrate with my own history with Nintendo as sort of counter example that growing up with JUST Nintendo doesn't actually limit your pallet that much unless you genuinely only ever had a Wii U (that's the only console that genuinely suffered from a lack of titles TBH). And like being entrenched with Nintendo culture as a kid was never just truly Nintendo culture, but the history of gaming as a whole too because it was one and the same for a while.

And I also wanted to point out that the more deeply you go into Nintendo characters, the less you appeal to the audience of nearly 20 million and the less room you create for expansion. Our personal preferences for Smash may be subjective, but to Nintendo, those who vote with their wallets on their preferences is objective data for them. So, while a minority opinion may be valid in a subjective analysis, the far too often unfortunate reality of capitalism for a big corporation dictates a slightly different reality. I can't say your opinion of Smash is wrong, but Nintendo will judge upon character inclusions for how additions benefit them and their goals first and foremost, and that's how you end up with Smash focusing more on third parties and more on specifically characters above all else (modes and other content that requires increasing amounts of effort is sidelined in favor of characters). Now, Nintendo isn't completely heartless and they recognize the value of appealing to fans and different demographics from time to time, but they're still a business first and foremost. Your subjective opinion of Smash is fine, but it leans towards being bad for business given where Smash is currently in regards to the first party content they've already thrown every which way. That's how this whole situation becomes more complicated than just subjective opinions of the content on display, we're actually discussing the continued development of an ongoing title being sold to customers by a multinational company. Sales data and media coverage become objective measurements of subjective opinions because of the way our real world systems function. Like I said, it's just more complicated than our singular disagreement on the vision for Smash.

I don't think you hate all third parties and I never said that for reference, nor do I think I'm being attacked for advocating for new franchises and third parties either for the record. Nor do I exclusively support third parties myself, but I do overwhelmingly support new franchises due to what they bring to the game and how I think expanding the crossover stands to benefit tons of fans and overall actually be the most inclusive route for Smash as it brings in new fandoms and new series for people to recognize (which is something I've frequently seen people who are first party focused highlight as a positive of Smash too, so I don't my goals differ THAT much from those). I recognize not everyone will share that opinion, nor do I expect them to. But I also will admit to just not understanding what makes people look at third parties so differently. Maybe I'm too entrenched in gaming as a whole at this point, but I just clearly do not share the same worldview on them and don't see the same party lines other see TBH.

Which are the 4 that you think don't?

I kind of had to stretch for the 4, but they would be Joker (Persona only has 2 spinoff games on Nintendo consoles), Terry (He's appeared a lot on Nintendo, but since he's the face of a company that once competed with Nintendo, I decided to count him just barely), Snake (A very bad NES version of the original MSX Metal Gear, The Twin Snakes remake of MGS1, and Snake Eater 3D is really all he has), and then on the most technical of technicalities Richter (Since Simon is already there, Richter himself doesn't really hold up ALL of Castlevania and is primarily known the for Turbographx 16 Rondo of Blood and PS1's Symphony of the Night). I didn't include Cloud because he specifically brings Final Fantasy with him and that's been a massive brand for Nintendo before and after the infamous Square split.

 

[Guynamednelson]

and the less room you create for expansion.

Expansion that is diminishing returns when SSBU has already achieved the record for the best-selling fighting game.

 

[True Blue Warrior]

If people want to hope for more first-party characters as DLC, they should hope that there is enough overwhelming fan demand for several of them that catches Nintendo’s attention. That is how they can still be attractive from a business perspective as DLC.

 

[Scoliosis Jones]

I have to wonder when Nintendo will drop the ARMS news if they aren’t doing a “traditional” E3 type of Direct.

If it doesn’t have to be around the normal E3 week, we could actually get a stream at any time.

 

[EricTheGamerman]

Expansion that is diminishing returns when SSBU has already achieved the record for the best-selling fighting game.

How exactly are we seeing diminishing returns? The game sold over a million units in the last quarter alone and the first Fighter's Pass was considered a huge success for Nintendo's Digital Sales. Now if you're just saying "you can't beat the best selling fighting game in the world," sure, expanding that record in of itself is technically a diminishing return comparatively, but a game that continues to pull in sales and be in the news cycle is still actually kicking returns to Nintendo in the first place in a consistent and important way. Frankly, we have no idea what the ceiling for Ultimate is, and it's not really showing many signs of showing down.

Even beyond that though, my point was based in the fact the more you contract to focus more specifically and the more you inherently limit your potential audiences by choosing for the first time ever to actively limit the crossover and decrease the focus, the fewer people you appeal to. Now, that does not mean an unprofitable number of people or an undesirable number, just that it goes against the instinct in capitalistic societies to pursue unrelenting and unending continued growth. Nintendo has always been good about recognizing this with Smash, and how it provides them with the opportunity to pursue growth in their franchises in addition to growth with Smash itself.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I have to wonder when Nintendo will drop the ARMS news if they aren’t doing a “traditional” E3 type of Direct.

If it doesn’t have to be around the normal E3 week, we could actually get a stream at any time.

Other than being in June, so we got about a week and a half.

I'm thinking maybe around the middle of the month. The release of the character could just be on the anniversary date(which kind of works out for them, cause I wouldn't be surprised if the work was delayed a bit as is from the original plan. Not cause of COVID19, but it sounded like ARMS was harder to get done as fast as originally planned). So, why not just release it then? It works out~

 

[Icedragonadam]

I have to wonder when Nintendo will drop the ARMS news if they aren’t doing a “traditional” E3 type of Direct.

If it doesn’t have to be around the normal E3 week, we could actually get a stream at any time.

I just want to see the chaos if there's an ARMS sequel and a trailer for it gets shadowdropped days before FP6's reveal.

 

[SnowClaws]

I have to wonder when Nintendo will drop the ARMS news if they aren’t doing a “traditional” E3 type of Direct.

If it doesn’t have to be around the normal E3 week, we could actually get a stream at any time.

Fighter Pass 1 broadcast:

1.) Joker (Apr 16, 2019 Tues)
2.) Hero (Jul 30, 2019 Tues)
3.) Banjo & Kazooie (Sep 4, 2019 Wed)
4.) Terry (Nov 6, 2019 Wed)
5.) Byleth (Jan 16, 2020 Thurs)

Looking at this pattern, the broadcast could air somewhere on Thursday if it follows directly after Byleth. If not, there are repeated numbers, so on June of the 4 is Thurs, 16 is Tues and 30 is Tues. The June of 6 is San, and it doesn't fit this pattern, but it could happen.

 

[MisterMike]

I have to wonder when Nintendo will drop the ARMS news if they aren’t doing a “traditional” E3 type of Direct.

If it doesn’t have to be around the normal E3 week, we could actually get a stream at any time.

I've heard it suggested that they could be revealed and/or released on the 16th, the game's third year anniversary. Would be very appropriate.

 

[Among Waddle Dees]

How exactly are we seeing diminishing returns? The game sold over a million units in the last quarter alone and the first Fighter's Pass was considered a huge success for Nintendo's Digital Sales. Now if you're just saying "you can't beat the best selling fighting game in the world," sure, expanding that record in of itself is technically a diminishing return comparatively, but a game that continues to pull in sales and be in the news cycle is still actually kicking returns to Nintendo in the first place in a consistent and important way. Frankly, we have no idea what the ceiling for Ultimate is, and it's not really showing many signs of showing down.

Even beyond that though, my point was based in the fact the more you contract to focus more specifically and the more you inherently limit your potential audiences by choosing for the first time ever to actively limit the crossover and decrease the focus, the fewer people you appeal to. Now, that does not mean an unprofitable number of people or an undesirable number, just that it goes against the instinct in capitalistic societies to pursue unrelenting and unending continued growth. Nintendo has always been good about recognizing this with Smash, and how it provides them with the opportunity to pursue growth in their franchises in addition to growth with Smash itself.

I don't mean to interrupt, but I wish to weigh in about this.

I hear a lot of positive talk about broadening Smash's appeal, but not much about what negative impacts that could do to Smash. With so much emphasis on new franchises, there's unavoidably going to be some fanbases that get left out of the spotlight. But this doesn't just apply to the wide ocean of games the industry has created, but in-game franchises already used within Smash. As more and more franchises get in, these smaller inclusions get less and less attention. This will inevitably cause them to get ignored in favor of bigger ones. I fear this may have been causing scenarios where everything has to be a super unexpected choice, and will cause certain enthusiasts to rage at the thought of any smaller but potentially sensible inclusion getting added. We've seen this happen with Byleth and the plant, which is understandable in their contexts, but there's a possibility this will also occur to characters from franchises like Zelda or Kirby, who have not received newcomers in a while and could still use more.

And before a point is made about consumer growth factoring into DLC sales, I want to mention that not everyone who pays attention to this speculation will buy the DLC. I, for example, admittedly may not feel like my money is worth spending on DLC characters if I find them unappealing. Others will not think that way, but those people may have bought the DLC for the opposite reason. Some people may not even have the game and are just here for the ride. There's a lot of context in making people's dreams get in. So why focus just on new franchises when that might not be what's right for Smash as a whole? I'm certain Nintendo's already raking it in with the pre-purchase sales.

 

[ZephyrZ]

I'm not trying to beat you over the head in submission of third parties, I'm just saying I don't really think "I grew up with Nintendo consoles only" is as meaningful explanation of your biases as you seem to think it is. That's what I tried to illustrate with my own history with Nintendo as sort of counter example that growing up with JUST Nintendo doesn't actually limit your pallet that much unless you genuinely only ever had a Wii U (that's the only console that genuinely suffered from a lack of titles TBH). And like being entrenched with Nintendo culture as a kid was never just truly Nintendo culture, but the history of gaming as a whole too because it was one and the same for a while.

Well, its different for everyone. If I'm to share my own anecdotal experience, when I was a kid my parents didn't like to spend too much money on video games. I usually only got one to two new games a year as Christmas gifts, and I didn't have friends to introduce me to other games I mostly just asked for pokemon titles. It wasn't until around middle school that I started taking interest in Zelda and Mario, and it wasn't until high school that I was really able to expend my horizons beyond that.

I'm personally totally 100% cool with third parties (probably because my exposure was so poor I don't even have nostalgia for most 1st party picks either), but just because someone had a console doesn't mean they were able to experience all said console had to offer, especially if they had no allowance or nearby game rental store nearby like me.

 

[Deleted member]

I suppose the Arms fighter reveal will get a Joker-style shadowdrop/format considering the possibility of Sakurai not being able to record himself for a while.

 

[ZelDan]

The optimistic (or it'd probably be more accurate to say hungry for Smash news) side of me could see the ARMs character reveal or the Smash presentation with it happening the first week of June.

I could just as easily see it happening the following week though.

 

[Zinith]

And like being entrenched with Nintendo culture as a kid was never just truly Nintendo culture, but the history of gaming as a whole too because it was one and the same for a while.

Fun fact, the Sega Master System outsold the NES in Europe

 

[Deleted member]

Fun fact, the Sega Master System outsold the NES in Europe

Yup.

I've met a lot of people in Spain who back then were more of SEGA fans rather than Nintendo ones.

Quite interesting, and maybe It could explain why I tend to have a bias for SEGA IPs.

 

[pupNapoleon]

I'm not trying to beat you over the head in submission of third parties, I'm just saying I don't really think "I grew up with Nintendo consoles only" is as meaningful explanation of your biases as you seem to think it is. That's what I tried to illustrate with my own history with Nintendo as sort of counter example that growing up with JUST Nintendo doesn't actually limit your pallet that much unless you genuinely only ever had a Wii U (that's the only console that genuinely suffered from a lack of titles TBH). And like being entrenched with Nintendo culture as a kid was never just truly Nintendo culture, but the history of gaming as a whole too because it was one and the same for a while.

And I also wanted to point out that the more deeply you go into Nintendo characters, the less you appeal to the audience of nearly 20 million and the less room you create for expansion. Our personal preferences for Smash may be subjective, but to Nintendo, those who vote with their wallets on their preferences is objective data for them. So, while a minority opinion may be valid in a subjective analysis, the far too often unfortunate reality of capitalism for a big corporation dictates a slightly different reality. I can't say your opinion of Smash is wrong, but Nintendo will judge upon character inclusions for how additions benefit them and their goals first and foremost, and that's how you end up with Smash focusing more on third parties and more on specifically characters above all else (modes and other content that requires increasing amounts of effort is sidelined in favor of characters). Now, Nintendo isn't completely heartless and they recognize the value of appealing to fans and different demographics from time to time, but they're still a business first and foremost. Your subjective opinion of Smash is fine, but it leans towards being bad for business given where Smash is currently in regards to the first party content they've already thrown every which way. That's how this whole situation becomes more complicated than just subjective opinions of the content on display, we're actually discussing the continued development of an ongoing title being sold to customers by a multinational company. Sales data and media coverage become objective measurements of subjective opinions because of the way our real world systems function. Like I said, it's just more complicated than our singular disagreement on the vision for Smash.

I don't think you hate all third parties and I never said that for reference, nor do I think I'm being attacked for advocating for new franchises and third parties either for the record. Nor do I exclusively support third parties myself, but I do overwhelmingly support new franchises due to what they bring to the game and how I think expanding the crossover stands to benefit tons of fans and overall actually be the most inclusive route for Smash as it brings in new fandoms and new series for people to recognize (which is something I've frequently seen people who are first party focused highlight as a positive of Smash too, so I don't my goals differ THAT much from those). I recognize not everyone will share that opinion, nor do I expect them to. But I also will admit to just not understanding what makes people look at third parties so differently. Maybe I'm too entrenched in gaming as a whole at this point, but I just clearly do not share the same worldview on them and don't see the same party lines other see TBH.



I kind of had to stretch for the 4, but they would be Joker (Persona only has 2 spinoff games on Nintendo consoles), Terry (He's appeared a lot on Nintendo, but since he's the face of a company that once competed with Nintendo, I decided to count him just barely), Snake (A very bad NES version of the original MSX Metal Gear, The Twin Snakes remake of MGS1, and Snake Eater 3D is really all he has), and then on the most technical of technicalities Richter (Since Simon is already there, Richter himself doesn't really hold up ALL of Castlevania and is primarily known the for Turbographx 16 Rondo of Blood and PS1's Symphony of the Night). I didn't include Cloud because he specifically brings Final Fantasy with him and that's been a massive brand for Nintendo before and after the infamous Square split.

There are more points to consider when you think of the value that Nintendo can draw from Smash as an entity. Direct sales of the character, or if possible to conclude even the actual sale of the game and hardware itself that are due to a characters inclusion, are not the only value Nintendo finds in the addition of characters. Sure, adding third parties could strengthen the relationships and allow Nintendo leveraging room for other forms of their partnerships, that is one variant we cannot quite that well predict.

However, there are other benefits Nintendo would see that we would be hard pressed to fully predict as well. Take, for example, the Fire Emblem effect from Melee. By saving the series at that time with two characters to whom many grew attached, Nintendo played their hand in investing in their own IPs. We know Nintendo values their properties, given how much they control what other companies and even content creators can do without Nintendo's expressed permission. Yet, even more recently, Nintendo is investing more in properties, with movies and theme parks being made- solidifying them on a level of character strength IPs only matched by Disney. So, Nintendo could see investing in their own properties on various levels of necessary- from revitalizing an old series, to promoting a new game, who knows specifically.

Even within that argument, THAT is when you could bring in the principle of diminishing economic return- theorizing that at some point, continually adding characters from Fire Emblem would not be worth the development time of the people to whom they appeal. Or we could take it as a sign that this is not the most important priority for Nintendo.

There's just so much to consider- that it can be fun, but we just have far too little information about how Nintendo actually functions or makes decisions.

 

[SmashChu]

Sakurai himself said that Smash has become a celebration of gaming as a whole. The dude said that. The man himself. If that doesn’t tell us this is video game all stars I don’t know what ever will.

While normally the Director idea of the game defines it, Smash is kind of weird as a crossover. Sakurai can say it's a celebration of gaming but Nintendo is the one who controls the purse strings and, consequently, who gets in. Nintendo, with the main roster, was willing to let Sakurai have one guest character (Simon) where they clearly let him go crazier for the DLC. As Garteam noted, it could easily just be a marketing gimmick.

And that's why I brought up the question. If Smash doesn't fulfill this "Celebration of Gaming" that people expect, how will they react. A lot of it is really based on what Nintendo wants. Nintendo was clearly fine ending Vol 1 with Byleth and starting Vol 2 with ARMS. I don't beleive people thing of "ARMS" and "another FE character" when you say "Celebration of Gaming." If the next picks aren't hype and are more Nintendo characters, would people be upset by that?

Y’know completely unrelated to... whatever the hell is going on above but I think that there’s a solid possibility the character after ARMS will be a really big character. I’m talking like Master Chief or Lara Croft big because, this ARMS character is getting released when Fighter 7 SHOULD have been revealed, whether CO-Vid has effected it or not who knows, which means 7 and potentially 8 would’ve been the E3 Reveals.

With that in mind who do we think the character could be that would make the biggest splash? Someone like Geno for fan favoritism that has been at E3 with Ridley and Banjo? Or someone out of nowhere like Joker? Who are your guesses?

Since this is sort of related.....
One the question of the character after ARMS being a big character, the question would be why would they have not done that first? With Joker, they announced him 4 months before release, so it probably wasn't an issue starting with a big character even with delays. This is why I said in my post that there could be more Nintendo characters in Volume 2. It could even be the majority. It's more of a possibility than it was at the end of 2019. There is still hype characters they could add (namely Waluigi) but I don't think it would be Master Chief or Lara levels.

Regarding whether or not Ultimate is now a general video game crossover or if its still Nintendo, I've argued plenty of times that the Smash fanbase is still pretty divided on this issue and it doesn't look like there's a super clear answer. We've gotten guests at an increased rate in the previous few years, but Nintendo still makes up the vast majority of the game's content. Likewise, the third party choices we've gotten in recent years also reinforce a Nintendo theme, while detracting from a general crossover theme. Banjo and Kazooie probably wouldn't have beat a Resident Evil, Assassin's Creed, or Grand Theft Auto character if we were judging who would get into a general gaming crossover. Compound this with quotes of Smash being a general gaming crossover that come up more in marketing pitches than developer journals, it's tough to really put a strong finger on how things truly are viewed behind the scenes.

I think it's a fair point, My thought in writing the original post was more on what would people think rather than defining what Smash is. I say "Nintendo and Friends" because Nintendo isn't against adding other characters but there is a limit to what they'll allow. There was more Nintendo characters in Ultimate's base game than the DLC and the last two DLC characters are Nintendo so it may be the context of when they add these characters. My post was really focused on people's response. I don't think Max is alone in that people put Ultimate on this pedestal because it is Video Game All-Stars. If that doesn't happen in Vol 2 for whatever reason, what will these fans who have bought into this idea think.

I guess to expound of the last point: Nintendo fans can get invested in Smash because even with a lot of the guest characters, most of it is Nintendo. So if they add some doopy characters, it's not a big deal if they hit the highlights. But the group that see Smash as video game All-stars may not have the same relation with Nintendo and may have been brought into the fold with Nintendo adding more guest characters. With Smash Ultimate's DLC, it seemed like that was the case. But when the rug is pulled out, it's just a few guest characters and a bunch of Nintendo stuff. If you're not invested in the Nintendo stuff and they don't add the guest stuff you wanted, then where does that leave you?

 

[Cutie Gwen]

Given its brought up. I'd like to ask everyone? Who do you prefer more?

Elma or Rex?

Me, I prefer Elma.

Elma: 3 (Me, Rie and Non)
Rex: 0

So far Elma's in the lead. I'll tally it up once it runs its course of people quoting their opinion.

Given its brought up. I'd like to ask everyone? Who do you prefer more?

Elma or Rex?

Me, I prefer Elma.

Elma: 3 (Me, Rie and Non)
Rex: 0

So far Elma's in the lead. I'll tally it up once it runs its course of people quoting their opinion.

Elma, X kay have been disappointing, but at least my issues can be explained by experimentation when my issues with 2 include issues they refused to learn from with X. Seriously though why did they not only choose to have the same issue of explaining **** all gameplay wise but also LOCK THE ****ING STORY PROGRESS BEHIND RNG

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Sakurai cannot make statements about what the game's theme is without permission. He is speaking publicly and has to say stuff that is accurate.


That's just basic common sense. He isn't going to screw around with poor statements that don't match what his boss approves of. Everything he says absolutely reflects on Nintendo when it comes to statements about Smash itself. It's extremely important he is careful about his words.


If he's saying that's its theme, that means it's clearly what the theme is. No ifs, ands or buts. The only thing that could be wrong is the translation at best.


For a good example, take Geno. Sakurai said he wanted him since Brawl. "Things didn't work out" is the entire statement. He can't say much else. He can't specify stuff like "Square-Enix said no for this reason." when that could weaken the relationship between Nintendo and SE. His statements are extremely important.

 

[Shroob]

While normally the Director idea of the game defines it, Smash is kind of weird as a crossover. Sakurai can say it's a celebration of gaming but Nintendo is the one who controls the purse strings and, consequently, who gets in. Nintendo, with the main roster, was willing to let Sakurai have one guest character (Simon) where they clearly let him go crazier for the DLC. As Garteam noted, it could easily just be a marketing gimmick.

And that's why I brought up the question. If Smash doesn't fulfill this "Celebration of Gaming" that people expect, how will they react. A lot of it is really based on what Nintendo wants. Nintendo was clearly fine ending Vol 1 with Byleth and starting Vol 2 with ARMS. I don't beleive people thing of "ARMS" and "another FE character" when you say "Celebration of Gaming." If the next picks aren't hype and are more Nintendo characters, would people be upset by that?


Since this is sort of related.....
One the question of the character after ARMS being a big character, the question would be why would they have not done that first? With Joker, they announced him 4 months before release, so it probably wasn't an issue starting with a big character even with delays. This is why I said in my post that there could be more Nintendo characters in Volume 2. It could even be the majority. It's more of a possibility than it was at the end of 2019. There is still hype characters they could add (namely Waluigi) but I don't think it would be Master Chief or Lara levels.


I think it's a fair point, My thought in writing the original post was more on what would people think rather than defining what Smash is. I say "Nintendo and Friends" because Nintendo isn't against adding other characters but there is a limit to what they'll allow. There was more Nintendo characters in Ultimate's base game than the DLC and the last two DLC characters are Nintendo so it may be the context of when they add these characters. My post was really focused on people's response. I don't think Max is alone in that people put Ultimate on this pedestal because it is Video Game All-Stars. If that doesn't happen in Vol 2 for whatever reason, what will these fans who have bought into this idea think.

I guess to expound of the last point: Nintendo fans can get invested in Smash because even with a lot of the guest characters, most of it is Nintendo. So if they add some doopy characters, it's not a big deal if they hit the highlights. But the group that see Smash as video game All-stars may not have the same relation with Nintendo and may have been brought into the fold with Nintendo adding more guest characters. With Smash Ultimate's DLC, it seemed like that was the case. But when the rug is pulled out, it's just a few guest characters and a bunch of Nintendo stuff. If you're not invested in the Nintendo stuff and they don't add the guest stuff you wanted, then where does that leave you?

Again, I don't think the 2nd Pass being primarily 1st parties would do much of anything.


If people are already calling Smash a "Celebration of gaming" in its current iteration, I don't see that changing with an addition 6(*) characters, be them Nintendo 1st parties or not.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

Sakurai in 2015: "Console wars are ****ing dumb let's all just enjoy video games"
Sakurai in 2019: "Console wars are ****ing dumb let's all just enjoy video games"
"I dunno guys, what if Smash celebrating gaming is just a marketing gimmick and doesn't actually reflect what Sakurai thinks of Smash?"

 

[Shroob]

It feels like people are putting this massive.... weight... upon these 6(*) characters for some reason, when at the end of the day, they're a bonus on top of an already complete package.


People were already calling Ultimate a "Celebration of gaming" long before the 1st fighter's pass was a thing, this line of thought didn't pop up due to the Fighter's Pass, it existed long before that, the DLC has always been icing on top of an already good cake.



If I have an Ice Cream cone, and then smash whipped cream and hot fudge on it, it's still an ice cream cone, just better.

 

[Will]

It feels like people are putting this massive.... weight... upon these 6(*) characters for some reason, when at the end of the day, they're a bonus on top of an already complete package.


People were already calling Ultimate a "Celebration of gaming" long before the 1st fighter's pass was a thing, this line of thought didn't pop up due to the Fighter's Pass, it existed long before that, the DLC has always been icing on top of an already good cake.



If I have an Ice Cream cone, and then smash whipped cream and hot fudge on it, it's still an ice cream cone, just better.

Yeah but some people won't like it until it's Goku flavored. And that's good enough to say in two threads.

 

[Shroob]

Yeah but some people won't like it until it's Goku flavored. And that's good enough to say in two threads.

Will plz

WILL PLZ

 

[Aurane]

Man, I love me some Goku flavored ice cream.

 

[TheCJBrine]

A Nintendo dude did say they wanted to appeal to more audiences with Pass 1...

 

[DarthEnderX]

I kind of had to stretch for the 4, but they would be Joker (Persona only has 2 spinoff games on Nintendo consoles), Terry (He's appeared a lot on Nintendo, but since he's the face of a company that once competed with Nintendo, I decided to count him just barely), Snake (A very bad NES version of the original MSX Metal Gear, The Twin Snakes remake of MGS1, and Snake Eater 3D is really all he has), and then on the most technical of technicalities Richter (Since Simon is already there, Richter himself doesn't really hold up ALL of Castlevania and is primarily known the for Turbographx 16 Rondo of Blood and PS1's Symphony of the Night). I didn't include Cloud because he specifically brings Final Fantasy with him and that's been a massive brand for Nintendo before and after the infamous Square split.

Joker's situation is technically the same as Clouds. Persona 5 is still technically part of the Megami Tensei franchise, and the first, like, 5 games in that series were on NES/SNES.

Terry, obviously, face of a competing console for a long time. I'll give you that one, even though it's obviously not the case in recent years.

For Snake, yes, the NES version is inferior to the MSX version, but without it, there would never have BEEN a Metal Gear franchise, as Snake's Revenge is the thing that inspired Kojima to make his own sequels to the original.

Richter, yeah, obviously less Nintendo than Simon, but Rondo DID have an SNES port(Dracula X).

 

[Will]

A Nintendo dude did say they wanted to appeal to more audiences with Pass 1...

I wonder who the ARMS character is supposed to appeal to.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

Joker's situation is technically the same as Clouds. Persona 5 is still technically part of the Megami Tensei franchise, and the first, like, 5 games in that series were on NES/SNES.

Terry, obviously, face of a competing console for a long time. I'll give you that one, even though it's obviously not the case in recent years.

For Snake, yes, the NES version is inferior to the MSX version, but without it, there would never have BEEN a Metal Gear franchise, as Snake's Revenge is the thing that inspired Kojima to make his own sequels to the original.

Richter, yeah, obviously less Nintendo than Simon, but Rondo DID have an SNES port(Dracula X).

I dunno if it's accurate to call the Neo Geo a competing console as SNK still ported their ganes to other systems, the Neogeo was more of a luxury item for perfect arcade ports

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I wonder who the ARMS character is supposed to appeal to.

One Piece fans.

 

[Aurane]

I'll only care if it's Helix. Everyone else is a waste of a character slot.

I don't even play Smash anymore but even I recognize the sheer requirement of Helix.

Hell, I never even played ARMS, wtf am I even doing here? Have a good night.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

Elma, X kay have been disappointing, but at least my issues can be explained by experimentation when my issues with 2 include issues they refused to learn from with X. Seriously though why did they not only choose to have the same issue of explaining **** all gameplay wise but also LOCK THE ****ING STORY PROGRESS BEHIND RNG

Actually, Xenoblade Chronicles X did explain its mechanics.

Problem: It was done by a random NPC who word barfs it at you and eventually says something else, which means you won't get the point of Overdrive and won't be able to go back and learn once you actually start to need it assuming you even know who tells you how it works.

It's been a while since I've played, but knowing how they handled Overdrive, they probably word-vomited what the stats did as well instead of adding tool tips like...well really all RPGs should do this since it's a very non-intrusive way of conveying info about something so important. Why is Fire Emblem: Three Houses the only one in recent memory that actually does this?

EDIT: What I mean to say is, the game explains things, just really poorly. I'd say Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is a little better in that regard (unless Blade summoning isn't actually supposed to be random. Then they screwed up big time.), but even then they had an entire fight to explain [SPOILER MECHANIC] and I still didn't get it.

Spoiler: Xenoblade Chronicles 2 spoilers

Also I just realized that awakening Rare Blades with Rex is a bad thing since he can use them anyway; It just stops other characters from using them.

 

[EricTheGamerman]

I don't mean to interrupt, but I wish to weigh in about this.

I hear a lot of positive talk about broadening Smash's appeal, but not much about what negative impacts that could do to Smash. With so much emphasis on new franchises, there's unavoidably going to be some fanbases that get left out of the spotlight. But this doesn't just apply to the wide ocean of games the industry has created, but in-game franchises already used within Smash. As more and more franchises get in, these smaller inclusions get less and less attention. This will inevitably cause them to get ignored in favor of bigger ones. I fear this may have been causing scenarios where everything has to be a super unexpected choice, and will cause certain enthusiasts to rage at the thought of any smaller but potentially sensible inclusion getting added. We've seen this happen with Byleth and the plant, which is understandable in their contexts, but there's a possibility this will also occur to characters from franchises like Zelda or Kirby, who have not received newcomers in a while and could still use more.

And before a point is made about consumer growth factoring into DLC sales, I want to mention that not everyone who pays attention to this speculation will buy the DLC. I, for example, admittedly may not feel like my money is worth spending on DLC characters if I find them unappealing. Others will not think that way, but those people may have bought the DLC for the opposite reason. Some people may not even have the game and are just here for the ride. There's a lot of context in making people's dreams get in. So why focus just on new franchises when that might not be what's right for Smash as a whole? I'm certain Nintendo's already raking it in with the pre-purchase sales.

I mean what's the worst that happens if fairly well represented franchises don't get more content? Those franchises themselves will continue to be fine outside of Smash, and Zelda and Kirby genuinely have a ton of great stuff already in Smash. Like, "could use more" depends on how you're approaching it. A series not getting a new fighter since Brawl does not entitle it to a character really anymore than anything else either. I could argue Final Fantasy could use more content, but having Cloud in the first place is a huge deal. Sure, Fire Emblem Three Houses got in, but again, that doesn't entitle any other franchise to more content. I don't even really think people expect the super unexpected, I just think people want to get excited at new and creative additions that keep pushing Smash as a crossover. Most people aren't looking for the needle in the hay stack of additional options outside of entertaining the possibility of another blind spot. And as far as the negative on smaller stuff, most additions to Smash stand to gain from being included in the biggest crossover in gaming.

Not everybody buys everything, so that's the natural expectation for any product, but you're generally trying to cast a wide net to appeal to lots of different people as you develop content. New franchises seem to have consistently been a winning formula for Smash TBH, especially since we know both Smash 4's DLC and Fighter's Pass Volume 1 did incredibly well for Nintendo (and the pass was developed undoubtedly with the lessons learned from Smash 4 in mind).

There are more points to consider when you think of the value that Nintendo can draw from Smash as an entity. Direct sales of the character, or if possible to conclude even the actual sale of the game and hardware itself that are due to a characters inclusion, are not the only value Nintendo finds in the addition of characters. Sure, adding third parties could strengthen the relationships and allow Nintendo leveraging room for other forms of their partnerships, that is one variant we cannot quite that well predict.

However, there are other benefits Nintendo would see that we would be hard pressed to fully predict as well. Take, for example, the Fire Emblem effect from Melee. By saving the series at that time with two characters to whom many grew attached, Nintendo played their hand in investing in their own IPs. We know Nintendo values their properties, given how much they control what other companies and even content creators can do without Nintendo's expressed permission. Yet, even more recently, Nintendo is investing more in properties, with movies and theme parks being made- solidifying them on a level of character strength IPs only matched by Disney. So, Nintendo could see investing in their own properties on various levels of necessary- from revitalizing an old series, to promoting a new game, who knows specifically.

Even within that argument, THAT is when you could bring in the principle of diminishing economic return- theorizing that at some point, continually adding characters from Fire Emblem would not be worth the development time of the people to whom they appeal. Or we could take it as a sign that this is not the most important priority for Nintendo.

There's just so much to consider- that it can be fun, but we just have far too little information about how Nintendo actually functions or makes decisions.

As I said in my original posts, Nintendo is looking out for Nintendo's goals. Expanding a user base can be a goal or promoting a brand in the game for certain are goals Nintendo has shown to frequently return to. Though you make it sound like Nintendo actively slammed Marth and Roy into Melee when Sakurai still had most of the control of the franchise and like Marth and Roy weren't put in there inherently with the purpose of expanding Fire Emblem into the West as that was mostly a happy accident. Nintendo absolutely recognizes investing in their own IPs and I don't think I'm downplaying that, but I also think by virtue of just having the IP in Smash, they are already increasing their portfolio. Like Xenoblade Chronicles is already being promoted regardless of Rex not being a playable fighter because Shulk and a fair amount of XC content is in the game. That doesn't have to be the end of it of course, but it also can be if they don't feel like investing in making Rex playable. All of their largest IPs are pretty well represented in Smash already, so like it's inherently harder for them to keep investing as they run through the ranks. The comparison to Disney is a good one because at this stage it's like every major Mickey Mouse character, all the princesses, all the Pixar IPs, the Star Wars characters, and the Marvel characters are already in. They have this huge stable of IPs that they've specifically had 20 years to invest in and Sakurai has done a ton of legwork for them, especially since Smash 4 focused on just that with new Nintendo IPs dominating that title's inclusions.

Every character does exist to achieve some goal at Nintendo from the DLC though. Those goals can be radically different from one another of course, but they see value in those additions somewhere. Whether it's strengthening ties with a partner, expanding Smash's fan base and thus expanding their IPs (remember Smash has always been thought of as the entry level vehicle for many people into other Nintendo IPs by executives), building up Fire Emblem interest for Three Houses and Heroes because Heroes continues to be a massive success, or just giving the Smash fan base someone they want because it was possibly and easy to do and they recognize the value of making fans happy with certain choices. I'm not at all advocating for only big name third parties, but I am saying that Nintendo does tend to follow pretty understandable and even commonly recognizable logic in a lot of their Smash additions.

Joker's situation is technically the same as Clouds. Persona 5 is still technically part of the Megami Tensei franchise, and the first, like, 5 games in that series were on NES/SNES.

Terry, obviously, face of a competing console for a long time. I'll give you that one, even though it's obviously not the case in recent years.

For Snake, yes, the NES version is inferior to the MSX version, but without it, there would never have BEEN a Metal Gear franchise, as Snake's Revenge is the thing that inspired Kojima to make his own sequels to the original.

Richter, yeah, obviously less Nintendo than Simon, but Rondo DID have an SNES port(Dracula X).

I actually think every third party fits fine, I just picked the four that had the absolute most tenuous connection to Nintendo to highlight as really the only odd ones out when Sonic, Simon, Mega Man, Pac-Man, Ken and Ryu were all practical staples on Nintendo consoles when they got in, Banjo & Kazooie was literally a Nintendo character, Bayonetta is a Nintendo character in all but rights, etc. Though I will sill push back that SMT =/= Persona even if SMT did have a longer place on Nintendo consoles.

 

[SnowClaws]

Elma? Rex?

Spoiler

Now it's KOS-MOS Time!

Anyways if you guy dislike Rex, then what about the legendary hero of Torna Addam Origo. Don't forget him.

 

[Deleted member]

This Xenoblade talk makes me wish someone modded Smash Ultimate to replace the Xenoblade 2 Battle theme with this: