Smash 4 DLC Discussion (Free vs Paid/etc)

[Artorias]

There's still the posibility that the Wii U version will come with more characters, since it will be released later and it needs something to hype it. If thats the case, i think those characters should come as a free update to the 3ds version once the wii u version comes out, though i can see how they could try to profit from them

 

[Shin F.]

So... me, Saito and some others were talking about this in PMs as well, and I think I hit a really awesome idea. What if they give free character DLC as promotion for new games? Like, say Miyamoto's new IP comes out next year. Nintendo could release the main character of the game as DLC for Smash to promote it, or if they wanted to promote a Balloon Fight revival, they could add a Balloon Fighter free DLC to promote it. This is something I would be completely okay with. The fans get something awesome, and Nintendo still gets something of value from it.

Edit:

There's still the posibility that the Wii U version will come with more characters, since it will be released later and it needs something to hype it. If thats the case, i think those characters should come as a free update to the 3ds version once the wii u version comes out, though i can see how they could try to profit from them

Doubt it. Sakurai said they're having the same cast. Nintendo wouldn't say that and then require you to have internet to download the full 3DS cast.

 

[Joalro]

Personally, I think Nintendo will offer patches/updates/characters as free DLC. I think Nintendo, especially Sakurai, is strongly against the idea of one play having access to a character that another doesn't, especially with online play. This would mean you would fight a character you cannot play as. I don't see Nintendo doing this. This is double for stages, as it would split the online community up into "have these stages" or "does not have these stages".

What I do see as paid DLC would be new modes, similar to Smash Run. If they offered a brand new mode to play online, brand new way to play that was fun, I'd pay happily pay $5. Imagine four player co-op survival game, in Smash as DLC. Almost like playing Endless brawl, but with four players, stat upgrades as you take down enemies, waves, and group boss fights.

Or imagine if they added something like the subspace emissary, co op multiplayer. These are ideas i'd pay for.

 

[Saito]

Frankly it seems like you (among certain other people I've seen; this isn't me calling out anyone specific from this thread) are not even having an open mind about this. Seriously guys, what? What do you even fear about paid character DLC? Knowing Nintendo, it'd probably be in a pack some way (like expansion pack) is that suddenly a terrible idea? Here's your solution then: Don't buy it. Wait for it to go on sale. Write a letter about ways you think it can be changed in price. Anything more productive than "lol i'm going to question these choices" because frankly that just makes you sound entitled and privileged.

Because I don't feel that things that make up the core of smash brothers, or fighting games in general should not be offered as paid DLC, I seem to be entitled?

I have a problem with Character DLC. and the two other things I mentioned above.

If I had to pay an extra $10 dollars for smash brothers just to assure that there would not be any paid character DLC in the future, I would be absolutely fine with that. It doesn't matter if the characters would cost less.

If I had to pay $40 to guarantee that, I'd do it, but I question if everyone else would.

I'd rather have everyone able to enjoy every character without having to pay additional fees for them. Even if they are added after the fact.

So... me, Saito and some others were talking about this in PMs as well, and I think I hit a really awesome idea. What if they give free character DLC as promotion for new games? Like, say Miyamoto's new IP comes out next year. Nintendo could release the main character of the game as DLC for Smash to promote it, or if they wanted to promote a Balloon Fight revival, they could add a Balloon Fighter free DLC to promote it. This is something I would be completely okay with. The fans get something awesome, and Nintendo still gets something of value from it.

See THIS is something I can agree with.

 

[Morbi]

Because I don't feel that things that make up the core of smash brothers, or fighting games in general should not be offered as paid DLC, I seem to be entitled?

I have a problem with Character DLC. and the two other things I mentioned above.

If I had to pay an extra $10 dollars for smash brothers just to assure that there would not be any paid character DLC in the future, I would be absolutely fine with that. It doesn't matter if the characters would cost less.

If I had to pay $40 to guarantee that, I'd do it, but I question if everyone else would.

I'd rather have everyone able to enjoy every character without having to pay additional fees for them. Even if they are added after the fact.


See THIS is something I can agree with.

So essentially; the cost is irrelevant, you just want everyone to be able to enjoy every character? How very altruistic of you! I suppose it would not be so bad if they released paid character DLC; however, it is available to everyone for free at a later date (4-6 months later).

 

[Thirdkoopa]

Because I don't feel that things that make up the core of smash brothers, or fighting games in general should not be offered as paid DLC, I seem to be entitled?

Completely. Especially after the whole you know "Characters cost money to make" thing. Saying "Oh, but I don't want extra content if I have to pay for it!" is completely self-centered, especially when you're shooting it down without giving it a chance at being done properly.

Granted, I agree on your general stance of DLC, but I don't think a sole character can fall under that, especially if that sole character is accessible through multiple things. I mean, if it's done well, nobody really gets a free pass to complain about it. It's all about execution

On the opposing hand, if we see something like "15 DOLLARS FOR ONE CHARACTER GUYS@@@@" I'll be right there with you and any others critiquing it. Critiquing the concept is useless but critiquing the execution is totally valid.

I have a problem with Character DLC. and the two other things I mentioned above.

Character DLC isn't in the same field unless if it's not done right, and once again, that's one situation (There's the argument of UMvC3 being released early)

If I had to pay an extra $10 dollars for smash brothers just to assure that there would not be any paid character DLC in the future, I would be absolutely fine with that. It doesn't matter if the characters would cost less.

...Why does this matter so much then?

If I had to pay $40 to guarantee that, I'd do it, but I question if everyone else would.

Hey guess what, that's exactly what packs (With balance patches and whatnot) and other stuff ensures.

I'd rather have everyone able to enjoy every character without having to pay additional fees for them. Even if they are added after the fact.

That can exist too in an expansion pack of sorts or something along the lines of that. They wouldn't *have* to buy the original game; just the expansion.

Shin F's idea

characters cost money to make too. Not that I doubt it'd pay itself; it's a better form of advertising. I just am not sure if it's the only way that should be done.

 

[Joalro]

If I had to pay an extra $10 dollars for smash brothers just to assure that there would not be any paid character DLC in the future, I would be absolutely fine with that. It doesn't matter if the characters would cost less.

If I had to pay $40 to guarantee that, I'd do it, but I question if everyone else would.

I'd rather have everyone able to enjoy every character without having to pay additional fees for them. Even if they are added after the fact.

See, here's part of a problem though. I know many people WOULDN'T pay an extra $10. Nintendo games are pretty pricey already as it is. $75 for a game is pretty steep.

Let's say Nintendo makes a completely filled game, up to the brim. Let's say, content wise, we are looking at 2x Brawl. That's a complete game.

Now, in order to properly pay their employees they can either charge $80 for the game, and have people simply not buy it, or charge $60 and add in $20 worth of content in additional gameplay modes (see my earlier post) that not everyone will actually care about. Let's say you won't play smash run at all, but they are still forced to pay for it in situation one. In situation two, they only use the content they want.

As I said in my previous post, I'd be against new characters/stages, as it would affect online battles. But extra modes, which are separate from current modes? I think it would be fantastic to pick and choose which one's I'm going to bother spending money on.

 

[Thirdkoopa]

As I said in my previous post, I'd be against new characters/stages, as it would affect online battles. But extra modes, which are separate from current modes? I think it would be fantastic to pick and choose which one's I'm going to bother spending money on.

other fighting games have already handled this well + expansion. also there's a possibility at just letting everyone play anything online, which I'm not sure if it's been done before, but that could be a way to get people to buy stuff.

/snooze

 

[QuickRat]

So... me, Saito and some others were talking about this in PMs as well, and I think I hit a really awesome idea. What if they give free character DLC as promotion for new games? Like, say Miyamoto's new IP comes out next year. Nintendo could release the main character of the game as DLC for Smash to promote it, or if they wanted to promote a Balloon Fight revival, they could add a Balloon Fighter free DLC to promote it. This is something I would be completely okay with. The fans get something awesome, and Nintendo still gets something of value from it.

I'll put a poster of your sexy body if this come true.

 

[Shin F.]

characters cost money to make too. Not that I doubt it'd pay itself; it's a better form of advertising. I just am not sure if it's the only way that should be done.

It would definitely pay for itself. In fact, giving the characters away to promote new games would earn Nintendo even more profits in the long run than selling them. Do you have any idea what including a character in Smash does for their series? Earthbound was basically nothing in the west until Ness got included in Smash. Now it's a cult classic. Kid Icarus was dead for 20 years and got revived from being in Brawl - to rousing success.

Now, if Nintendo was just releasing a character that didn't promote something else they were doing, then it makes sense to charge for them. But if they can turn that character into an advertisement, they'll get much more out of it. It's much more to their benefit to give away a new character and, in turn, sell a $60 game than it would be to sell the character for $5. Granted, even selling the character would get the people who bought him to get that game, but a lot more people who would normally not buy DLC will have access to the character if they're free, and that in turn could sell more games.

I still don't believe Nintendo should release free DLC. They should absolutely not do that. But if the character is a walking, talking advertisement, then Nintendo's still getting value out of it even if it's not direct monetary value. It's just like how websites show ads to keep themselves free of charge. You're not getting the item for free, you're just paying for it in a different way. In this case, likely through the purchase of whatever game is being advertised. I mean, sure, you get people who use Ad Block (people who aren't going to buy whatever game the character is from), but there's going to be more than enough others who don't (or who will buy the new games) to make up for that.

I'll put a poster of your sexy body if this come true.

Draw me like one of your french japanese girls.

Spoiler

 

[Thirdkoopa]

It would definitely pay for itself. In fact, giving the characters away to promote new games would earn Nintendo even more profits in the long run than selling them. Do you have any idea what including a character in Smash does for their series? Earthbound was basically nothing in the west until Ness got included in Smash. Now it's a cult classic. Kid Icarus was dead for 20 years and got revived from being in Brawl - to rousing success.

I'm well aware - It'd go into the marketing budget, it really depends on how it's handled for the group working on it to get money.

Another possible idea is having the DLC be dirt cheap but if you get the game, it's free. I'm not necessarily saying a code or anything - just trying it out for a while.

It's still a feasible idea and a way to help the game during it's first half of it's life cycle so kudos to you. I'd love to hear more of your DLC ideas. Maybe we can open a PM just talking about these.

 

[Saito]

...Why does this matter so much then?

Anyone who chooses not to purchase said content does not have access to what I consider one of the most important parts of the game.

I don't like the idea of that at all.

If people want to customize their experience for a price, I do believe that's fine. Music, Costumes, extra challenges, and what not. That's all fine and dandy.

I don't consider a character as something that customizes the experience, but as something that is apart of the experience once it exists. I'd rather have everyone have the choice to play whatever character is in, regardless of if they payed for it or not.

I never actually was able to word it out properly about why it made me mad till now either.

I mean, sure, you get people who use Ad Block (people who aren't going to buy whatever game the character is from), but there's going to be more than enough others who don't (or who will buy the new games) to make up for that.

No adblocker representative reporting in.

See, here's part of a problem though. I know many people WOULDN'T pay an extra $10. Nintendo games are pretty pricey already as it is. $75 for a game is pretty steep.

Yet these people would pay the same prices to have exclusive rights to content that non paying players don't have access to?

 

[Shin F.]

I'm well aware - It'd go into the marketing budget, it really depends on how it's handled for the group working on it to get money.

Agreed. Of course, this statement well applies to any aspect of marketing.

Another possible idea is having the DLC be dirt cheap but if you get the game, it's free. I'm not necessarily saying a code or anything - just trying it out for a while.

Hmmm, I dunno. Then you'd get people who buy the DLC and then get the game later on. It's a good idea, but it would have to be implemented properly. Perhaps a way to give alternative DLC to the people who already have the DLC that the game is giving away. I remember when Nintendo stopped charging for the Internet Channel on the Wii. They gave everyone who bought it a free game of 500 points or less. Implementing something like this would work. Like, say someone buys Balloon Fighter DLC, then buys a new Balloon Fight game that would have given it to them for free. Instead of getting Balloon Fighter, they would get a different character or DLC of equal value for free.

It's still a feasible idea and a way to help the game during it's first half of it's life cycle so kudos to you. I'd love to hear more of your DLC ideas. Maybe we can open a PM just talking about these.

Well, I'm sure I've already said everything I have to say so far. In any case, having the discussion in an open place like this thread can help since it allows others to point out flaws or put in their own two cents.

No adblocker representative reporting in.

I use it, but only a little. Mostly, I just don't like pop-up or pop-under ads. I don't have a problem with in-page or in-video ads. I disable it entirely on websites I that I frequent and really want to support, though. (Like Smashboards, YouTube, FFN etc.)

 

[Takehiko]

One of the biggest problems that I have with DLC is that if it includes characters then you run into the problem of characters not being allowed in tourney's because them not being accessible to everyone.

 

[Thirdkoopa]

I don't like the idea of that at all.

Business sucks because there's always a conflict between morals and money. Morals are fantastic as it keeps people around but money is good to because it keeps you alive. Doesn't reality just suck sometimes? It's a truth,and it's a truth you'll just have to face in the industry. I hate it too but frankly I've been detesting how Triple A works for a long time after the amount of studios that crashed and burned in the 6th gen. You're not attacking the right thing.

What I think you're more against is execution than anything else.

Let me ask you this: What's your opinion on expansion packs then, such as NSLU or the Street Fighter expansions? Something akin to that (Like the KI expansion packs) are what people have said is a better solution - It definitely makes it's money back and nobody gets ripped off. Eventually, it replaces the vanilla version.

One of the biggest problems that I have with DLC is that if it includes characters then you run into the problem of characters not being allowed in tourney's because them not being accessible to everyone.

everyone at tourney's buys them, other fighting game tourney's have solved this

this is invalid

(also anyone going to tourney's anyways would probably have them or get them at some point)

 

[Saito]

Let me ask you this: What's your opinion on expansion packs then, such as NSLU or the Street Fighter expansions? Something akin to that (Like the KI expansion packs) are what people have said is a better solution - It definitely makes it's money back and nobody gets ripped off. Eventually, it replaces the vanilla version.

I'm iffy about it. If it has a good deal of content I'd say it's fine, but characters coming with it kind of throws me off unless it can't connect with it's previous version.

Personally, I think Nintendo will offer patches/updates/characters as free DLC. I think Nintendo, especially Sakurai, is strongly against the idea of one play having access to a character that another doesn't, especially with online play. This would mean you would fight a character you cannot play as. I don't see Nintendo doing this. This is double for stages, as it would split the online community up into "have these stages" or "does not have these stages".

What I do see as paid DLC would be new modes, similar to Smash Run. If they offered a brand new mode to play online, brand new way to play that was fun, I'd pay happily pay $5. Imagine four player co-op survival game, in Smash as DLC. Almost like playing Endless brawl, but with four players, stat upgrades as you take down enemies, waves, and group boss fights.

Or imagine if they added something like the subspace emissary, co op multiplayer. These are ideas i'd pay for.

I missed this post.

 

[κomıc]

I'm fine with paying. Nintendo has done a great job in handling DLC.

Also, if they do indeed use NFC figurines I'd be so happy. Not only do you get a cool figurine but you also unlock that character in the game as a bonus.

I also hope they have Event matches available and introduce new modes. I'd love to see a Boss battles mode where you fight against the many bosses found across Nintendo's games.

 

[CommanderRin]

I have no qualms with DLC, though that doesn't mean it won't irritate me if I see certain things happen.


Alternate Costumes / Colors
New Stages
New Challenges and the Such
Special CG clips of certain characters
Extra Music
Extra Characters *

Is a list of stuff I wouldn't mind seeing / buying

* - If I see new characters as DLC within a month of the games release date, I won't be very happy, however if it's like a quarter to half a year down the road, then I won't react badly to it.

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

How then shall we define whether or not a game is "complete?" If playing through part of a Mario Kart race and then having it cut off randomly part way through was the most satisfying experience in the world to us, would that not then become complete, despite it not meeting our current standard for such? It would seem then the completion is defined by the value of the product to us. And indeed it would seem strange to define completeness of a game in any other way, because if it isn't defined in some way in terms of value why do we even care about a game being "complete" to begin with.

So if completion relates to value, it seems that the discussion shouldn't be about whether or not a game is complete, but whether or not it is valuable to its consumers. If SSB4 comes out and you say "60$ for that thing that is a freakin' steal!" and you gladly give the money because the offering is easily worth that much to you, how can you come back later and say "I didn't get my money's worth because it didn't include something they released later to complement the game?" Either you got your monies worth at the time of purchase or you didn't, and future events have no bearing on this.

Thus quite honestly I don't care if the DLC is on disc made 10 years before the game was ever conceptualized. If I deem the offering they give us to be smash brothers game to be worth it, then it was worth it. Them then selling this DLC to us for another however much money doesn't matter. Or at least it doesn't if you don't buy it. If you do then yeah maybe that transaction isn't worth it, but that doesn't make the original purchase any less valuable either.

DLC arguments are silly as they seem to be motivated by a fear that incomplete games are now going to become rampant. But the thing is, what DLC hasn't changed is the consumer's unwillingness to buy games that aren't worth the price they are being sold for. With all the *****ing that goes on now about the price of games, I don't see that as liable to change any time soon either. People can make their games not valuable enough to bother with, or even "incomplete", but companies will learn that we don't want that crap, and those that don't learn this will die.

Not wanting DLC to exist is selfish. Its existence takes nothing away from you, but it's lack of existence does take something away from those who would have bought it.

 

[Shariq]

Personally, I think Nintendo will offer patches/updates/characters as free DLC. I think Nintendo, especially Sakurai, is strongly against the idea of one play having access to a character that another doesn't, especially with online play. This would mean you would fight a character you cannot play as. I don't see Nintendo doing this. This is double for stages, as it would split the online community up into "have these stages" or "does not have these stages".

What I do see as paid DLC would be new modes, similar to Smash Run. If they offered a brand new mode to play online, brand new way to play that was fun, I'd pay happily pay $5. Imagine four player co-op survival game, in Smash as DLC. Almost like playing Endless brawl, but with four players, stat upgrades as you take down enemies, waves, and group boss fights.

Or imagine if they added something like the subspace emissary, co op multiplayer. These are ideas i'd pay for.

This. I have had this thought for a while now. Characters and stages as DLC more specifically as paid DLC will fragment the community too much. Especially the competitive scene. New game modes, alternate skins, etc make more sense to have as DLC. Smash being a fighting game relies a lot on characters. So one player having access to a character or stage that another doesn't is a problem.

 

[RODO]

Not only does some DLC deserve to be paid for (because of the work put into it) but not all DLC is something that can be done within the time constraints of finishing the game. If they sat around and tried to put in everything they could think of then we'd never even see the game.

So... me, Saito and some others were talking about this in PMs as well, and I think I hit a really awesome idea. What if they give free character DLC as promotion for new games? Like, say Miyamoto's new IP comes out next year. Nintendo could release the main character of the game as DLC for Smash to promote it, or if they wanted to promote a Balloon Fight revival, they could add a Balloon Fighter free DLC to promote it. This is something I would be completely okay with. The fans get something awesome, and Nintendo still gets something of value from it.

Edit:

Doubt it. Sakurai said they're having the same cast. Nintendo wouldn't say that and then require you to have internet to download the full 3DS cast.

Or better yet, if you buy those new games then you get a code that gives you character dlc from those games.

 

[slicesabre]

As a general rule I tend to hate all kinds of DLC, except free of course who doesn't like free things, because my past history of them tends to be dirted by CoD which I have a very strong history with.

I tend to view paid DLC as not worth the cost that they want for what the DLC is actually offering.

Then there are times that a game goes DLC crazy even though the DLC maybe be worth playing, a good example of this is the DLC for Fire Emblem Awakening which is great but man do I feel they went overboard with it and it feels overpriced as well consider you're just basically getting one mission and sometimes a character who is that character in look and name only and isn't unique in any other way.

I view Smash 4 as a another game that could go DLC crazy and I fear that age old 'lock-out' DLC in which you cannot play against other people if you do not have that DLC. You can claim Nintendo as never done that but hell there's a first time for everything.

 

[Booster]

As long as it's not as disgusting as what Dead or Alive 5 Ultimate is doing right now, I'm fine. Otherwise I'm making a rant thread.

 

[soviet prince]

man there is some entitled people on here, if they put work in it they should be paid. if you dont have the money you dont get it thats life. DLC characters dont take away from the game just expand on it,ppl not willing to pay can play with what they got.

 

[Canuckduck]

I'd like it if they would periodically update the game to continue balancing it out.

They could also update it with new items, stages, and possibly characters.

It should also be 100% free.

 

[Saito]

man there is some entitled people on here, if they put work in it they should be paid. if you dont have the money you dont get it thats life. DLC characters dont take away from the game just expand on it,ppl not willing to pay can play with what they got.

Because I don't feel that things that make up the core of smash brothers, or fighting games in general should not be offered as paid DLC, I seem to be entitled?

I have a problem with Character DLC. and the two other things I mentioned above.

If I had to pay an extra $10 dollars for smash brothers just to assure that there would not be any paid character DLC in the future, I would be absolutely fine with that. It doesn't matter if the characters would cost less.

If I had to pay $40 to guarantee that, I'd do it, but I question if everyone else would.

I'd rather have everyone able to enjoy every character without having to pay additional fees for them. Even if they are added after the fact.

 

[GamerGuy09]

Prediction:

Special Smash NFP Figures will be made in the future, post Smash development. The figures will be 15 dollars per character, so each time there is a new Smash Character, you pay 15 dollars for it in the game and for the figure.

What would you guys think of that?

 

[SomewhatMystia]

Depends on who it is, to be honest. Fifteen bucks does seem a bit high, though. Maybe 5-10 would be more palatable, or whatever the 'standard' is for DLC characters, plus a few bucks for the figure's cost.

 

[GamerGuy09]

Depends on who it is, to be honest. Fifteen bucks does seem a bit high, though. Maybe 5-10 would be more palatable, or whatever the 'standard' is for DLC characters, plus a few bucks for the figure's cost.

I was thinking 10 dollars, but a Figure is a Figure. So 5 extra dollars seems reasonable.

 

[SomewhatMystia]

I could possibly see that, then, yeah. Especially considering the little bonuses (trophies for clearing classic/all-star/whatever-else mode, possibly music or stage) that the character would likely come with.

Plus the figure. I feel like that'd be the big thing affecting the cost, especially if it's a reasonably sized one.

 

[Tristan_win]

Prediction:

Special Smash NFP Figures will be made in the future, post Smash development. The figures will be 15 dollars per character, so each time there is a new Smash Character, you pay 15 dollars for it in the game and for the figure.

What would you guys think of that?

I would buy it without thinking if we got a stage, a character that's not a clone and balance patches for those wii u that aren't online.

 

[pwnzorz]

I'm with Saito on DLC.
Anything that screws with the integral and/or core functionality of a game should be free or non-existent. I have purchased characters in a fighting game (Injustice) and I gotta say, DLC characters are a bad idea. It totally messes with the balance of things and they constantly have to patch balance when they could have just waited and released the Ultimate Edition.

If DLC is released for the 3DS version exclusively and doesn't make the online or comparable local modes any different from the WiiU version, it's good. Music tracks, skins or single player modes are fine.

Really what it comes down to is that as long as $$$ doesn't affect the integral play, which in this case, would be fighters/stages/items, fair game. Otherwise it becomes P2W, or it feels that way to non DLC buyers which is bad for consumer integrity. It's why I really didn't like CoD releasing new guns as DLC. It feels like they're giving power to those with deeper pockets.

 

[Pékaßlu]

I'm a bit torn on the idea of dlc. On one hand i'd like too pay for characters that otherwise wouldn't be in the game. But on the other hand i dont really wanna pay extra for a game i already bought D:

 

[Vintage Creep]

Let's not kid ourselves. We'll all buy any kind of DLC Nintendo decides to throw at us.

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

Let's not kid ourselves. We'll all buy any kind of DLC Nintendo decides to throw at us.

I wouldn't buy costumes or palette swaps. But other then that, yep.

 

[Vintage Creep]

I wouldn't buy costumes or palette swaps. But other then that, yep.

You'll buy costumes because if they're going to exist they're going to be absolutely fantastic and pretty cheap. Palette swaps will never be DLC.

Just imagine Oni-Link costume DLC.
Dry Bowser costume DLC.

Yes, you'd buy it.

 

[Kind Dedede]

I can see why people are against paid DLC but don't agree in the slightest why it should be free. I'm sure they could add a couple more characters and stages within a month if given the time, I'm a huge advocate for this as well. With the way Smash has been with their franchise though has been the sole game for the generation, meaning its this or having to wait 5+ years for the next one. I'm not a fan of wanting to wait 5 years for 30 characters when I'm sure the development team would rather spend time working on other projects as well. This is the core game so why not build off it and come back to it when they have time to do so? I'm talking like Harmonix did for their own DLC for Rock Band. Although it was their only source of income when it launched, they crammed so much material per song as well as the license for the song in a much cheaper price mark than GH2. They realized the perfect balance between the cost to develop vs the asking price for sale and made it big.

All I'm saying is this: Sm4sh won't have free DLC and feeling like you're being cheated by the idea of paying for optional content is petty. They're only asking for a price that would help return the time and patience it takes to modify a character, stage, costume, etc. Just because they can take the time to add more to the game can only last so long without it being overkill. Kind of like the idea Brawl was delayed numerous times merely because of Sonic, great to have him aboard and only taking few months to do so. If they had to wait a year to add him, yeah that's really not going to happen.

 

[D-idara]

How then shall we define whether or not a game is "complete?" If playing through part of a Mario Kart race and then having it cut off randomly part way through was the most satisfying experience in the world to us, would that not then become complete, despite it not meeting our current standard for such? It would seem then the completion is defined by the value of the product to us. And indeed it would seem strange to define completeness of a game in any other way, because if it isn't defined in some way in terms of value why do we even care about a game being "complete" to begin with.

So if completion relates to value, it seems that the discussion shouldn't be about whether or not a game is complete, but whether or not it is valuable to its consumers. If SSB4 comes out and you say "60$ for that thing that is a freakin' steal!" and you gladly give the money because the offering is easily worth that much to you, how can you come back later and say "I didn't get my money's worth because it didn't include something they released later to complement the game?" Either you got your monies worth at the time of purchase or you didn't, and future events have no bearing on this.

Thus quite honestly I don't care if the DLC is on disc made 10 years before the game was ever conceptualized. If I deem the offering they give us to be smash brothers game to be worth it, then it was worth it. Them then selling this DLC to us for another however much money doesn't matter. Or at least it doesn't if you don't buy it. If you do then yeah maybe that transaction isn't worth it, but that doesn't make the original purchase any less valuable either.

DLC arguments are silly as they seem to be motivated by a fear that incomplete games are now going to become rampant. But the thing is, what DLC hasn't changed is the consumer's unwillingness to buy games that aren't worth the price they are being sold for. With all the *****ing that goes on now about the price of games, I don't see that as liable to change any time soon either. People can make their games not valuable enough to bother with, or even "incomplete", but companies will learn that we don't want that crap, and those that don't learn this will die.

Not wanting DLC to exist is selfish. Its existence takes nothing away from you, but it's lack of existence does take something away from those who would have bought it.

People who don't understand how work works. The game will not come incomplete, proper DLC means adding extra content to the game that already has 100% of the content.

 

[dezeray112]

I'd usually thought that DLC was seen as way for developers to provide ongoing support to an existing game.

 

[arcticfox8]

DLC is fine. Stages, costumes, items? Fine

But when characters come into it, that's where I have a problem. Characters directly affect how the game is played, because no matter the stage, items turned on, costumes worn, the main point of a fighting game is the characters fighting. If characters are DLC, than those with less money don't get to try out all playstyle options and don't get all the matchup experience they could get if they had the money to spare.

So you can sell me stages, items, costumes, anything but characters. I'm sure eventually they'd get paid back for the work on characters from selling every other possible DLC.