Smash 4 DLC Discussion (Free vs Paid/etc)

[Mr. Mumbles]

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.

Did you know that those who don't have money to spare to buy SSB4 will have at least 30 less character options for that game than those who don't? Some speculate that number may be as high as 50! It's so completely unfair!

 

[SomewhatMystia]

I hope, if we get *any* DLC, we end up getting Pink Hoodie Mac as an alt costume.

 

[D-idara]

Did you know that those who don't have money to spare to buy SSB4 will have at least 30 less character options for that game than those who don't? Some speculate that number may be as high as 50! It's so completely unfair!

I really wouldn't expect more than 3 absolutely-necessary DLC characters in the game's lifespan?

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

I really wouldn't expect more than 3 absolutely-necessary DLC characters in the game's lifespan?

I was referring to the price of buying the game, and how those who don't spend that will be able to practice with 0 characters. The thought being that if people have to buy the game to have any characters to begin with, what is so different about having to pay a few bucks more to have the rest?

 

[Gazdakka Gizbang]

DLC to me is fine, free or paid. Free is wishful thinking, but in the end the staff need to get paid, and I'm not at issue with that.

*However*, PLEASE don't take the Capcom route and charge for each freakin' costume. If you're going to charge DLC on characters, make an option where you bundle the whole bloody lot of stuff associated with that character together to justify the price.

 

[D-idara]

I was referring to the price of buying the game, and how those who don't spend that will be able to practice with 0 characters. The thought being that if people have to buy the game to have any characters to begin with, what is so different about having to pay a few bucks more to have the rest?

Oh sorry, misunderstood that.

 

[Sebagomez]

"Sakurai has stated that there are currently no plans to implement downloadable content or touch screen controls of any variety"
- http://www.gamnesia.com/news/no-pla...rols-in-the-new-smash-bros.-tripping-is-remov

 

[SomewhatMystia]

"Sakurai has stated that there are currently no plans to implement downloadable content or touch screen controls of any variety"
- http://www.gamnesia.com/news/no-pla...rols-in-the-new-smash-bros.-tripping-is-remov

This was back in June 2013; he could have changed his mind by now.

 

[Morbi]

"Sakurai has stated that there are currently no plans to implement downloadable content or touch screen controls of any variety"
- http://www.gamnesia.com/news/no-pla...rols-in-the-new-smash-bros.-tripping-is-remov

"At the current time we have no plans. I consider my job at this point, and my main responsibility, to make the Wii U and 3DS versions the best and the fullest experience possible. That said, once finished, it's the type of thing we could take into consideration, but for now, you could consider DLC as not being in the cards."

I feel as though he was just giving a standard PR statement that asserts that he is fully committed to the game.

 

[ScottyWK]

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.

This x1,000,000. If someone wants to buy whatever comes extra to the game and they can afford it, then that should not affect you at all. If you refuse to buy it on principle, that's fine. You still have a perfectly quality game you paid for and are enjoying. So you both win.

 

[Gazdakka Gizbang]

"Sakurai has stated that there are currently no plans to implement downloadable content or touch screen controls of any variety"
- http://www.gamnesia.com/news/no-pla...rols-in-the-new-smash-bros.-tripping-is-remov

I'm sure there were also no plans for NFC figurines back then either. Look how times have changed...

This x1,000,000. If someone wants to buy whatever comes extra to the game and they can afford it, then that should not affect you at all. If you refuse to buy it on principle, that's fine. You still have a perfectly quality game you paid for and are enjoying. So you both win.

The grey area with DLC is: Did they make the game as complete as it could be and ship it before thinking DLC? Or did they sit around with their thumbs up their butts and devote the good parts to DLC to make more money? This is certainly a problem with many other games, especially with on-disk DLC. But I take it on good faith that SSB4 will be as complete as it can be prior to release, so I'm more lenient in this case.

 

[ScottyWK]

The grey area with DLC is: Did they make the game as complete as it could be and ship it before thinking DLC? Or did they sit around with their thumbs up their butts and devote the good parts to DLC to make more money? This is certainly a problem with many other games, especially with on-disk DLC. But I take it on good faith that SSB4 will be as complete as it can be prior to release, so I'm more lenient in this case.

Regardless of the intention, the people that want the extra content are going to buy it, and the people that don't care for the extra content won't. Sure, it may suck if they intentionally leave out Ridley and then add him for $10 later, but I guarantee you the people that want him will pay for that no matter what.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Regardless of the intention, the people that want the extra content are going to buy it, and the people that don't care for the extra content won't. Sure, it may suck if they intentionally leave out Ridley and then add him for $10 later, but I guarantee you the people that want him will pay for that no matter what.

That small for such a big guy? I'd pay 20 just to have him playable, man. Kind of serious too, since I want him to be in period. Of course, if he is already playable, well, no DLC payments needed.

That said, characters being added requires a lot of fine tuning to make sure they'll work with the current cast. If not, they won't be DLC or they'll make it come with a patch that properly makes the cast balanced with the addition. Albeit, that's my theory, but it's pretty reasonable to think Sakurai will make sure any character addition comes with full balances too. I doubt he's against patches anyway.

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

I'm sure there were also no plans for NFC figurines back then either. Look how times have changed...



The grey area with DLC is: Did they make the game as complete as it could be and ship it before thinking DLC? Or did they sit around with their thumbs up their butts and devote the good parts to DLC to make more money? This is certainly a problem with many other games, especially with on-disk DLC. But I take it on good faith that SSB4 will be as complete as it can be prior to release, so I'm more lenient in this case.

But that's exactly my point. If the consumer can't tell the difference... If it's not obvious that the game is incomplete... If still felt it was worth the money, is leaving something out to include as DLC later such an evil thing? It's their job to make something worth buying. Sure it might suck if something that would have otherwise been free isn't, but if you still bought the game, either you didn't research it enough, in which case research better next time, or you still thought it was a worthwhile transaction, in which case what are you complaining about? The idea of complaining about something because it isn't free but might be free in some alternate universe, is crazy.

The fundamental principle of buying what has more value to you then it costs has not changed, and will not change. DLC is not a morally grey area. It's just companies trying to make products consumers want to buy.

And don't get me started with that Nintendo of France nonsense. Remember when Nintendo of Germany said that Smash Bros would be coming out in spring? Not to mention no one has said a word about figurines. I wouldn't worry about that just yet.

 

[Zzuxon]

The suggestion that Characters and stages shouldn't be DLC but we should pay for alternate costumes and songs is idiotic.
Characters and stages are the ONLY DLC WORTH PAYING FOR, and I would happily pay for it. If we don't get character and stage DLC, but are expected to buy meaningless features like alternate costumes, I'll be furious.

 

[ScottyWK]

The suggestion that Characters and stages shouldn't be DLC but we should pay for alternate costumes and songs is idiotic.
Characters and stages are the ONLY DLC WORTH PAYING FOR, and I would happily pay for it. If we don't get character and stage DLC, but are expected to buy meaningless features like alternate costumes, I'll be furious.

You don't speak on behalf of everyone on what is worth paying for. Some people value having a lot of alternate costumes, and may pay $20 for an extra 2 costumer per player, or whatever the pack includes.

The game is going to be a fine product, with or without DLC. It's pretty safe to say that (unless it turns out to be awful gameplay like Brawl...please don't get off on a tangent with that one). All this argument comes down to is how much YOU as a consumer value particular add-on content that they decide to release. If Nintendo decides that they can profit on some alt costumes or stages or whatever, then they will develop it and bank on people purchasing. If you don't think it's worth it to buy a few extra stages, then don't do it. If you do, then buy it. It's really as simple as that.

Becoming "furious" that they create additional content after the game is complete seems ridiculous to me.

 

[Sebagomez]

finished game + DLC =
unfinished game + DLC =

 

[Artorias]

Yeah, but just imagine if the game came out today with these characters only and 1 or 2 months later they announced a pack with 5 or 10 more character for 25 dollars.
The basis on DLC is that these things should be extra things that the developer adds after launch to expand the experience, but if that content was cut from the game in order to monetize it, that would be really ****ty.
I still don't think that this will be the case though, since Sakurai seems really commited to the game.

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

finished game + DLC =
unfinished game + DLC =

Agreed. But only because...

finished game =
unfinished game =

 

[Wander]

Yeah, but just imagine if the game came out today with these characters only and 1 or 2 months later they announced a pack with 5 or 10 more character for 25 dollars.
The basis on DLC is that these things should be extra things that the developer adds after launch to expand the experience, but if that content was cut from the game in order to monetize it, that would be really ****ty.
I still don't think that this will be the case though, since Sakurai seems really commited to the game.

Exactly. I trust that Nintendo won't turn this game into a cash cow and hold back content just to sell it as DLC later. If for some reason they don't have time to implement certain costumes or stages or whatever, and finish it post-release and add it as DLC, I'd be fine with it. The more content the better, so long as it's reasonably priced.

 

[Gazdakka Gizbang]

But that's exactly my point. If the consumer can't tell the difference... If it's not obvious that the game is incomplete... If still felt it was worth the money, is leaving something out to include as DLC later such an evil thing? It's their job to make something worth buying. Sure it might suck if something that would have otherwise been free isn't, but if you still bought the game, either you didn't research it enough, in which case research better next time, or you still thought it was a worthwhile transaction, in which case what are you complaining about? The idea of complaining about something because it isn't free but might be free in some alternate universe, is crazy.

The fundamental principle of buying what has more value to you then it costs has not changed, and will not change. DLC is not a morally grey area. It's just companies trying to make products consumers want to buy.

And don't get me started with that Nintendo of France nonsense. Remember when Nintendo of Germany said that Smash Bros would be coming out in spring? Not to mention no one has said a word about figurines. I wouldn't worry about that just yet.

It comes down to whether or not the individual feels that the game was a complete package. For instance, I think Fire Emblem: Awakening was a complete package without DLC. However, I think a game like Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed usually doesn't feel complete because they're chugged out so often, and usually with some DLC tacked on the end of it that they could have probably included in the game if they didn't release it every bloody year.

BUT, like I said before: I think Smash Bros. 4 will be a complete package without DLC, so I'm fine with it here.

 

[Kevandre]

I think that DLC is fine if done correctly.

Take for example, Mass Effect 3's excellent "Citadel" DLC that came out a year after the game launched. The pack was full of content, a full mission and then a huge amount of fan service. This would have never worked as well as it did if it had been included on the disc from the get go... It's kind of hard to explain if you haven't experienced it but it was truly the final goodbye to the trilogy. It was some of the best $15 I've ever spent.

Now, compare to what Nintendo is clearly doing with MK8. Where are Dry Bones, Diddy Kong, Bowser Jr and Birdo? Why did these previously playable (and beloved) characters get cut for another baby version of a pre existing character, pink gold peach and the Koopalings, who are all just so distinguishable from each other? Because they're definitely going to release a DLC pack for those characters down the line. Ask yourself, what DLC is more likely to sell more? Diddy Kong? Or Baby Rosalina? It's a straight up money grab and it saddens me.. Though I could be wrong. They could just not release the characters altogether. And I don't know if that would make me feel any better about it

As it pertains to Smash... I don't know. It could be a good way to keep hype going. They just can't be so expensive. Injustice sold DLC characters for $5 a pop. They were definitely not worth it. Smash might be but I hope that they're at most $2.50. That's assuming there WILL be DLC.

 

[Sarej]

I'm with @ Saito . The only extra content that doesn't bother me to be payed DLC is special alternate costumes and music tracks (and they better be cheap, and it will still annoy me). I'm sorry, but I want a fully completed game. I don't mean to belittle the developer's work, but DLC just seems like such a transparently greedy ploy for squeezing an extra dime from dedicated fans.

If I pay for a game that's $60 and skins are to be paid for then that's utter bull****. Melee and Brawl had skins that you could swap through, why you guys would even advocate skins costing money is beyond me.

 

[arcticfox8]

If I pay for a game that's $60 and skins are to be paid for then that's utter bull****. Melee and Brawl had skins that you could swap through, why you guys would even advocate skins costing money is beyond me.

When they say that they mean MORE skins
There'd still be alt colors, but say they released a pack with Awakening costumes for Marth and Ike. It's no more idiotic than extra characters, imo it's less idiotic.

 

[Kind Dedede]

Regardless of the intention, the people that want the extra content are going to buy it, and the people that don't care for the extra content won't. Sure, it may suck if they intentionally leave out Ridley and then add him for $10 later, but I guarantee you the people that want him will pay for that no matter what.

1 Song that was available for Rock Band DLC included:

• 4 different charts per instrument, with 4 instruments in RB1&2 and 5-9 in RB3 when available. (That's 16 to 39 total.)
• They mapped each note to match character movement per chart.
• Sound mapped each note to correspond to each one so that they would cut off if you missed per chart.
• Secured song rights and even to this day are attempting to sit down and renegotiate licensing just to keep them on the market at half price Than what they originally were.

This took 6-8 months per song, with multiple songs to be released each and every week for 5 years running. Their asking price was still only $2 while pro guitar was an extra $1 since it took more time & effort to release it within that time span.


If Nintendo wanted to sell the DLC in the mature way Harmonix does, they'll find out what it'll cost to add that character first overall and bargain the price low so that they'll meet their satisfactory amount over time to repay them. If it's anything over $2-3, then they're gouging us. Fire Emblem was done just like it should have which is exactly what Sakurai could take into consideration with other companies as well having better models.


I'm not expecting anybody to be announced immediately after launch. 4-6 months after, they announce that people like Wolf, Lucas, Squirtle, Ivysaur, Roy, et cetera that were originally cut from the series are finally rejoining the game. 4-6 months later they announce the actual new characters they had time later on to tweak and develop to add with the more lenient schedule like Toad, Impa, Sceptile, et cetera.

 

[Kevandre]

1 Song that was available for Rock Band DLC included:

• 4 different charts per instrument, with 4 instruments in RB1&2 and 5-9 in RB3 when available. (That's 16 to 39 total.)
• They mapped each note to match character movement per chart.
• Sound mapped each note to correspond to each one so that they would cut off if you missed per chart.
• Secured song rights and even to this day are attempting to sit down and renegotiate licensing just to keep them on the market at half price Than what they originally were.

This took 6-8 months per song, with multiple songs to be released each and every week for 5 years running. Their asking price was still only $2 while pro guitar was an extra $1 since it took more time & effort to release it within that time span.


If Nintendo wanted to sell the DLC in the mature way Harmonix does, they'll find out what it'll cost to add that character first overall and bargain the price low so that they'll meet their satisfactory amount over time to repay them. If it's anything over $2-3, then they're gouging us. Fire Emblem was done just like it should have which is exactly what Sakurai could take into consideration with other companies as well having better models.


I'm not expecting anybody to be announced immediately after launch. 4-6 months after, they announce that people like Wolf, Lucas, Squirtle, Ivysaur, Roy, et cetera that were originally cut from the series are finally rejoining the game. 4-6 months later they announce the actual new characters they had time later on to tweak and develop to add with the more lenient schedule like Toad, Impa, Sceptile, et cetera.

This I'm so fine with you guys don't even know. I'm pretty damn willing to pay extra to have Ivysaur and Lucas in the game. I just hope I wouldn't have to buy them for both Wii U and 3DS, though with the shared account now I don't think you would

 

[ScottyWK]

1 Song that was available for Rock Band DLC included:

• 4 different charts per instrument, with 4 instruments in RB1&2 and 5-9 in RB3 when available. (That's 16 to 39 total.)
• They mapped each note to match character movement per chart.
• Sound mapped each note to correspond to each one so that they would cut off if you missed per chart.
• Secured song rights and even to this day are attempting to sit down and renegotiate licensing just to keep them on the market at half price Than what they originally were.

This took 6-8 months per song, with multiple songs to be released each and every week for 5 years running. Their asking price was still only $2 while pro guitar was an extra $1 since it took more time & effort to release it within that time span.


If Nintendo wanted to sell the DLC in the mature way Harmonix does, they'll find out what it'll cost to add that character first overall and bargain the price low so that they'll meet their satisfactory amount over time to repay them. If it's anything over $2-3, then they're gouging us. Fire Emblem was done just like it should have which is exactly what Sakurai could take into consideration with other companies as well having better models.


I'm not expecting anybody to be announced immediately after launch. 4-6 months after, they announce that people like Wolf, Lucas, Squirtle, Ivysaur, Roy, et cetera that were originally cut from the series are finally rejoining the game. 4-6 months later they announce the actual new characters they had time later on to tweak and develop to add with the more lenient schedule like Toad, Impa, Sceptile, et cetera.

I was just using it as a hypothetical to prove a point. I have no idea what the timeframe or cost would be. My point was just that, people that want to pay for extra content will, and people that don't want it won't. The people that don't want it shouldn't throw a fit and attempt to hold it back from those who are willing to pay.

Hypothetical for those who don't want DLC: what if this new IP Nintendo is working on turns out to be a huge success, then 6 months after Smash's release (let's say next E3 in 2015), they announce that he and one more player will be DLC. How on earth is that claiming the game wasn't complete? Complaining about that would be absolutely ridiculous.

 

[Kind Dedede]

I was just using it as a hypothetical to prove a point. I have no idea what the timeframe or cost would be. My point was just that, people that want to pay for extra content will, and people that don't want it won't. The people that don't want it shouldn't throw a fit and attempt to hold it back from those who are willing to pay.

Hypothetical for those who don't want DLC: what if this new IP Nintendo is working on turns out to be a huge success, then 6 months after Smash's release (let's say next E3 in 2015), they announce that he and one more player will be DLC. How on earth is that claiming the game wasn't complete? Complaining about that would be absolutely ridiculous.

You would think they wouldn't hold too much weight but they're usually the larger voice. That and Nintendo has a bad trek record with handling what the people want versus what they want to do.

Totally agree with you on that second part. You can delay the game for so long until it becomes fruitless. Sonic I think truly did deserve his inclusion but after that you're starting to dig deeper into who would constitute a delay to add them otherwise the game isn't complete. Ridley, K Rool or Mewtwo would be highly considered but could easily be added as DLC instead in the two circumstances I mentioned.

The only way I could think people are only getting their panties in a bunch on free vs paid is this: melee was running late on time and a decision had to be made. Do you add one more unique character or do you add multiple clones? Large majority would vote clones since they want more characters at the expense of just one singular character. Same rule applies for DLC, and for the sakes of argument not even consider money: would you want this game delayed just to include one/two fighters or are you willing to let them release it so they can work on multiple others at their leisure?

 

[Mr. Mumbles]

It comes down to whether or not the individual feels that the game was a complete package. For instance, I think Fire Emblem: Awakening was a complete package without DLC. However, I think a game like Call of Duty or Assassin's Creed usually doesn't feel complete because they're chugged out so often, and usually with some DLC tacked on the end of it that they could have probably included in the game if they didn't release it every bloody year.
BUT, like I said before: I think Smash Bros. 4 will be a complete package without DLC, so I'm fine with it here.

Sounds like we're on the same side.

Agreed, so DLC isn't the issue but game completion is. Thankfully there is a simple remedy. Don't buy incomplete games.

 

[Saito]

The suggestion that Characters and stages shouldn't be DLC but we should pay for alternate costumes and songs is idiotic.
Characters and stages are the ONLY DLC WORTH PAYING FOR, and I would happily pay for it. If we don't get character and stage DLC, but are expected to buy meaningless features like alternate costumes, I'll be furious.

No one is expected to buy DLC.

The only thing the companies do, is offer DLC that is harder to pass up.

Costumes and Music is something that can be passed up without a second though.
A character though? That's really hard for anyone to pass up.

 

[CF711]

Smash DLC imo could be broken down into a multiple parts. You have characters, stages, trophies, modes, and items.

Personally I see them creating bundles with characters and stages as the main focus for paid DLC. From there we can assume that any relevant trophies or related items will be included with it. Maybe modes will be included too or maybe they will be stand alone, not entirely sure.

Now the problem you always run into with character/stage DLC is one player having it and the other not when playing online. This can be mitigated through the release of compatibility patches. This allows players to play on the stages online/see characters that they do not own. This also may encourage players to purchase the DLC after seeing it.

That's my take on it at least.

 

[Phaazoid]

I would pay for DLC characters, but no other form
I would be happy for free stages as the only DLC, or a mix of stages and alt costumes. Maybe even extra stage builder pieces.
Not sure what else they could offer.

 

[Sahfarry]

Pikmin 3 DLC is so tempting.

In terms of Smash Bros., chars and stages should be free IMO and alt. costumes should be money. Cosmetic crap. The new stages and chars should be updates, really. Something that should've been in from the beginning. The costumes are cosmetic and are for people who are willing to buy it.

I'm trying to find business sense in it. All I see is that it's the right thing to do. Otherwise, this is just how it should be IMO.

I would pay for DLC characters, but no other form
I would be happy for free stages as the only DLC, or a mix of stages and alt costumes. Maybe even extra stage builder pieces.
Not sure what else they could offer.

this gave me an idea to add on: I'd pay for stage/char packs bundled with costumes.

 

[Sasquatch180]

My opinion on the matter is DLC could be good if they do it right.

Paid DLC unlocking new characters = Bad.
Paid DLC unlocking alternate costumes, stages, and Assist Trophies = Good.

IMHO there should not be paid DLC for new characters, only stuff we don't actually need/won't affect us too bad for not having it. (And I put in stages there under the assumption that even if you don't have the stage you'll be able to still play on it against the people who do, assuming they select it.)

 

[Fatmanonice]

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

Which is why I hope they don't abuse it. I hope the DLC characters don't wind up primarily being popular characters they simply "forgot" to add in the initial release, just for the sake of making a quick buck.

 

[Vickand]

I don't think it's a good idea to introduce characters DLC, because if we get another smash game in the future I think DLC would kill all the hype newcomers produce.

I'd prefer stages, music, alt. costumes, additions to the stage builder, etc. And if we get characters DLC I hope it's just for characters that were left out because of time contraints and are just 3 or 4, but no more that that.

 

[Dragon1128]

I don't mind characters, stages, or honestly, anything as DLC. So long as it isn't DAY 1 and ON the disc.

If it's content added after the game had been completed, and they crammed as much as possible in the game before release.(which Nintendo tends to do, and Sakurai in particular does) then what is the problem with paying a little extra?

 

[KillJay]

Honestly, I won't mind Sm4sh having DLC if it was for, say, alternate costumes for characters. But I would mind if they charged for stages or characters.

Honestly, the likelyhood of DLC as a whole is unlikely, but not impossible. Nintendo has finally broken free of its "No DLC" policy, which is a positive thing, but I can't see them pulling a Capcom.

 

[staindgrey]

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.

I can never get behind the "lack of money" argument. Ever. It's a pity card that doesn't deserve to be played.

Playing videogames, particularly brand new ones online, is an expensive hobby. It's a leisure activity. It's something that more-or-less privileged people do for fun. You're telling me that someone with a $300 Wii U and at least one $60 game and a TV to play it on and an internet connection to play it with can't afford a $5-10 DLC character?

I can get behind lots of arguments for both sides of the issue. But that argument, specifically, is complete bull****. Sorry. There are people with actual problems in the world to whom this perceived "less money" issue is insulting.

Sorry to go off like that. It angers me.

 

[arcticfox8]

I can never get behind the "lack of money" argument. Ever. It's a pity card that doesn't deserve to be played.

Playing videogames, particularly brand new ones online, is an expensive hobby. It's a leisure activity. It's something that more-or-less privileged people do for fun. You're telling me that someone with a $300 Wii U and at least one $60 game and a TV to play it on and an internet connection to play it with can't afford a $5-10 DLC character?

I can get behind lots of arguments for both sides of the issue. But that argument, specifically, is complete bull****. Sorry. There are people with actual problems in the world to whom this perceived "less money" issue is insulting.

Sorry to go off like that. It angers me.

Okay, how about "It's dickish to make someone pay to keep up with the metagame when they've already payed for a full game"