The Marketing Theory: Could the 3DS and Wii U Versions Feature Different Hidden Characters?

[Bravetriforcer]

If this is real, that would really suck that u have to get a wiiu

You'll probably have an option to spend $20~ on the other characters so Nintendo avoids Crucifixion. Or they'll happily accept Crucifixion since they know you'll turn around and buy a Wii U for your Ridley when you feel Nintendo's been properly denied your money for a week.

 

[TheZapp]

You'll probably have an option to spend $20~ on the other characters so Nintendo avoids Crucifixion. Or they'll happily accept Crucifixion since they know you'll turn around and buy a Wii U for your Ridley when you feel Nintendo's been properly denied your money for a week.

If you could do that, it would be great. But there is noway in hell I would pay 300$ for say impa and Ridley as a student. I don't have that kind of money to blow

 

[Juliusaurus]

I didn't read the full post, but I imagine you're talking about the five remaining characters not releasing as DLC on 3DS until after the Wii U version of the game is available. This would make it seem as though the Wii U version has five new characters, which of course, creates hype for the Wii U game. I'm hoping for this, actually, would be nice marketing too.

Well, I guess it would depend on the characters too.

 

[TheZapp]

And let's be honest, the only people who are happy about this are the people who have a wiiU and 3ds. I think you should look at it from a 1 console point of view

 

[pupNapoleon]

In regard to the Wii U version, I think it will be dealing with content in one more way mentioned.
As stated, the big reveal for characters would be paramount- to me, this is where I see Ridley, K Rool, and Mewtwo being released, the Wii U version. In addition to perhaps other modes, and I'm hoping, party games.
This is for the casual market.

I am hoping this is because the market for competitive field is already noticeable enough, in the necessity of having a 3DS version first to then later train on the Wii U. Somehow I think this could be involved as well.

Ultimately, who knows.

I would love to see this happen. It gives the team more time and space to deliver on more characters.
Always a good thing.

Which likely was factored in as well, considering Melee was rushed and Brawl was delayed twice to much dismay.
I am sure there was a strategy involved for having this sort of wiggle room to not have to delay as much as possible.

And let's be honest, the only people who are happy about this are the people who have a wiiU and 3ds. I think you should look at it from a 1 console point of view

If you wanted a PS4 exclusive game, and wanted an XBOX1 exclusive game, you would need two systems.
This is not all so different. They re in fact different games, we have received NO information on Wii U content, and Nintendo has shown that they are now, finally, aware that their ticket to financial succes could actually be single-handedly in Smash Bros.

I wouldn't be surprised if they had a whole merchandising line after this.

 

[TheRandomCities4]

Someone posted this on the GameFAQs forum and the response there has been rather negative compared to here.

GameFAQs is notorious for their closed-mindedness. That's okay, though.

 

[Ascended]

Link?

http://www.gamefaqs.com/boards/633202-super-smash-bros-for-wii-u/69918819#23

I was originally on the GameFAQs forum for speculation, but I moved over to SmashBoards because the discussion is MUCH better and the members here are a lot nicer, more open-minded, and come up with better things to discuss.

For the record, I think this could be true and I think it would be a cool idea (I do own a Wii U and a 3DS, BTW) I also think something that could add to the East VS West theory is that handhelds are more popular in Japan, while consoles are more popular in America, which would explain why the east-focused game is on the 3DS and why the west-focused game is on the Wii U.

 

[TheZapp]

Anyways, even if this the case, I'm sure we will be able to buy the characters for $

 

[TheRandomCities4]

And let's be honest, the only people who are happy about this are the people who have a wiiU and 3ds. I think you should look at it from a 1 console point of view

I did include the possibility of cross-platform DLC that would allow those who own one version/console to download the hidden characters on the other version/console.

Ok, I actually read all and first: I ignored everything regarding leaks going on now (For me, false until proven true).

However, despite not agreeing with everything, it's worth consideration.

As for teasing in a way to know trends and interest, I STRONGLY AGREE.

I actually noticed some correlation with known teases about this theory. Ridley: more than a year and probably the most complex tease to decipher. It's known by a lot how solid and numbered the fanbase is.

Little mac, quite a lot of request and popularity and he got into 7 months.

Palutena was 3-4 months, but she was quite popular.

Greninja was a month. He was popular in his game, but not really requested in smash and he was basically unexpected.

And I noticed that if you check the tease trigger, it's always coming into a similar process. I made a long theory a while ago, but I'm just going to summarize it.

The tease is made by revealing something that looks completely usual, but there's something hidden. There would be an unclear info or not providing an info that should be crucial for speculation. Basically, it's like you that would interpret the outcome of this info to speculate about it.

Here's the thing: it's made to vary from people who care about the character and those who don't care. Sakurai knows that the one who care will go into a deeper thinking than the one who would not care and would assume a truth that has never been clear and even better, this truth will always contradict the true intent of tease thus, making the people who don't care deny the tease.

As for who care, the outcome is going to be mostly different. There would be reasons to believe that something seems fishy and that it could hint more towards playable for the said character.

After, there's always a waiting period to let the wind rage. Like I said earlier, the time seems to be consistent with the trends.

When revealed, the one who would be the most surprised is the one who didn't care since they denied the tease. This makes the reveal more hype than it would have without teasing.

In other words, he prepare his teases according to fanbase.

Ok, moving on...

East vs West:

That's really possible. I was too wondering why red and blue and I tough it was the logo colors of the consoles, but why Final destination?

That actually may be bad for this theory. Because if it was from console logo, the only way it would be possible for making sense with the east and west was that it was planned for smash before and if I recall, because of uprising, it wouldn't.

So, care to explain this other outcome? Because I'm sceptical.

But for the other evidences, you have a point about the unanounced one. I found that so weird to have no kirby stage (I mean c'mon, that's the freaking series that Sakurai would hype A LOT more). Having to wait for WiiU is a great possibility. Now, characters could be too by that logic, but I have to say that I'm VERY sceptical about something Sakurai said.

He implied that we would ran out of trailer for newcomers since they were reaching the bottom of the stack.

^This, is my main problem with the whole theory. Because honestly, I would expect trailers AFTER the 3ds release if it was true. Telling it at like 3 months before that release and that we will likely have another one before said release, do you think it would still work if they are running out of it?

Not to mention that for characters, waiting 3 months before getting new ones...not really consistent to not do it in trailers for at last one.

Speaking of the release gap, I have to accept the possibility because I personally think that he did the same with the SSE confirmation.

Tough, it would make sense with the consistency of NOT talking about that it's the same roster...not from the start. Saying just it's the same roster without the not from the start is indeed partial truth. Tough, he said that they shifted the release for shifting debugging period...that may hurt this theory.

Because it can't be a lie to work. It has to be for shifting the debug, but if there's another reason, it still has to do with shifting the period and this theory is not since it's marketing purpose. Would like to have your tough on it.

And lastly, I got that by analyzing the tease I was talking about, but all trailers except the pac man one that did both ALWAYS showcased the respective newcomer in a WiiU stage and not a 3ds one. Care to elaborate because according to this, it would be favoritism towards the West right?

So, I'm mostly sceptical because I see other possibility that I seem to find them more likely than this unless you can explain why those possibilities wouldn't be more likely. Tough, the point about teasing is the truth imo, but the trailers when revealed wouldn't make sense with the east west thing.

That's why I'm waiting for your answer.

What other outcome...? I'm afraid I don't follow. With each scenario I included in the OP, I've provided different possible conclusions.

As for the East vs. West thing, look at the franchises revealed with newcomers, not the characters. Imagine which franchises have more of an influence over the East more than others. This isn't comparing the East and the West together, but simply all of the franchises included in Smash for the East, then the West. For instance, Mario has more influence over the East than the Legend of Zelda---therefore it would conceivably make sense for Mario to receive a hidden newcomer on the 3DS, and not the Wii U. Mario has a big influence over the West as well, but this isn't comparing the East and the West together as a globe---this is separating them. That is why I included the point about the separated marketing for the 3DS version and the Wii U version. On the other hand, Zelda has more influence on the West than it does in the East, so it would conceivably make sense for Zelda to receive a hidden newcomer on the Wii U version instead of the 3DS version.

Also, I don't see how Final Destination and Uprising tie into this...

Uprising was a completely different game.

No... Just, no.
This doenst make sense at all...

And how exactly would this theory not make sense? Because you wouldn't like it? This is Nintendo we're talking about, not us. Besides, I've provided another possibility in the OP that would work better for people who own one version---the part with the DLC that could theoretically allow anyone to download the hidden unlockable characters available from the version opposite the one they own.

With all of these scenarios, the roster on both versions would be the same---just not in the beginning.

 

[aldelaro5]

I did include the possibility of cross-platform DLC that would allow those who own one version/console to download the hidden characters on the other version/console.



What other outcome...? I'm afraid I don't follow. With each scenario I included in the OP, I've provided different possible conclusions.

As for the East vs. West thing, look at the franchises revealed with newcomers, not the characters. Imagine which franchises have more of an influence over the East more than others. This isn't comparing the East and the West together, but simply all of the franchises included in Smash for the East, then the West. For instance, Mario has more influence over the East than the Legend of Zelda---therefore it would conceivably make sense for Mario to receive a hidden newcomer on the 3DS, and not the Wii U. Mario has a big influence over the West as well, but this isn't comparing the East and the West together as a globe---this is separating them. That is why I included the point about the separated marketing for the 3DS version and the Wii U version. On the other hand, Zelda has more influence on the West than it does in the East, so it would conceivably make sense for Zelda to receive a newcomer on the Wii U version instead of the 3DS version. These are referring to the hidden newcomers.

Also, I don't see how Final Destination and Uprising tie into this...

Uprising was a completely different game.



And how exactly would this theory not make sense? Because you wouldn't like it? This is Nintendo we're talking about, not us. Besides, I've provided another possibility in the OP that would work better for people who own one version---the part with the DLC that could theoretically allow one person to download the hidden unlockable characters available from the version opposite the one they own.

With all of these scenarios, the roster on both versions would be the same---just not in the beginning.

Remove final destination because it actually doesn't matter to my concern but was a question I was asking myself

uprising is mentioned because Sakurai wanted to finish the dev to go to smash. To decide about the colors, it had to be done before the release of the systems which is before the release of uprising if it was for the console logo.

Like, being based on that culture difference is possible, but the fact that it could be because console logo makes me sceptical. That's all and if it because console logo, it hurts the evidence.

As for who is hidden, oh...I actually mixed trailers and hidden

I tough trailer = not hidden from the start.

Yeah, ok, but what about the debug said to be shifted? It has to consider this needs to not be a lie and be partial truth.

But other than that, it should be ok to consider.

 

[Tubbers09]

Quite an enjoyable read. From a marketing standpoint this is genius. If this were true though, I would feel kinda bad for those people who only wanted to buy one version.

 

[TheRandomCities4]

Quite an enjoyable read. From a marketing standpoint this is genius. If this were true though, I would feel kinda bad for those people who only wanted to buy one version.

I did include the possibility of cross-platform DLC that would allow those who own one version/console to download the hidden characters on the other version/console.

 

[Geoffrey Druyts]

I did include the possibility of cross-platform DLC that would allow those who own one version/console to download the hidden characters on the other version/console.



What other outcome...? I'm afraid I don't follow. With each scenario I included in the OP, I've provided different possible conclusions.

As for the East vs. West thing, look at the franchises revealed with newcomers, not the characters. Imagine which franchises have more of an influence over the East more than others. This isn't comparing the East and the West together, but simply all of the franchises included in Smash for the East, then the West. For instance, Mario has more influence over the East than the Legend of Zelda---therefore it would conceivably make sense for Mario to receive a hidden newcomer on the 3DS, and not the Wii U. Mario has a big influence over the West as well, but this isn't comparing the East and the West together as a globe---this is separating them. That is why I included the point about the separated marketing for the 3DS version and the Wii U version. On the other hand, Zelda has more influence on the West than it does in the East, so it would conceivably make sense for Zelda to receive a hidden newcomer on the Wii U version instead of the 3DS version.

Also, I don't see how Final Destination and Uprising tie into this...

Uprising was a completely different game.



And how exactly would this theory not make sense? Because you wouldn't like it? This is Nintendo we're talking about, not us. Besides, I've provided another possibility in the OP that would work better for people who own one version---the part with the DLC that could theoretically allow anyone to download the hidden unlockable characters available from the version opposite the one they own.

With all of these scenarios, the roster on both versions would be the same---just not in the beginning.

Why would they both have a different roster (EXCLUDING DLC) just for marketing?

 

[TheRandomCities4]

Why would they both have a different roster (EXCLUDING DLC) just for marketing?

I don't think you understand. The roster's entirety won't be different.

Most of the characters will be the same. This theory considers the idea of using a few hidden unlockable characters to provide more incentive in purchasing both versions---or establishing connections with someone who has the other version. This promotes 3DS-Wii U connectivity.

This is, of course, excluding the DLC possibility I made.

 

[Tubbers09]

I did include the possibility of cross-platform DLC that would allow those who own one version/console to download the hidden characters on the other version/console.

I worded that poorly. I would feel bad for those people because I feel like they would be less receiving of paid DLC to play as all characters where as people who had both versions could just transfer them.

 

[Phantom High]

...The theory sounds so brilliant, yet idiotic at the same time, it makes way too much sense.

Hey can someone list me an order of when the newcomers were revealed? if my idea is crazy enough, then there is a decent chance the next reveal character is highly liked in the West.

 

[Jellybat]

I don't think you understand. The roster's entirety won't be different.

Most of the characters will be the same. This theory considers the idea of using a few hidden unlockable characters to provide more incentive in purchasing both versions---or establishing connections with someone who has the other version. This promotes 3DS-Wii U connectivity.

This is, of course, excluding the DLC possibility I made.

So essentially the system that mainline pokemon games like X/Y have with exclusive pokemon, but with system crossing possibly through a code that can be used once on the other version to unlock the hidden ones in it(or some other method of transfer)

 

[Princess Toady]

I worded that poorly. I would feel bad for those people because I feel like they would be less receiving of paid DLC to play as all characters where as people who had both versions could just transfer them.

But those with both versions would have paid for both games, you have to take that into account. Buying one game + DLCs should not cost as much as buying two games.

Or at least I would HOPE so.

 

[GamerGuy09]

For your work, here is the hypest song.

 

[TheRandomCities4]

so essentially the system that mainline pokemon games like X/Y have with exclusive pokemon, but with console crossing possibly through a code that can be used once on the other version to unlock the hidden ones in it(or some other method of transfer)

Something of the sort. I wouldn't know exactly how Nintendo would do it. All I know is that it is most certainly possible.

The Pokemon X/Y point is actually very relevant. I'm going to reference that in the OP, if you don't mind.

I worded that poorly. I would feel bad for those people because I feel like they would be less receiving of paid DLC to play as all characters where as people who had both versions could just transfer them.

Ah. Disregard my reply then.

 

[Tubbers09]

But those with both versions would have paid for both games, you have to take that into account. Buying one game + DLCs should not cost as much as buying two games.

Or at least I would HOPE so.

Oh I agree. Some people though aren't very keen on DLC of any sort especially if you have to pay for it. Also, I could see how this could be considered day 1 DLC which is very much looked down upon.

 

[Geoffrey Druyts]

I don't think you understand. The roster's entirety won't be different.

Most of the characters will be the same. This theory considers the idea of using a few hidden unlockable characters to provide more incentive in purchasing both versions---or establishing connections with someone who has the other version. This promotes 3DS-Wii U connectivity.

This is, of course, excluding the DLC possibility I made.

Oh, alright than.

 

[pupNapoleon]

Oh I agree. Some people though aren't very keen on DLC of any sort especially if you have to pay for it. Also, I could see how this could be considered day 1 DLC which is very much looked down upon.

Some people are not, yet it doesn't really matter if they like it or not.
To start, I'm sure they will after the roster is released.
If not, there is not an actual merit to why people do not want DLC.
There is a notion that DLC is a 'paywall,' but it is some illogical gibberish that I am personally quite tired of reading slain around as if anyone gave it any thought.

If you are competing, COMPETITIVE, you are doing all you can to get a leg up. You are responsible for making sure you put in your time, and also, your resources. Making sure you have characters is the least you could do here.
Sports players are responsible for their own gear to make sure they compete- purchasing cleats and shin guards for soccer is not a 'paywall' to compete.

Conversely, for all competitors to have a fair chance regardless of money, such is never true. Some people cannot afford the controller they may be best with, or cannot afford an internet connection with the least lag. Some people do not even have internet, does that mean patches for the game should not be allowed, to make it fair for all people? NO! ABSURDITY at its finest.

The notion of DLC being unfair is a fallacy, it is an argument used to perpetuate the idea that being against DLC is anything more than merely wanting everything now and not wanting to spend more later. Yet anyone on this forum to even post that could go out for an hour, instead of being on here, and do chores or a minimum wage job for one hour, and have enough to purchase a character. Even 6 characters at 5 dollars each are not going to make you bankrupt. Prioritize.

 

[PeanutProphet]

I really don't think this will happen. it's like saying "we have the same menu in all of our stores!" and then finding out that you need to bring food from one store into the other to have it. In addition, Sakurai has previously stated two things. Both versions will have the same roster, and that he does not like to mislead his fans. If this happened it would make both of those statements lies.

 

[ChainsOfDusk]

I really don't think this will happen. it's like saying "we have the same menu in all of our stores!" and then finding out that you need to bring food from one store into the other to have it. In addition, Sakurai has previously stated two things. Both versions will have the same roster, and that he does not like to mislead his fans. If this happened it would make both of those statements lies.

But the issue still exists that if this is not the case, there is literally no incentive to purchase the Wii U version when it becomes available (Unless you currently own a Wii U, but as it stands Nintendo is focusing on selling the console itself to establish a supportive player base).

Also, it was mentioned that this case both games should be respected as Smash 4 and Smash 5. With this in mind, I doubt they will be similar (there just HAS to be a reason to purchase it or want a Wii U for it beyond graphical updates + a handful of stages, that is simply not enough!!!)

 

[SwagzillaForilla]

Sakurai has previously stated two things. Both versions will have the same roster, and that he does not like to mislead his fans.

Why do I doubt this?


...Well, here's one reason:

Spoiler

"This has nothing to do with game development, I'm just showing off some figures"

Yet Charizard is solo and Dark Pit is playable. Could be a coincidence, but then again...

 

[Jellybat]

Personally im staying neutral on this Theory. i do see many of the points that seem to fit, but i also see some flaws.

most people see the biggest problem of this theory being the current image the game has gotten through 1 way or another, which is that every character will be in both versions without any strings attached, despite sakurai never really glarifying it further.


THIS alone can be a detrimental to their sales if they against this current image suddenly. if people feel like their expectations were crushed. there is definitely going to be some bad press to Nintendo, who seem to value having a good image towards consumers unlike some other companies like EA.

in short breaking this expectation of having every character right before or right after the 3ds release would be against The general style nintendo currently does their things. and if the last e3 didn't show enough honesty on how they represent their games then i cannot think of anything better.

edit #1 just a bit extra. if this majority opinion created by Sakurai was misinterpreted. then Nintendo with their current methods could probably also cancel this idea of hidden characters entirely to keep their fairly clean image by simply doing normal dlc or just adding em in alltogether.


i will note again that i am neutral. i simply tried to summarize what people seem to feeling right now alongside my personal feelings(with probable bias) on this fact.

 

[Ryuji]

I actually agree with this theory. I honestly don't see why both versions of Smash would have the same amount of characters, considering how much more limited the 3DS version is in comparison to the Wii U version. Then there's the fact that the 3DS version will be out sooner. Personally though I really do think there should be differences between the two. I don't want to be buy the same game twice when they're both too similar(I will be buying both because there are differences)..

 

[ChainsOfDusk]

Personally im staying neutral on this Theory. i do see many of the points that seem to fit, but i also see some flaws.

most people see the biggest problem of this theory being the current image the game has gotten through 1 way or another, which is that every character will be in both versions without any strings attaches despite sakurai never really glarifying it further.


THIS alone can be a detrimental to their sales if they against this current image suddenly. if people feel like their expectations were crushed. there is definitely going to be some bad press to Nintendo, who seem to value having a good image towards consumers unlike some other companies like EA.

in short breaking this expectation of having every character right before or right after the 3ds release would be against The general style nintendo currently does their things. and if the last e3 didn't show enough honesty on how they represent their games then i cannot think of anything better.


i will note again that i am neutral. i simply tried to summarize what people seem to feeling right now alongside my personal feelings(with probable bias) on this fact.

True point, their image is somewhat at stake because of how people may have jumped to the conclusion that the final roster (including secret unlockables) will be the same for both versions. However, people might be angry if it were the case, but I will go out on a limb an assume it would only be a brief episode. Because honestly, we all love new characters, regardless of how they are obtained.

Sadly I could see myself buying a Wii U if there were unlockables (even if they were available as DLC later). If this wasn't the case, I'd never consider it, and I think this mindset is too much of a golden opportunity for Nintendo to let slip by. They establish a player base for a console they've been pushing for, and on a casual and competitive level (two birds with one stone, at the cost a brief outrage we would get over due to "yay new characters!").

 

[SwagzillaForilla]

@ TheRandomCities4 , I have a few problems with your theory, and I want to see if you can answer them. You mentioned before how Kid Icarus, Fire Emblem, and Xenoblade appeal more to Eastern audiences than Western ones, and I agree. However, since newcomers from those series (barring Shulk) have already been revealed, you're saying they won't be hidden or exclusive to the 3DS version at all: they'll be on both versions. So, according to this:

I'm going to sidestep here briefly to clarify something I feel I didn't in the original marketing theory. When I said that both versions could have different unlockable characters to be transferred from the Wii U version to the 3DS version (and vice-versa), I meant these would probably those few hidden unlockable characters---not the characters we will know before the 3DS launch. I think the characters known before the 3DS launch are going to be readily available in both versions. Whether some of these already known characters will be unlockable or not won't mean anything. I'm referring specifically to those characters that are hidden (or potentially made for the initial roster on one of the versions---the roster on one version before transferring the character data to and/or fro).

The 3DS exclusive characters would be Dr. Mario, Dark Pit, Bowser Jr. and Duck Hut? (This is under the assumption that Shulk is revealed before JP release, which seems likely.) Furthermore, you're implying that the Wii U exclusive characters will come from major Nintendo franchises hinted at in the E3 2013 trialer, and possibly include characters such as Dixie/K. Rool, Ridley, Bandana Dee, Krystal, etc. As far as East vs. West goes, I don't see the incentive. If the Wii U version's exclusive characters are such heavy hitters, then why would the 3DS exclusive characters be so sub-par? They don't even appeal to the East--the already revealed newcomers do.

TL;DR, It doesn't make sense for Dr. Mario, Dark Pit, Duck Hunt and Bowser Jr. to be the 3DS exclusive characters because they don't appeal to the East.

 

[Jellybat]

True point, their image is somewhat at stake because of how people may have jumped to the conclusion that the final roster (including secret unlockables) will be the same for both versions. However, people might be angry if it were the case, but I will go out on a limb an assume it would only be a brief episode. Because honestly, we all love new characters, regardless of how they are obtained.

Sadly I could see myself buying a Wii U if there were unlockables (even if they were available as DLC later). If this wasn't the case, I'd never consider it, and I think this mindset is too much of a golden opportunity for Nintendo to let slip by. They establish a player base for a console they've been pushing for, and on a casual and competitive level (two birds with one stone, at the cost a brief outrage we would get over due to "yay new characters!").

true. but you do have to factor in the lingering effect of this decision of breaking the image. Nintendo seems to be towards total isolation on Wii U(possibly even on purpose a bit) by Instead of trying to get 3rd party support. They will focus on amassing high quality first party titles on their consoles and attract buyers through reliable quality of their games and trust towards their consumers. Suddenly breaking the consumer trust might hurt their Long term Wii U plans more than we can easily just assume

sure. we smash fans will probably buy the game whatever strings nintendo might have attached, but will we still have the same level of trust we have towards Nintendo to buy something like Splatoon on launch?

at least that is my own take on their current plans with the Wii U

 

[TheRandomCities4]

TC, I have a few problems with your theory, and I want to see if you can answer them. You mentioned before how Kid Icarus, Fire Emblem, and Xenoblade appeal more to Eastern audiences than Western ones, and I agree. However, since newcomers from those series (barring Shulk) have already been revealed, you're saying they won't be hidden or exclusive to the 3DS version at all: they'll be on both versions. So, according to this:

The 3DS exclusive characters will be Dr. Mario, Dark Pit, Bowser Jr. and Duck Hut? (This is under the assumption that Shulk is revealed before JP release, which seems likely.) As far as East vs. West goes, I don't see the incentive. Furthermore, you're implying that the Wii U exclusive characters will come from major Nintendo franchises hinted at in the E3 2013 trialer, and possibly include characters such as Dixie/K. Rool, Ridley, Bandana Dee, Krystal, etc.. If the Wii U version's exclusive characters are such heavy hitters, then why would the 3DS exclusive characters be so sub-par? They don't even appeal to the East--the already revealed newcomers do.

TL;DR, It doesn't make sense for Dr. Mario, Dark Pit, Duck Hunt and Bowser Jr. to be the 3DS exclusive characters because they don't appeal to the East.

Right, which is why I also considered the idea of reveals that lead up to the 3DS version's release build marketing for the 3DS version already. They don't need the incentive because they already have it. The reveals we've had so far seem to cater more towards the East. Little Mac was probably just a "taste" of what's to come for the Wii U version. This is why it makes sense for the 3DS version to come first as well, for the marketing has focused on that version instead of the Wii U version.

As for the Wii U version, well, there's less time for reveals. In this sense, having unlockable characters as the further incentive is understandable from a marketing perspective---especially if they're from those franchises.

I wasn't trying to bundle the Wii U and 3DS versions together with this point---my context appears that I have. I apologize for the inconvenience.

Great points nonetheless! I shall find a way to clarify this in the OP. EDIT: Done

 

[GamerGuy09]

If this is real, that would really suck that u have to get a wiiu

Did you even read it? He says that the 3DS version would have DLC of the characters on Wii U.

 

[Phantom High]

My friend basically said this

...you guys didn't read the theory at all didn't you?

I did. That's why I said what I did. Theory's pretty far-reaching and doesn't sound like something Nintendo would do. It's predicated on the belief that characters are the only thing that sells Smash Bros. when that's patently false.

Um...i respect his opinion, but Smash's biggest appeal has always been about characters.

 

[NATGamer]

I really hope your theory is correct. I haven't been so interested in a theory for Smash 4 in awhile. Good work.

 

[Raykushi]

A theory supporting Krystal's inclusion? I am Raykushi, and I approve this message.

 

[Gene]

Why do I doubt this?


...Well, here's one reason:

Spoiler

"This has nothing to do with game development, I'm just showing off some figures"

Yet Charizard is solo and Dark Pit is playable. Could be a coincidence, but then again...

Here's another reason.

 

[TheRandomCities4]

My friend basically said this

I did. That's why I said what I did. Theory's pretty far-reaching and doesn't sound like something Nintendo would do. It's predicated on the belief that characters are the only thing that sells Smash Bros. when that's patently false.

Um...i respect his opinion, but Smash's biggest appeal has always been about characters.

I never said the characters were the only thing that sells Smash Bros. I was insinuating that characters are the biggest part of selling Smash.

Your friend's interpretation is a prime example of twisting someone's words.

 

[Sobreviviente]

I could consider it with any other companny, but this is nintendo, more importantly this is sakurai, and even more importantly THIS IS SMASH.

They sell games with gameplay, not with random exclusive characters who arent as important as the sacred quartet.

 

[Chase]

...The theory sounds so brilliant, yet idiotic at the same time, it makes way too much sense.

Hey can someone list me an order of when the newcomers were revealed? if my idea is crazy enough, then there is a decent chance the next reveal character is highly liked in the West.

• Villager
• Mega Man
• Wii Fit Trainer
• Rosalina and Luma
• Little Mac
• Greninja
• Mii Fighter
• Palutena
• Pac-Man
• Lucina
• Robin

That's all of them up to this point.