Which would you prefer? Extra paid content, or no extra content?

[Raijinken]

In other words:
Would you rather there be DownLoadable Content (assuming it avoids pay-to-win character situations etc), or to not get additional content at all? If DLC were the only way they would do new characters/stages/whatevers, would you still pay for it/get it/whatever, or would you rather they didn't make the content in the first place if it's only available for more money?

Personally, I would (most likely) prefer to get the extra content, even if I have to pay for it. Though ultimately it would depend on what the content was (Stages and whatnot I'd probably get, but costumes/music/whatever would just depend. Might grab some favorites and ignore the rest)

Not that they would, or should, restrict it thus, but I'm interested to see what people would choose, given the extremes.

 

[Tangamanga]

I'd rather not get DLC, it tends to be annoyingly expensive here in Mexico -shrugs-

 

[Aureola]

I don't really want paid DLC. If it's free it's fine, but I'd rather not have to pay for extra characters. I already got most of Awakening's DLC. I'd rather not go out and buy more.

 

[Super FOG]

I normally loathe to see DLCs being released for a game with less than 6 months of its releasing.

I don't want small DLC pieces, I want huge and fully loaded expansion packs. And stuff like alternative costumes and color swaps should be distributed for free alongside balancing updates.

 

[Raijinken]

I don't really want paid DLC. If it's free it's fine, but I'd rather not have to pay for extra characters. I already got most of Awakening's DLC. I'd rather not go out and buy more.

I agree on characters, but only from the stance of fairness for gameplay. I don't think I'd have the willpower to avoid getting stages/music/costumes/whatever if they were made. And I'd rather, pending the release so we can see the full content extent, get more content over time than have a static game.

I normally loathe to see DLCs being released for a game with less than 6 months of its releasing.

I don't want small DLC pieces, I want huge and fully loaded expansion packs. And stuff like alternative costumes and color swaps should be distributed for free alongside balancing updates.

I could see costumes and things being the main type of reasonable DLC, as it's strictly cosmetic (even if I'd rather have it for free). Similarly, I could see them adding new or past stages in stage packs. Characters are where I think they should either give them out free, or just not make new ones.

Even if it was framed as an expansion and came with tons of content, it would create a divide between the people who had the old stages/roster/stuff and those who had the new, unless it was at least cross-playable in multiplayer.

 

[Reila]

DLC for fighting games are, for the most part, totally worth the value. So yes, I support (paid) DLC for Smash.

 

[strawhatninja]

I would want DLC it is optional after all, and can only add more to an already great game. The game will be complete so I don't see why people say they don't want DLC. People will buy it, but you don't have to and you will still have a complete game.

 

[Aureola]

I would want DLC it is optional after all, and can only add more to an already great game. The game will be complete so I don't see why people say they don't want DLC. People will buy it, but you don't have to and you will still have a complete game.

I think most of the problems people have with it is that they have to pay more money to get stuff they feel should already be in the game. I don't see people complain about free DLC.

 

[strawhatninja]

I think most of the problems people have with it is that they have to pay more money to get stuff they feel should already be in the game. I don't see people complain about free DLC.

Yeah free DLC is great and all, but usually free stuff isn't characters or major expansions to the game. I can see why people feel like they would be missing stuff that should be in the main game, but if the developers ran out of time and couldn't make a character that somebody really wants. Wouldn't you rather have them add the character later then not get your character at all? This happened in Brawl with my favorite character Mewtwo, and I know he would've been in the game if Sakurai didn't run out of time.

 

[dimensionsword64]

I used to want DLC, but I've thought more about it, and now I don't want it.

 

[ChikoLad]

As long as it's actually something that's worked on and finished after the game releases, or something arbitrary, I don't mind paid DLC.

But regardless of what DLC the game has, I will likely get it.

 

[Tangamanga]

Hmm, that's a valid point too, but didn't they already delay ssb to polish it further and add more content? DLC is nice, but then again focusing too much of it makes me remember EA -shudders-

If the DLC they add is purely cosmetic I would be fine with it, but let's see what'll happen when the game is released

 

[ChikoLad]

Another point is that stuff like character or outfit DLC needs to be cross-buy, like it was for PS All-Stars.

 

[DatSmasher]

As long as they're not usable in the online mode, it would be cool. Given they won't release a half game because of the dlc. I would probably buy them all. It may sound stupid, but how cool would it be if you could download characters from games that weren't released yet when the game was released? Just imagine downloading Chrom from Fire Emblem on Brawl right now. Would be sooo hype. Perfect for a game like Smash especially, since poeple keep playing for years after the release. I'm not really interested in DLC for other games, since I'm not interested in them anymore.
They won't do this though. They'll probably let us download trophies.

 

[TerminalMontage]

Nintendo DLC is the only DLC I would like to pay for, I'm just begging Nintendo to give me more reasons to make me give them my money!

 

[Aunt Jemima]

I honestly think that DLC would be fine. However, for DLC, I would only like to see Stages, Music, or Alternate Costumes. Having characters or extra game modes as DLC would be a bit un-fair.

 

[strawhatninja]

As long as they're not usable in the online mode, it would be cool. Given they won't release a half game because of the dlc. I would probably buy them all. It may sound stupid, but how cool would it be if you could download characters from games that weren't released yet when the game was released? Just imagine downloading Chrom from Fire Emblem on Brawl right now. Would be sooo hype. Perfect for a game like Smash especially, since poeple keep playing for years after the release. I'm not really interested in DLC for other games, since I'm not interested in them anymore.
They won't do this though. They'll probably let us download trophies.

I'm sure they would patch the game, so that the characters would work well online. Also I really hope they won't let us download trophies, because I really like to earn them myself and it reminds me too much of play to win or avoid challenges.

 

[Backgammon]

Give me alternate costumes or stages and I'll be happy to buy. If there's characters, they best be balanced. Having a repeat of what happened with PS All Stars is not acceptable.

 

[Fyrefox]

I don't really want paid DLC. If it's free it's fine, but I'd rather not have to pay for extra characters. I already got most of Awakening's DLC. I'd rather not go out and buy more.

It doesn't have to just be characters, it could be all sorts of things. Such as, alternative costumes, stages, and trophies.

 

[Johnknight1]

How would having more paid DLC hurt anyone=???

It's literally the dumbest question.

On top of that, it gives some of the lower level Smash WiiU and 3DS development team members a chance to get paid more, which honestly they're the ones that need more pay.

It also makes the wait between Smash games feel less long.

Sorry, but waiting over 4 years for a Brawl trailer and waiting over 5 years for a Smash 5 trailer is no fun with no new stuff in between.

Regardless, I'd rather see them go the multiple seasons of DLC/expansion pack route. An all-in-one package gives everyone involved a lot more of what they want.

Edit: People also don't understand that around 6 weeks before a release a title goes gold. In that time, the developers generally do nothing and don't get paid for whatever work they might do. Making DLC for that (free or otherwise) is a proper way to spend their time IMO.

 

[Super Writer]

I'm only fine with paid DLC when it's not a typical Capcom case, you know, 10 characters locked away until they are paid for then blaming leakers for ruining a "special surprise" isn't cool.

I would like to pay extra for extra slices with my full pizza, not pay extra for slices that should have completed it. But if extra slices are free, that's cool.

 

[Raijinken]

How would having more paid DLC hurt anyone=???

It's literally the dumbest question.

I don't think it would, I just know some people who would rather them not make the content at all if they're just going to charge us for it after we've bought the game. Most of the responses my friends have given me amount to "It had better not become pay to win in any way, but heck yes I would". A few would rather there be no new content than the game become pay2win (due to a character or whatever being purchase only).

 

[Deleted member]

I'd rather have free DLC, but that's just me. I would pay for one though.

 

[The-Power-Within]

I'd pay for DLC if I had to. Of course, I would rather get free DLC, but paid works, I guess.

 

[Booster]

As long as it's not On Disc, otherwise...*gets out the hacker's tools and diet mountain dew* Diet because I'm diabetic.

 

[strawhatninja]

As long as it's not On Disc, otherwise...*gets out the hacker's tools and diet mountain dew* Diet because I'm diabetic.

Haha if this was Capcom we were talking about your exactly right.

 

[Booster]

Haha if this was Capcom we were talking about your exactly right.

Would you believe when IGN found out people were hacking Street Fighter x Tekken to get the on disc DLC that IGN said "Oh no" and they were on Crapcom's side?

 

[Scourge The Hedgehog]

As mentioned above Alternate Costumes/Outfits would be great. Wouldn't be interested in DLC though overall. Maybe balance patches but that's why Bandai Namco/Namco Bandai (however people want to say it) is assisting with the game.

 

[Raijinken]

As mentioned above Alternate Costumes/Outfits would be great. Wouldn't be interested in DLC though overall. Maybe balance patches but that's why Bandai Namco/Namco Bandai (however people want to say it) is assisting with the game.

I'm really hoping for balance patches regardless, as that can fix the issues Melee and Brawl had with roster viability.

Nandai or Bamco.

 

[Johnknight1]

I don't think it would, I just know some people who would rather them not make the content at all if they're just going to charge us for it after we've bought the game. Most of the responses my friends have given me amount to "It had better not become pay to win in any way, but heck yes I would". A few would rather there be no new content than the game become pay2win (due to a character or whatever being purchase only).

...you and your friends have no idea what "pay 2 win" means.

Pay to win means you have to pay more to win. That don't involve characters.

In most fighting games where there's DLC characters, you can download a patch to where you can play people who have those characters as DLC if you don't.

Also, generally speaking, games are more expensive to make now more than ever. $60 now is worth less than $49 9 years ago. Adding say $20 of content post-release that was pushed back due to delays (after such a giant game that had over a year of pre-production and roughly 3 years of production, both of which are higher than most) and cost tens of millions of dollars to make isn't a bad deal at all.

In fact, if we got it after Melee or Brawl came out, we would have loved, loved, loved it.

 

[Ragna22]

Why not make content free? Nintendo's been doing that more than most other companies these days anyway, hell just do what Tekken Tag Tournament 2 did where all the extra content came free with patch updates.

 

[Potpourri]

Any type of DLC is fine in my opinion. Most people here act like paid DLC is the worst thing to ever happen. They have to get paid somehow you know.

 

[Ragna22]

Any type of DLC is fine in my opinion. Most people here act like paid DLC is the worst thing to ever happen. They have to get paid somehow you know.

While I agree with you about any kind of DLC, payed or not, I can't say I agree with your second statement, companies are already getting payed for the games they make, they don't NEED DLC to get payed it's just a business strategy to get more money out of their work, DLC wasn't around during the NES days and companies like Nintendo and Capcom are still breathing today, granded Capcom is kind of in a comma but whether or not they recover depends on whether or not they change their strategy.

 

[Aureola]

Any type of DLC is fine in my opinion. Most people here act like paid DLC is the worst thing to ever happen. They have to get paid somehow you know.

I don't think it's the worst thing to ever happen. I just don't want to spend at least $40 to get DLC for both versions, considering how I have separate NNIDs for the 3DS and WiiU.

 

[Raijinken]

...you and your friends have no idea what "pay 2 win" means.

Pay to win means you have to pay more to win. That don't involve characters.

If, for instance, Metaknight in his Brawl strength was available strictly as paid DLC, then buying him would give you an advantage that a non-purchaser would not have, thus making it pay to win. Not that I wouldn't buy it anyway to expand the roster, but anything like that is typically frowned upon, regardless of game or genre.

I'm fully fine with any other sort of DLC, I just think characters should be either free, or at least shared across linked systems for the duration of the link.

 

[Johnknight1]

If, for instance, Metaknight in his Brawl strength was available strictly as paid DLC, then buying him would give you an advantage that a non-purchaser would not have, thus making it pay to win. Not that I wouldn't buy it anyway to expand the roster, but anything like that is typically frowned upon, regardless of game or genre.

I'm fully fine with any other sort of DLC, I just think characters should be either free, or at least shared across linked systems for the duration of the link.

That Meta Knight system will never happen in Smash, lol. In other words, you should stop worrying about it being bad DLC, lol.

DLC wasn't around during the NES days and companies like Nintendo and Capcom are still breathing today, granded Capcom is kind of in a comma but whether or not they recover depends on whether or not they change their strategy.

Back in the NES days games sold for $60-$100 (which is roughly $100-$260 today [I used a monetary calculator comparing 2014 to 1985 and 1990 [I could have used 1983 and 1984 and it would have been drastically lower]), the teams making the games were usually a handful of people, and the budget was insanely small.

Nowadays games cost far more money to make (with or without inflation), and a game like Smash Bros. requires at least 200 full-time staff and well over $50 million for marketing and producing the game.

So, considering that, and considering how you could easily get 10 hours of entertainment for every dollar you spent on Smash WiiU, I don't see why it's worth complaining about when it costs $10 to see a movie in theaters these days (although Guardians of the Galaxy was totally worth it!).

 

[mark welford]

keep the smash tradition of UC(unlockable content) no DLC I am sure I am not the only one who got a rush out of unlocking characters buying them would be no fun because there is nothing like the sense of accomplishment

 

[Raijinken]

That Meta Knight system will never happen in Smash, lol. In other words, you should stop worrying about it being bad DLC, lol.

Oh, trust me, if there is one company I trust to do DLC right, it's Nintendo. I'm always paranoid until it actually happens, though.

 

[Ragna22]

That Meta Knight system will never happen in Smash, lol. In other words, you should stop worrying about it being bad DLC, lol.

Back in the NES days games sold for $60-$100 (which is roughly $100-$260 today [I used a monetary calculator comparing 2014 to 1985 and 1990 [I could have used 1983 and 1984 and it would have been drastically lower]), the teams making the games were usually a handful of people, and the budget was insanely small.

Nowadays games cost far more money to make (with or without inflation), and a game like Smash Bros. requires at least 200 full-time staff and well over $50 million for marketing and producing the game.

So, considering that, and considering how you could easily get 10 hours of entertainment for every dollar you spent on Smash WiiU, I don't see why it's worth complaining about when it costs $10 to see a movie in theaters these days (although Guardians of the Galaxy was totally worth it!).

You say that but Brawl had a lot going on too, two sets of third party content, I think 150 or so compsers for the music, ect. Granted Smash 4 is on a much higher scale but still, so much content went into Brawl.

I do see where you're getting at though and I can definitely see that being the case but I feel like as long as the game is good enough that it sells the console like crazy, payed DLC probably isn't necessary, just look at Mario Kart 8, yeah payed DLC might come later but we've gone three or four months with the game now and it doesn't have any extra content to pay for and the only upcoming DLC we know of is going to be free, and hell even though we don't know of any DLC for Smash 4 I think the Amiibos will do just fine backing up Nintendo in terms of money.

 

[Saikyoshi]

I'm not turning down paid DLC if the price is reasonable.

If said paid DLC is Mewtwo, any price is reasonable.