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

[Malkior7]

If the price is right I wouldn't mind paid DLC

 

[staindgrey]

Some of the most exciting moments with my favorite games have been centered around the release of DLC. I fully support paid DLC, so long as it isn't something that's available day one. Or rather close to it. (**** you, Marvel vs. Capcom 3.)

 

[Saikyoshi]

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.

And leave the additional animators, voice actors, and licensing fees unpaid? Like Sakurai said, even second-party characters (like Mewtwo) take a ton of paperwork.

 

[Moldy Clay]

I only really want DLC if they make it in packs with stages/characters/updates, kinda like what Street Fighter 4 did, but preferably cheaper. However, I'd like the OPTION to buy much cheaper individual things. Like, if I don't really like/want certain characters/stages, I don't want to have to buy them to get ones I -do- want.

If they make costumes, I would hope it is free, otherwise I am not paying for it.

And DLC would have to be crossbuy. Or game specific, if it isn't (so like, different characters/costumes),

In reality, I don't want ANY (paid) DLC for the purpose of not wanting to spend money, especially since it would likely be expensive.

But I mean, I know I'll get it anyway. Especially if it is cool stuff or characters I want. And if it comes out later on, to revive the game a little.

 

[Tino]

As long as I don't pay no more than $7.00, then I'm okay with having DLC for the game.

 

[Ragna22]

And leave the additional animators, voice actors, and licensing fees unpaid? Like Sakurai said, even second-party characters (like Mewtwo) take a ton of paperwork.

Those guys can still get payed with the money from game sales, I bring up Tekken Tag Tournament 2 again, all of that game's DLC was free and the additional content for that was 6 or 8 characters, an extra costume option for every character in the customization menu, a couple new stages, and perhaps what probably cost them the most to do, a Snoop Dogg stage with Snoop Dogg himself in the background WITH background music he sang himself as well.

If DLC like that can be free then I don't see why Smash Bros DLC shouldn't be free, especially since another great example is the Mercedes DLC for Mario Kart 8, that's comingout free and it's Nintendo working with a car company.

 

[leeprtr]

I don't think i would mind dlc, but if they have coin packs that you can buy, i will be ticked.

 

[TeaTwoTime]

The ideal scenario, in my opinion, is:
- Free DLC: Characters, stages and game modes. Anything that has an impact on gameplay.
- Paid DLC: Character costumes/skins, UI skins, etc. Anything purely cosmetic.

In my experience, buying skins for your favourite characters in games makes playing with what you've bought feel awesome. I'd pay just about anything for, say, a Great Lord costume for Lucina or the Civilian outfit for ZSS, and I'd play the heck out of them once I've got them.
I take issue with charging for content that affects how the game is played, though. I mean, I'd personally pay for just about any DLC released for Smash 4 because I've got the money, but with stuff like Global Smash Power which is affected by your performance in each game mode with each character, it starts to sound like people with money to spend have an advantage over people who don't. Any characters released as DLC could also be released alongside DLC costumes and the like, which would probably cover the costs of their implementation.

 

[Saikyoshi]

Those guys can still get payed with the money from game sales, I bring up Tekken Tag Tournament 2 again, all of that game's DLC was free and the additional content for that was 6 or 8 characters, an extra costume option for every character in the customization menu, a couple new stages, and perhaps what probably cost them the most to do, a Snoop Dogg stage with Snoop Dogg himself in the background WITH background music he sang himself as well.

If DLC like that can be free then I don't see why Smash Bros DLC shouldn't be free, especially since another great example is the Mercedes DLC for Mario Kart 8, that's comingout free and it's Nintendo working with a car company.

I'd like to point out that with MK8, Mercedes paid Nintendo, wanting it as an advertisement for their product. Like buying airtime on a TV broadcast.

I can't speak for Tekken, though, only because I don't know too much about that series.

 

[pupNapoleon]

If you do not want the DLC, do not get it.

My personal stance is that if you are going to be on this website counting down the time until the game releases, you can get a job for a couple of hours once or twice and throw down a few bucks to get the content which you would rather not exist at all, and don't even need to get if you are so adamant about it not existing at all.

I honestly do not understand why someone would rather it not exist at all- to me it seems either not trusting, or just incredibly selfish, and that upsets me. Non trusting in the idea that Sakurai would actually hold content back to sell it later (which, I get, it is a business.... others I'd agree with, I just do not think he would do that here). Or Selfish in the fact that they say 'If I dont want to pay the money for it, then no one should have it." I also do not understand why it would be free. If it is, great, but we are still supporting a company and livelihood of developers working hard to continue the efforts in this game.

I'm fairly certain we WILL get dlc; I believe it will cost money. I think that the DLC will be used as a means to support the paychecks of the people who will continue to balance the game after it is released.

 

[Crome]

Character dlc? No. Stage and costume dlc? I'd love it. Face it guys - DLC is a thing now. Games are going to have it.

 

[DatSmasher]

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.

Hmm still think it wouldn't be good for the game. They probably won't release an op chacaracter on purpose, but if they accidentally do, they would ruin the balance and make it pay to win. Would be cool if you could use them in for fun mode though. I would rather not see any in the for glory mode. If they do, poeple might feel at a disadvantage and poeple with dlc wouldn't use them because they want to win with equal odds.

 

[staindgrey]

Those guys can still get payed with the money from game sales, I bring up Tekken Tag Tournament 2 again, all of that game's DLC was free and the additional content for that was 6 or 8 characters, an extra costume option for every character in the customization menu, a couple new stages, and perhaps what probably cost them the most to do, a Snoop Dogg stage with Snoop Dogg himself in the background WITH background music he sang himself as well.

If DLC like that can be free then I don't see why Smash Bros DLC shouldn't be free, especially since another great example is the Mercedes DLC for Mario Kart 8, that's comingout free and it's Nintendo working with a car company.

Almost 100% of that DLC you mentioned was produced pre-release. What we're discussing here is post-release production, which isn't factored into the development costs of the main game and thus create additional costs past their original budget. A board of executives would not okay this unless there was some beneficial result promised (i.e. more money).

It's fully possible that Sakurai & co. could withhold some characters and release them later as Namco did with Tekken, but that doesn't strike me as something Sakurai would ever do. Any and all DLC, I believe, will be made entirely post release and will not be available for free. It's a completely different game plan.

 

[dezeray112]

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

Same here.

As I have mentioned in another thread, the only thing that is required to be free DLC is patching and balancing.

 

[BindingBlade]

More is more, ya.

 

[Saito]

Character's is the only one I have a problem with.

 

[Wyntir]

Paid dlc brings in additional funds for the programmers so they can deliver us more. I mean look at fps games (cod n battlefield ). All that dlc made the business boom. In mortal Kombat, dlc fighters were paid. Point is, it brings fresh competition. Something new for the pros to study after the game launches

 

[Second Power]

I'd want Paid DLC. Smash is very content reliant, so adding more is good.

 

[CatRaccoonBL]

I'm going to say it, I am totally fine with Day 1 DLC. I'm totally fine with any sort of paid DLC as long as it comes at a reasonable cost. I don't care when it comes out.

I'll happily pay it if the developers think they should get paid more for certain content and it's a nice cost.

So yes, I do prefer extra paid content.

 

[Silversun247]

DLC is an amazing thing, this will allow more things to come in a steady stream. See, what alot of people don't know is there is a period where the dev team sits in an office while the game gets localized and shipped and stuff, so instead of sitting there, losing money, they make DLC. If this DLC is finished quickly, it becomes Day-1 DLC. DLC allows for more maps, characters, and vanity even after the game is finished. Smash is going to played for a long time so releasing character and map packs every half year is an awesome idea. As much as I like free stuff, nothing is free. Balance and bugfixes arn't even free to make, they are just released to look good. I don't mind paying 5-10$ for a 1 or 2 balanced characters along with a few new items or map. Why people are so against characters and maps coming out past release puzzles me(if you are against these things being paid and want them free, your in this group).

Edit: My liitle explanation on D-1 DLC was becuase someone mention paying extra for basics and paying extra for extras.

 

[TeaTwoTime]

I think the only DLC that most people take issue with is content that is intentionally withheld from the main game so that they can release it as DLC and thereby grab some extra money with little effort.
I'm not sure how many companies actually do this, though.

 

[Silversun247]

I think the only DLC that most people take issue with is content that is intentionally withheld from the main game so that they can release it as DLC and thereby grab some extra money with little effort.
I'm not sure how many companies actually do this, though.

Yeah, that;s what im saying. Day 1 DLC doesn't mean its from the basic game and withheld, it just means it was made after inbetween the finished product and shipping. Alot of big DLCs from EA games are good examples of content taken out on purpose, though.

 

[mark welford]

maybe people don't have the money for paid DLC I certainly don't but that you guys rather pay for other content when it could be just with the game when you bring to the checkout line

 

[Andyjoe522]

maybe people don't have the money for paid DLC I certainly don't but that you guys rather pay for other content when it could be just with the game when you bring to the checkout line

As has been said before, that's under the false assumption that everything that is released as DLC is content that was finished prior to launch that's intentionally cut from the main game to sell separately. The reality is that Smash 4 isn't a fan mod that can be constantly updated as a work of love for no extra charge. This is a triple A game, being developed by a team of professionals, doing this to make a living. The game has to be released in a base form at some point, and that means that there's likely going to be content that can't be finished by the time the base game is released, or even content that isn't even thought of until after the game has gone gold. That's where DLC comes in. DLC, when used right, is a way to let ideas that couldn't be fleshed out in time for the deadline to be given a chance to see the light of day. Things like the Akaneia stage in Melee, or MewTwo and Roy in Brawl. That's the type of situation that DLC is made for. And lets face it guys, this type of thing can't always be free. Is it nice when it's free? Heck yeah! But as I said, this is content being made by people who are trying to build a livelihood out of what they're doing, not fans messing around with a mod in their spare time. As a career, they're putting time, effort and resources into making content, so it's only fare that consumers should pay for it if they want to receive it. Developers should in no way feel obligated to make DLC free.

 

[Ganonthegreat]

Give me DLC I say.

Sakurai is a man of ethics, and there's no way he would hold back a character or a stage to use as DLC. What I would not be surprised with is if after release he started work on DLC, and that's what I expect to happen too.

 

[Capt. Butt Stallion]

As long as the game has already been released when they start making DLC, I have absolutely no problem with purchasing it. I hate DLC when they have it ready before launch so they can suck some more blood out of you, but if they add content months after release I have absolutely no complain.

 

[CannaFizz]

There's two different kinds of DLC; additional content, and withheld content.

Additional content is made after the game's development cycle is completed (not necessarily after release), specifically budgeted as such, and wouldn't exist in the first place if DLC weren't an option. Without this content, the original game is still a complete package. The term 'expansion pack' comes to mind, although that's seldom used nowadays. There is nothing wrong with this.

Withheld content is stuff that's already completed with the rest of the game, that is already part of the original package, but is locked behind a paywall. This is generally a really uncool practice and serves no purpose other than nickel and diming players. Contrary to what a lot of people believe, I don't think players necessarily have a right to use every single thing that comes on the disc, but selling a game for 60 bucks and then a withheld character/feature for another 5 is kind of a scummy practice in my eyes.

I would be happy to see actual new DLC, and I would gladly pay for it. I don't think the chances of that happening are very high, though.

 

[Morbi]

More content, no contest. It is of my belief that if you do not want to purchase the DLC, you do not. No need to let your narcissism plague other people.

 

[Lukingordex]

If smash 4 ends up getting DLCs that you have to pay for it, i hope said DLCs doesn't involve modifications that are relevant for the competitive scene, such as new characters, stages and balance patchs. Those kind of modifications should be rightfully free.

I have no problem with cosmetic stuff though.

 

[MasterOfKnees]

Smash is one of those games where I'd be willing to fork out money to get almost every piece of additional content. I wouldn't pay for stand-alone stages unless they're competitively viable, but you can bet ya I'd pay for characters, costumes and modes.

 

[Lukingordex]

I'd pay for characters

This is what scares me, that would turn smash into a "pay to win" game, which is the factor i most hate in gaming story.

 

[MasterOfKnees]

This is what scares me, that would turn smash into a "pay to win" game, which is the factor i most hate in gaming story.

Only if they suck at balancing or intentionally make the DLC characters the best, otherwise it won't be pay to win.

 

[BigShad]

I would prefer paid DLC in the form of just some extra, fun stages or in the form of fun modes, trophies, music, etc.

Paid DLC in the form of characters, however, is something I have to disagree with 100%. The characters are something everyone should have access to, and should be as balanced as the rest of the cast.

 

[Lukingordex]

Since I have no idea how could I put my exactly opinion in words, I'm going to ask a question for your guys:

Would a character, which the only way to get him is by paying for a DLC, be allowed in the competitive scene?

Don't focus exactly on asking that question, but think about the discussion it could create:

No one is obligated to spend money in a DLC, right? Then why would the person that didn't buy it have the obligation to know the matchup of that character? Also, that same person wouldn't have the chance to train that same character unless the DLC is bought.

Even if that character isn't broken, the fact that the person who don't want to pay for DLCs would risk having a disadvantage in the competitive scene due to the reason above is still present. This sounds similar to what where calling "pay to win", but changing the word "win" to "have a advantage".

 

[Niala]

I guess the answer to your question depends quite heavily on whether or not I'd have to buy the DLC on both versions. It would be ridiculous to have to, and if that were the case, then begone with it.

However, the more likely scenario that DLC would be purchased and applicable to both versions, would be fine to me. Nintendo tends to release large chunks of DLC together, so we'd probably get a new stage and character bundled (with new music for the stage and the like) for 20 bucks. Really expensive given we got 50 for 60 bucks, but I might do it anyway.

 

[STiCKYBULL3TZ]

I'm not really with paid DLC. I rarely ever get it even for games I really enjoy. But for Smash? I'd only be willing to pay for new characters. Stages, items, and costumes I could live without.

 

[Nintendrone]

After playing the hell out of Smash, I'd always wished there was a way to get new content of any sort. This is the main reason I got PM, not for making the game like Melee. I'd pay for pretty much any new content that comes to this game, unless it's an overpriced costume for a character I don't care about. I will gladly spend some money on one of my favorite games to expand it.

 

[Raijinken]

Since I have no idea how could I put my exactly opinion in words, I'm going to ask a question for your guys:

Would a character, which the only way to get him is by paying for a DLC, be allowed in the competitive scene?

Don't focus exactly on asking that question, but think about the discussion it could create:

No one is obligated to spend money in a DLC, right? Then why would the person that didn't buy it have the obligation to know the matchup of that character? Also, that same person wouldn't have the chance to train that same character unless the DLC is bought.

Even if that character isn't broken, the fact that the person who don't want to pay for DLCs would risk having a disadvantage in the competitive scene due to the reason above is still present. This sounds similar to what where calling "pay to win", but changing the word "win" to "have a advantage".

I imagine that some tournaments would allow them, and some wouldn't, much like most other rulesets and variants. It would be similar to going to a tournament that runs an abnormal stage as "legal", except instead of having simply chosen to ignore the stage when practicing, you'd be slightly more justified in having not wanted to spend money on something that you wouldn't expect to be legal.

 

[YoshiandToad]

Paid DLC. Providing prices aren't stupid.

It'll keep the game fresh for the 7 years we're going to have to wait until the next one. As a Smash fan who is greatly older than the majority of you here I can't afford to keep waiting for 7-8 years for each slow release as my gaming and social time is going to be less and less.

 

[Yodude57]

Why are people saying they don't want characters? That would be awesome! How could you not want new characters!?

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!).

Glad to here that movie was good! I'm going to see it this weekend!