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

[Yodude57]

Accidental double post.

 

[Raijinken]

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

If the character is paid-only and appears to be objectively overpowered, then a valid case can be made for not wanting that character to exist in the first place.

I tried phrasing the poll for the extremes, but people ended up replying with the situationals anyways. Basically, most people want more content, no one wants it to give a payer anything unfair, whether it's a character or any other sort of advantage.

 

[Renji64]

I rather just pay my 60 and call it a day.

 

[Yodude57]

I rather just pay my 60 and call it a day.

Lucky you're getting the wii u version... But at least I will have PORTABLE SMASH POWER!

 

[TheUltraDeino]

Here's how I think dlc should be handled:
*Expansion packs, maybe 2 characters, 1-2 stages per version, some new items/pokemon/assists, some alt costumes, and maybe a new mode too.
*Using cross-compatibility, connecting one system to the other will make it so you can have the dlc in both versions
*You can toggle on/off the dlc in With Anyone

 

[LeeYawshee]

I'm honestly fine with paid DLC, so long as it's not characters. It's not right that not everyone gets to experience every character just because they lack a little bit of money.

 

[vgspud]

No paid DLC. The beauty of smash is that anyone who puts the time in can unlock everything and get good. I don't want a pay wall for casual players looking to take the game seriously.

 

[Super FOG]

I still prefer to believe that Nintendo will make fully complete and extremely fun games that will make us to play hours and hours without the need of DLC.

And if people complain about growing tired of using the same characters all the time, these people didn't really liked the game! Just look at Melee, people still play this game even after 13 years of its release. Does people have an idea of what is play a game after THIRTEEN years of the release?

 

[SmasherP83]

I really don't mind. All long as it's not overpriced...

 

[D-idara]

I'd rather have more characters for those who can afford them that not have extra characters at all? What kind of mindset is not wanting something because everyone can't have it?

 

[pupNapoleon]

If others don't want to pay any money (yet will waste time on a forum), they can keep themselves from extra content. Yet they can not be selfish and allow others to have content.
It's a perfect example of "I don't want it, so no one else can have it."

No excuse really makes up for it.

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".

This is where I have the biggest issue.
Anything you attempt in life has resources devoted to it. If you play basketball, you need shoes, a ball, clothing- that isn't stuff that is free, even if it is your mom or your coach that happens to buy it for you. If you want to compete, you need to pay for these things to practice with it. (or steal it, whatever- you acquire the resources)
Why would a Smash competitive scene be any different? There is no logical connection here. A tournament player is responsible for making sure he or she is doing all possible to achieve maximum potential.
If anything, it diminishes the competitive scene to make the proclamation you do.

Also, this does not make it PAY TO PLAY. Pay to play is where you get better benefit continually by micropurchasing. It is not a one time purchasing on a character. Others have covered the topic better, but I will be happy to spell it out if I need to.

I'm honestly fine with paid DLC, so long as it's not characters. It's not right that not everyone gets to experience every character just because they lack a little bit of money.

Hmm... I think that said person will get 8 dollars to purchase a character, before I will get the 8 years of my life back waiting for the next smash game to come out.
He could get it a lot faster if he got off this forum for an hour and did chores or any minimum wage job.

 

[BlurB]

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.

Big additions to the game like characters, assist trophies, stages all take up lots of development assets. I think of they were just different costumes that's okay to be free cause that's just changing a few textures and models. Other changes however take lots of people to complete therefore money.

 

[pupNapoleon]

I'm just going to say something to everyone.

DLC is going to happen, and it is going to have characters. While there is a possibility that some of these may be free, it probably won't all be free. All you negative Nancy's who, for whatever reason, do not want anyone to have more characters because in this exact moment you cannot fathom spending an extra couple of bucks, should start to warm up to it. I think you will, once the final roster is out, and you want more characters.

How can I be sure? Just look at how Nintendo is marketing this game. Think for just a second at how much money even a three dollar character would earn them. Imagine, even more, how much hype any new character would incite. Consider how perfect Smash is as a way to market these new franchises coming out (particularly Splatoon) which Nintendo wants to insure are a success. It is also just a great way to market the new games coming out in general. All the attention Smash has gotten, the tournaments, the directs, the treehouse, the roundtable- the fact that it single handedly won E3--- it all means something, and Nintendo is aware.

*I think Third Party characters are very likely candidates for DLC as well. It could easily be "Your Cost, our terms," and third parties could pay for the development cost, for a chance for their characters. I don't think all will make the cut, but I do think a couple might, and I believe one very easily might be Rayman, being potentially worked on now (if he is not in the game).

 

[OmegaZoroark]

Personally, I would like DLC. It would allow some of my favorite characters, like Zoroark, and Mewtwo to be playable, and I'd totally pay for it.

 

[OmegaZoroark]

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?

Yep. WHYYY CRAPCOM!

 

[Shuckle89]

Well, I'd definitely love dlc. No matter the prize. But, I only care about characters, really. I definitely would never buy music, stickers, skins or whatever. Stages very unlikely, but, it depends on the stage. Even if music, stickers etc would be free I wouldn't. Well, skins maybe, if they were free. But for chars I'd pay a lot.

 

[TeaTwoTime]

Well, I'd definitely love dlc. No matter the prize. But, I only care about characters, really. I definitely would never buy music, stickers, skins or whatever. Stages very unlikely, but, it depends on the stage. Even if music, stickers etc would be free I wouldn't. Well, skins maybe, if they were free. But for chars I'd pay a lot.

Never underestimate the ability of skins to burn a hole in your wallet.

 

[Raijinken]

Never underestimate the ability of skins to burn a hole in your wallet.

Just ask Valve. Hats make the big bucks. Especially if you implement support for community-made hats.

 

[Shuckle89]

Never underestimate the ability of skins to burn a hole in your wallet.

Well, for others perhaps, but I wouldn't.

 

[MachoCheeze]

Of course DLC would be great! I don't get how anyone could be against it.

Plus, it's Nintendo. It's not like they'd price the DLC crazily or anything. At most it'd probably be like... $15?

 

[KieRanaRan]

The amount of support for DLC here saddens me. I miss the days when you paid full price for a game that required you to unlock extra content through playing and that was it. Nowadays it seems you're only able to experience all a game has to offer if your wallet's big enough.

 

[Capt. Butt Stallion]

The amount of support for DLC here saddens me. I miss the days when you paid full price for a game that required you to unlock extra content through playing and that was it. Nowadays it seems you're only able to experience all a game has to offer if your wallet's big enough.

The thing is most of us who support DLC only support post-launch DLC. That is, DLC that started being developed after the game was fully finished.

I wouldn't purchase DLC if it was cut from the game to sell it separately, but I'm willing to pay for extra content that extends the life of a game that is already complete without it.

 

[TryHardOliver]

I say pack ALL CONTENT in so they can't even make DLC! :D

 

[TryHardOliver]

And didn't Sakurai say that there won't be any DLC?

 

[linszoid]

The amount of support for DLC here saddens me. I miss the days when you paid full price for a game that required you to unlock extra content through playing and that was it. Nowadays it seems you're only able to experience all a game has to offer if your wallet's big enough.

You mean the old days when companies would charge you for expansions?

 

[Raijinken]

And didn't Sakurai say that there won't be any DLC?

Sakurai said that they (at the time of the interview) did not have current plans for DLC, but that they were not opposed to the idea.

 

[Shuckle89]

Sakurai said that they (at the time of the interview) did not have current plans for DLC, but that they were not opposed to the idea.

which sounds to me like a good thing. It means that they do not intentionally leave out some stuff so they can get more money for it. If they do DLC, it's probably real additional stuff they couldn't put in the time they had left.

 

[Raijinken]

which sounds to me like a good thing. It means that they do not intentionally leave out some stuff so they can get more money for it. If they do DLC, it's probably real additional stuff they couldn't put in the time they had left.

One can hope. I'd still be most favorable towards reskin packs and music. I'd still prefer characters be free, but I'd pay nonetheless. Stages, too, or perhaps stage reskins.