Why we won't have DLC

[KingKirb]

I may be wrong on this one, but I feel like it wouldn't make sense for Nintendo to offer characters or stages in the form of DLC. The best case scenario is new costumes.

- It would make the game imbalanced for people who didn't have the DLC characters/stages
- It would create effort for Nintendo to develop new characters/stages when they could just make a new game.
- New characters/stages are basically the selling point of the smash bros series, it wouldn't make sense for Nintendo to give them to us in DLC.


Just my opinion. New costumes would be cool though. Maybe new stages. I just don't see new characters happening.

On a side note, balancing patches would be really nice

 

[Rocket Raccoon]

I don't see characters but maybe a new feature for the 3DS where your Pokemon on X/Y come out of PokeBalls and attack. (If the 3DS has DLC.)

I feel like costumes and some more music are the way to go.

 

[GreenReaperGod]

I'm pretty sure there is already a DLC related thread, but I get your point.

 

[Chimera]

I may be wrong on this one, but I feel like it wouldn't make sense for Nintendo to offer characters or stages in the form of DLC. The best case scenario is new costumes.

- It would make the game imbalanced for people who didn't have the DLC characters/stages
- It would create effort for Nintendo to develop new characters/stages when they could just make a new game.
- New characters/stages are basically the selling point of the smash bros series, it wouldn't make sense for Nintendo to give them to us in DLC.


Just my opinion. New costumes would be cool though. Maybe new stages. I just don't see new characters happening.

On a side note, balancing patches would be really nice

I don't think the game would be unbalanced because someone didn't have a character. Particularly if they could still fight the character online even if they didn't have it. As for the stage, they simply wouldn't be able to play that stage.

It would take less effort to make a character or stage than an entire game. Sometimes it good to save those elements for a new game, but if Nintendo plans on waiting six years between Smash games, frequent updates (even Capcom-style Upgrade releases) would be great for keeping the game active and frequently an item of attention for the Wii U and the fans.

I disagree on your third point as well. Because they are selling points, it makes sense to sell them to us. If it costs Nintendo 1 million dollars to create a new character (hopefully that's a high estimate), and they sell it to us for 3 dollars, with 2 million buyers, they just profited 5 million dollars. Makes some business sense to me.

And yes balancing patches would be very nice.

 

[DaDavid]

I'm pretty positive balance patches will be a thing.

Now, I know Nintendo has made DLC up to this point, but I don't think I it's ever been anything other than single-player modes or expansions. Someone correct me if I'm wrong?

I don't totally write out the possibility of character DLC, since it is a good business decision and would add a lot of time to the game depending on how often and for how long they trickle it out, but I sort of anticipate DLC being either event matches, adventure mode stages, or something like that.

 

[pitthekit]

I'm pretty positive balance patches will be a thing.

Now, I know Nintendo has made DLC up to this point, but I don't think I it's ever been anything other than single-player modes or expansions. Someone correct me if I'm wrong?

I don't totally write out the possibility of character DLC, since it is a good business decision and would add a lot of time to the game depending on how often and for how long they trickle it out, but I sort of anticipate DLC being either event matches, adventure mode stages, or something like that.

Hmm balance patches would be a godsend to smash 4.

 

[Superyoshiom]

I don't see characters but maybe a new feature for the 3DS where your Pokemon on X/Y come out of PokeBalls and attack. (If the 3DS has DLC.)

I feel like costumes and some more music are the way to go.

I like this idea a lot.

 

[Mysteltainn]

I'm pretty positive balance patches will be a thing.

Now, I know Nintendo has made DLC up to this point, but I don't think I it's ever been anything other than single-player modes or expansions. Someone correct me if I'm wrong?

I don't totally write out the possibility of character DLC, since it is a good business decision and would add a lot of time to the game depending on how often and for how long they trickle it out, but I sort of anticipate DLC being either event matches, adventure mode stages, or something like that.

I can see this being the case. I could potentially see new events or balance patches or even costumes being available, all they'd need to do is implement a patch check to block or highly recommend users trying to connect to SSB4 lobbies that did not patch yet to do so to avoid errors.

All I'm really hoping for though is a better internet experience than Brawl. If it ends up being anything like the Mario Karts have been lately, it'll be golden.

 

[Renji64]

DLC would be dope later on down the line one can dream but sakurai does seem smash games take alot out of him so who knows. Hoping for patches but where will sakurai get legit feedback? can't find that on miiverse for sure.

 

[DaDavid]

DLC would be dope later on down the line one can dream but sakurai does seem smash games take alot out of him so who knows. Hoping for patches but where will sakurai get legit feedback? can't find that on miiverse for sure.

That is a source of worry, but maybe the way to go with it is for the type of people who actually can offer good feedback (us I guess?) to just be more active on Miiverse? Plus even if it turns out that Sakurai himself turns something of a blind eye to the competitive that may or may not start to develop, I'm sure the people at Bamco would be at least moderately aware? Who knows though.

 

[UltimateWario]

(even Capcom-style Upgrade releases).

Please God no. I don't want to have to buy the same game sixteen times, only to find out that a newer one is coming out in a week. Besides, we all know where Capcom's "amazing" business practices have landed them.

 

[DaDavid]

Please God no. I don't want to have to buy the same game sixteen times, only to find out that a newer one is coming out in a week. Besides, we all know where Capcom's "amazing" business practices have landed them.

Yeah that's worst case-scenario. I can at the least be confident that Nintendo won't pull that on us.

 

[HammerHappy]

I'll be disgusted with Nintendo if they sell downloadable characters.

As for DC in the form of balance patches, there's no valid reason why this shouldn't be a thing. Especially with time constraints plaguing the devs. So far I've heard "Pros would have to get used to the change again" and "We would have to remake the tiers", which is ridiculous.

 

[smashbro29]

I'll be disgusted with Nintendo if they sell downloadable characters.

As for DC in the form of balance patches, there's no valid reason why this shouldn't be a thing. Especially with time constraints plaguing the devs. So far I've heard "Pros would have to get used to the change again" and "We would have to remake the tiers", which is ridiculous.

Yes how dare they take time after the game gets out to give us more. Those jerks!

 

[HammerHappy]

Yes how dare they take time after the game gets out to give us more. Those jerks!

"Man, I love how companies release a game they haven't finished so they can nickel and dime their dedicated players because they want to experience all the content available. Really shows that they care."

If Nintendo ends up released DLC characters/stages, they should and probably will be free. This is under the assumption that they would do something like that, which is pretty out of character for a company that shows a great deal of care and dedication to their flagship titles. They're better than that.

If they even do priced downloadable content, skins should be it. And I don't even like that (and again, I doubt Nintendo would do it) because games who rely on cosmetics to profit tend to trash the aesthetic value of the game, something they're clearly putting stock into for SSB4.

Look at what happened to TF2.

 

[smashbro29]

"Man, I love how companies release a game they haven't finished so they can nickel and dime their dedicated players because they want to experience all the content available. Really shows that they care."

If Nintendo ends up released DLC characters/stages, they should and probably will be free. This is under the assumption that they would do something like that, which is pretty out of character for a company that shows a great deal of care and dedication to their flagship titles. They're better than that.

If they even do priced downloadable content, skins should be it. And I don't even like that (and again, I doubt Nintendo would do it) because games who rely on cosmetics to profit tend to trash the aesthetic value of the game, something they're clearly putting stock into for SSB4.

Look at what happened to TF2.

I want more DLC after the game is out. Why not get more characters, stages and balance? I'll gladly pay, it's a game I'll be playing for a long time.

 

[HammerHappy]

I want more DLC after the game is out. Why not get more characters, stages and balance? I'll gladly pay, it's a game I'll be playing for a long time.

Every Smash Bros fan would want additional content (that is, if the game meets the high expectations).
And we'd probably all pay for it.

Nintendo knows this game is going to sell. We know this game is going to sell. Paid for DLC should not be in a massive title launch that we know is going to move copies, because then why didn't they just put it into the game?

A $60 game apparently becomes a 65$, then $70 and so on and so on. Yet we all know if all that crap was in on release it would sell for $60 because a high price tag can scare away potential buys.

I really don't think it's Nintendo's modus operandi to make people pay twice for one game. They're notorious for re-releasing the same game (looking at you, Super Mario Wii), but once they finish one they don't go back and say "Hey, pay 4 bucks to get more stuff."
Nintendo may be behind the time for online interactivity, but at least they still sell a complete product.

As for balance, there's no way they would ever sell that. Sure, put in balance updates. We don't want another Metaknight.

 

[Katy Parry]

I'll be disgusted with Nintendo if they sell downloadable characters.

As for DC in the form of balance patches, there's no valid reason why this shouldn't be a thing. Especially with time constraints plaguing the devs. So far I've heard "Pros would have to get used to the change again" and "We would have to remake the tiers", which is ridiculous.

Um, if the game is released with 45 characters, and then 6 months later they released 5 more for like 9.99? Hell yes I would buy it.

But here's why I don't think characters will be DLC: Characters are getting cut. If they had DLC, the cut characters would make sense to be able to purchase... but that's not gonna happen. I doubt he'll develop characters after the game is released. So he can work on other projects.

 

[PLATINUM7]

If DLC is implemented I hope any multiplayer content (characters and stages) is free but 1p content can be paid for. The reason being I feel it is important that when it comes to multiplayer everyone has the chance to use what their opponents are using. It also becomes frustrating if you can't use things you've paid for because your friends don't have them.
I think 1p content can be paid for because it's less alienating to people who haven't bought the DLC.

 

[HammerHappy]

Um, if the game is released with 45 characters, and then 6 months later they released 5 more for like 9.99? Hell yes I would buy it.

But here's why I don't think characters will be DLC: Characters are getting cut. If they had DLC, the cut characters would make sense to be able to purchase... but that's not gonna happen. I doubt he'll develop characters after the game is released. So he can work on other projects.

5 characters in 6 months clearly shows that they had plans for them pre-release. I would be pissed off.
But I explicitly state that I would buy them. We all would buy them.

But ****, imagine being a Mewtwo main and not having him get into SMB4. Then five months later they come out and say "Hey, even though we apparently had a deadline resulting in character cuts, we found time to make Mewtwo after you've bought our game. You can play him for $3."

How does that make sense? Time constraints MEAN that they don't have the time to add all the stuff they want to the game. How does releasing the game suddenly result in more time to work on it? You push the game back if you can't meet deadlines, not sell the rest of it later.
Failure to have the game ready on the deadline you set shouldn't reward you with more profit, it should tell you to set proper release dates.

There's no way in hell Nintendo will sell characters or stages as DLC. If they ****ed up and really wanted to get this content out, then you can bet that it would be free.

 

[DaDavid]

5 characters in 6 months clearly shows that they had plans for them pre-release. I would be pissed off.
But I explicitly state that I would buy them. We all would buy them.

But ****, imagine being a Mewtwo main and not having him get into SMB4. Then five months later they come out and say "Hey, even though we apparently had a deadline resulting in character cuts, we found time to make Mewtwo after you've bought our game. You can play him for $3."

How does that make sense? Time constraints MEAN that they don't have the time to add all the stuff they want to the game. How does releasing the game suddenly result in more time to work on it? You push the game back if you can't meet deadlines, not sell the rest of it later.
Failure to have the game ready on the deadline you set shouldn't reward you with more profit, it should tell you to set proper release dates.

There's no way in hell Nintendo will sell characters or stages as DLC. If they ****ed up and really wanted to get this content out, then you can bet that it would be free.

I understand your opinion of DLC despite not agreeing with it personally, but I don't think you should be so sure about Nintendo feeling that way.

They've dabbled into DLC and while some of it has been free, like some other chapters/characters in FE:A, other has been charged for in that same game and in Pikmin 3. I still don't personally think they would release character DLC, but it's not impossible that they would decide to make it. Even if it was stuff they originally wanted in the game. If anything I could see it being released for free for a certain amount of time or something.

 

[Chimera]

Please God no. I don't want to have to buy the same game sixteen times, only to find out that a newer one is coming out in a week. Besides, we all know where Capcom's "amazing" business practices have landed them.

I don't mind Capcom's style of upgrading Street Fighter. It's as much "the same game" as Melee and Smash 64 are (save for graphical enhancements). The releases add new mechanics, balancing, and new characters, and they are sold at cheaper price than most games. ($30-$40)

I feel like Capcom's problem is its reluctance to make new games with its existing IP *cough Megaman cough*, but minds can differ. But I can say the people that are playing Street Fighter don't mind Capcom releasing upgrades like they are. For them, it's just supporting the game.

 

[soviet prince]

I am all for dlc the more the merrier

 

[DaDavid]

I am all for dlc the more the merrier

As long as its reasonably priced I can't say I'm against it. I mean if that stuff comes in packs, I just can't imagine anybody not getting it.

 

[JediLink]

I don't know about you guys, but I'd much prefer having a Ultra Smash Bros 4 one or two years after release than having to wait 6 years for Smash 5.

 

[josh bones]

I don't know about you guys, but I'd much prefer having a Ultra Smash Bros 4 one or two years after release than having to wait 6 years for Smash 5.

Super Super Smash Bros 4
Super Super Smash Bros 4: Arcade Editon
Ultra SUper smash bros 4
You want Nintendo to become Capcom?

 

[HammerHappy]

I don't know about you guys, but I'd much prefer having a Ultra Smash Bros 4 one or two years after release than having to wait 6 years for Smash 5.

I don't know about you, but I'd much prefer to have a quality game that I can enjoy for years to come than to buy a game and see an improved version released a year later lol. That's even worse than regular DLC.

What you're saying doesn't even make sense. Why is the time gap between installments a "wait"? If the game is successful (something we all want SSB4 to be) that time should be spent enjoying the game you bought, not going "Man I can't wait for the next one".
The only reason SSB4 is a wait is because Brawl sucked and tons of Smash fans have been waiting 10+ years for a true successor.

I mean, a lot of players took a long look at Brawl, said "Hell No" and went right back to playing Melee.
And they can do it again.

Since invention the most important aspects of a game have been quality and longevity. A good game shouldn't need DLC to create/improve those aspects and in the event that they do, they shouldn't make you pay for it.

 

[JediLink]

Let me clarify.

Of course, getting the game perfect on their first try would be ideal. That's Sakurai's current goal, and it's one that I definitely support. Purposely withholding content for DLC/updates a la Capcom is bad and something that no one should support.

However, we must face it that, even if you put your best effort into things, you can't always get things perfect the first time around. Maybe there'll be balance issues, maybe there'll be some gamebreaking glitches, maybe there'll be some dumb mechanic that you thought was a good idea but really wasn't, etc. So, after some feedback, you make a second edition of the game with vastly tweaked and improved gameplay, and maybe even some extra content to boot. Melee is a great game, but Project M is a better game, and if we could have all been playing Project M this past decade I would have preferred that.

That said, though, we live in the age of patches and DLC, so maybe the idea of an "Ultra edition!" is now obsolete. But the point is, if there's an opportunity for the game to be improved, I'm not going to say no. UNLESS there's a new update every year, because that would give the metagame no chance to ever develop, which would ultimately harm the life of the game, which would be bad.

 

[HammerHappy]

I agree.
DLC in the form of balance updates or bug fixes isn't just a good idea, it can be critical to the life of the game. But no way are they making you pay for that.

I'm even slightly perturbed as to why you wouldn't want a new update every year. If there are some heinous balance issues, fix them. If they want to add new stages, items, or characters - for free - go right ahead.

Things can't and aren't ever perfect the first time around. Remedying this is what DLC should be used for. If they really, REALLY want to release on their deadline, nothing is stopping them from including the rest of the content in a download.

Making us buy an improved version of a game in small increments or every year is what I'm against. And I really don't think they would do that.

Someone brought up pay for DLC for Pikimin 3, so that's something I want to discuss. What was that DLC for?

 

[PLATINUM7]

I agree.
DLC in the form of balance updates or bug fixes isn't just a good idea, it can be critical to the life of the game. But no way are they making you pay for that.

I'm even slightly perturbed as to why you wouldn't want a new update every year. If there are some heinous balance issues, fix them. If they want to add new stages, items, or characters - for free - go right ahead.

Things can't and aren't ever perfect the first time around. Remedying this is what DLC should be used for. If they really, REALLY want to release on their deadline, nothing is stopping them from including the rest of the content in a download.

Making us buy an improved version of a game in small increments or every year is what I'm against. And I really don't think they would do that.

Someone brought up pay for DLC for Pikimin 3, so that's something I want to discuss. What was that DLC for?

Pikmin 3 DLC was extra time trial missions in new areas.

 

[DaDavid]

I honestly don't know if I'd mind other editions of Smash being released more often than the 1 a gen we get. I mean of course I want a great game that'll last for years, but even the best game can be improved on. If these other releases weren't too expensive, and if they added/changed things that drew me in I have no idea why I wouldn't buy them other than lack of funds.

 

[UltimateWario]

I would rather installments be done in the form of DLC for the base game rather than releasing an entirely new one.

 

[Reznor]

other fighting games have DLC and patches and it works fine for them and some even abuse it (Capcom)

 

[DaDavid]

I guess if I could choose I'd probably go with DLC for the base game too.

 

[JediLink]

I agree.
DLC in the form of balance updates or bug fixes isn't just a good idea, it can be critical to the life of the game. But no way are they making you pay for that.

I'm even slightly perturbed as to why you wouldn't want a new update every year. If there are some heinous balance issues, fix them. If they want to add new stages, items, or characters - for free - go right ahead.

Of course, if a major issue becomes apparent then it should be quickly patched, but I was more thinking along the lines of fairly large-scale balance overhauls where every character as well as fundamental mechanics are substantially changed, like from MvC3 to UMvC3. Hopefully as long as they apply some common sense in their balancing (i.e. not doing stupid things like making Vergil's Helm Breaker +0 on block) by the second edition of the game things should be cool and groovy, and then they can just let it sit. Although I don't have first-hand knowledge with their games, from what I've heard NetherRealms studios are way too trigger happy with their balance updates and it ends up doing more harm than good. Maybe someone else more knowledgeable than me comment on that.

Also I have no issue with paying for DLC if:

1. The original game was not half-assed just so that they could "complete" it with DLC, and
   
2. The DLC's price is proportionate to its actual value and amount of work put in.

I don't think Nintendo is the kind of company that's going to do scummy DLC.

 

[Deap]

I think doing DLC content its the best way to keep the game attractive to many people. Most people will buy the game but will barely play it after a couple months after, now with DLC new characters,stages,etc. That will make those people go back to try/buy the new stuff.

 

[KingKirb]

I think doing DLC content its the best way to keep the game attractive to many people. Most people will buy the game but will barely play it after a couple months after, now with DLC new characters,stages,etc. That will make those people go back to try/buy the new stuff.

Define "most"

In my view, most people will be playing it for a long time. Maybe that's just the people I surround myself with. Probably most people here will play it for a while

 

[PLATINUM7]

Define "most"

In my view, most people will be playing it for a long time. Maybe that's just the people I surround myself with. Probably most people here will play it for a while

If history repeats itself, it will be 6 months before a day goes by where I don't play the new smash Bros. for an hour everyday and even then after that, I will still play it on a regular basis. Heck I played SSB64, Melee and Brawl one after the other yesterday.

 

[KingKirb]

If history repeats itself, it will be 6 months before a day goes by where I don't play the new smash Bros. for an hour everyday and even then after that, I will still play it on a regular basis. Heck I played SSB64, Melee and Brawl one after the other yesterday.

Smash never dies!!!

 

[Katy Parry]

5 characters in 6 months clearly shows that they had plans for them pre-release. I would be pissed off.
But I explicitly state that I would buy them. We all would buy them.

But ****, imagine being a Mewtwo main and not having him get into SMB4. Then five months later they come out and say "Hey, even though we apparently had a deadline resulting in character cuts, we found time to make Mewtwo after you've bought our game. You can play him for $3."

How does that make sense? Time constraints MEAN that they don't have the time to add all the stuff they want to the game. How does releasing the game suddenly result in more time to work on it? You push the game back if you can't meet deadlines, not sell the rest of it later.
Failure to have the game ready on the deadline you set shouldn't reward you with more profit, it should tell you to set proper release dates.

There's no way in hell Nintendo will sell characters or stages as DLC. If they ****ed up and really wanted to get this content out, then you can bet that it would be free.

I think you should reread my post. You're basically agreeing with everything I said.