SydLexia.com - The Forums :: View topic

Posted: Nov 17 2011 02:18 pm

http://blog.games.com/2011/11/16/nintendo-reggie-fils-aime-interview/

not a bad interview.

Quote:

Will Nintendo ever release digital upgrades or add-ons to its games?

We're interested in it to the extent that it makes sense to the consumer. And it's interesting: I've had this conversation with a number of our key developers, and their mentality is, "Reggie, when we sell a game, we want the consumer to feel that they've had a complete experience." Now, in addition, if we want to make other things available, great, and we'll look at that. But what we're unwilling to sell a piece of a game upfront and, if you will, force a consumer to buy more later. That's what they don't want to do, and I completely agree. I think the consumer wants to get, for their money, a complete experience, and then we have opportunities to provide more on top of that.

So, are we speaking to the free-to-play space, in terms of you download the game and pay a dollar for in-game items?

All I'm saying is--your question was--will Nintendo participate in this additional digital content? And the answer is yes, but the way that we'll do it is that whatever we sell initially, we will feel that that is a complete experience. And if that's all the consumer wants to do, that they'd be satisfied.

basically, they frown upon DLC. which is fine by me. the game should be complete from the get go. but, in terms of games like mario kart or smash bros, it would be neat if they gave us the option to download old tracks/stages.

just my two cents

Posted: Nov 17 2011 04:20 pm

One of my biggest draws to Nintendo is that they don't do this DLC nonsense.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

DLC is fine if it adds something to the game, or is reasonably priced little add-ons. I ended up enjoying Point Lookout more than anything else in Fallout 3, and it was nice getting free map packs for Bad Company 2 if I purchased a non-used copy

One thing I am tired of is picking up a game and having to enter codes, download little add-ons(if XBL isn't stuttering from a day one release), register on the developer's website, etc. just to unlock shit that is meant to be part of the initial game. Also, I will never buy a pack of 4 maps for $15. How much of a mindless consumer do you have to be to not even try to haggle on that shit with the publishers?

Posted: Nov 17 2011 04:50 pm

Yeah, they made it a pain in the ass to get the Jill/Shuma code for MVC3 for XBox users. Apparently it was way easier for PS3 users.

Posted: Nov 18 2011 02:33 pm

Agreed with Greg.

If the content in question is actually created after release, adds something meaningful and doesn't artificially extend the gameplay, I might check it out.

Most of the Borderlands DLC is fantastic and serves as a great example of this.

Posted: Nov 18 2011 11:40 pm

I agree with this. I like being able to buy the whole experience in one purchase.

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

Ky-Guy wrote:

I agree with this. I like being able to buy the whole experience in one purchase.

Certainly. I completely agree. Games like Alan Wake that gave me half of a campaign, then promised to finish it with DLC that didn't even properly end the game piss me off big time. But, on the other side, after playing Fallout 3 and New Vegas to death, it was nice to have good-sized chunks of extra playability in the form of great little add-ons that felt like part of the world, yet I didn't feel like they were part of the intended experience of the main release. DLC is fortunately getting more of a dialogue than the old expansion packs ever did. Back then, you'd have to pay $30-$50 for a physical copy of an expansion pack, hoping that everyone else would buy it (if MP only), or there was more than 2 hours of single player. At least now, with gamers being able to sound off in comment sections, twitter, etc., we can bullshit on all of the Horse Armor downloads out there.

Posted: Nov 19 2011 11:15 pm

Greg the White wrote:

How much of a mindless consumer do you have to be to not even try to haggle on that shit with the publishers?

Whatever the answer, it's more than enough for this practice to continue, possibly forever. That's why I hate the idea of "voting with your wallet." The clearer heads always lose when the options are buy or don't vote.

Posted: Nov 20 2011 01:39 am

Greg the White wrote:

Certainly. I completely agree. Games like Alan Wake that gave me half of a campaign, then promised to finish it with DLC that didn't even properly end the game piss me off big time.

This is a terrible example. Alan Wake's plot was complete as it was. They even gave you the first DLC free if you bought the game new, and those two episodes formed their own separate story arc. Just because you don't enjoy stories with an open ending doesn't mean that there's only half a campaign. Or did you also dislike Inception?

Joined: Apr 09 2008 Location: Pennsylvania Posts: 3112

I loved Alan Wake as a game, but it wasn't a good open ending. I can take a proper lead into a sequel, like their own Max Payne or Star Wars did, or a thinking movie ending like in Inception. It felt like development ending too early. His wife is rescued but the villain is powerful and close enough to her that she could just grab her back again. Then we get two DLC packs of dream sequences that don't move the main story any further past the point of the main ending. Really, I would have been happy ending the game when Alan found his switch. It was the end of a proper arc, but leaving a thread hanging for a proper sequel. I feel like Remedy's development hell kept them from what they wanted to do, which is a shame.