What does Nintendo and EA Sports have in common?

[KillerGremlin]

They keep making the same game with minor changes and selling it for retail price!

I'm just kidding, though. I really wanted to talk about Nintendo's firm stance on DLC.

According to Reggie:

“When we sell a game, we want the consumer to feel that they’ve had a complete experience. 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 [Nintendo representatives] 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.”

On one hand, a lot of DLC is bullshit. So hooray for Nintendo? On the other hand, from a philosophical standpoint, there is good and bad DLC.

Good DLC is usually new campaigns to a game. But wait? New campaigns? You mean like Super Mario Galaxy 2? And Zelda sequels? Or Metroid Prime 2?



That's pretty high and mighty from Nintendo. But the real take home message I got is that "we currently lack the online infrastructure that everyone else has to support DLC. We are a couple generations behind online gaming, so sorry."


No online infrastructure, we're sorry.

Makes you wonder if Nintendo will ever be able to pull off online stuff with this attitude.

[BreakABone]

This is clearly in reference to a lot of companies who practices it is to sell DLC as unlock keys for packaged goods.

Nintendo has already confirmed they will be offering DLC on the 3DS
http://www.computerandvideogames.com...vember-update/

[KillerGremlin]

I saw.

Doesn't change the fact about the sequels or the lack of major online support.

[Angrist]

Wait, you think games like SMG2, Metroid Prime 2 and even the Zelda sequels could or should have been DLC?
Sorry, but that's pathetic. Those are all full games that took more time to beat than the originals.
With that logic you could never make a sequel again, you'd be forced to make it DLC. You'd always be stuck with the same game engine too.

[KillerGremlin]

Originally Posted by Angrist

Wait, you think games like SMG2, Metroid Prime 2 and even the Zelda sequels could or should have been DLC?
Sorry, but that's pathetic. Those are all full games that took more time to beat than the originals.
With that logic you could never make a sequel again, you'd be forced to make it DLC. You'd always be stuck with the same game engine too.

That's not exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that DLC can add full campaigns or quality content nearly as good as a sequel.

And for the record, I believe Metroid Prime 2 DID use the Metroid Prime engine. Why wouldn't it? Same console.

Wouldn't surprise me if Galaxy was the same deal.

Edit: Shiiiit. Googling around, it looks like Metroid Prime 3 might actually use the same game engine too. So there you go, Angrist. The new development is primarily level design which is effectively comparable to a fully fleshed out expansion or a really good DLC release.

[Blix]

Originally Posted by KillerGremlin

That's not exactly what I'm saying. I'm saying that DLC can add full campaigns or quality content nearly as good as a sequel.

And for the record, I believe Metroid Prime 2 DID use the Metroid Prime engine. Why wouldn't it? Same console.

Wouldn't surprise me if Galaxy was the same deal.

Edit: Shiiiit. Googling around, it looks like Metroid Prime 3 might actually use the same game engine too. So there you go, Angrist. The new development is primarily level design which is effectively comparable to a fully fleshed out expansion or a really good DLC release.

KG, just come out already and say you're trolling. Because you are... right? At least there's a certain level of tongue-in-cheek in your post that somehow got too serious? Yes?

Honestly, we have never had a problem with this in the past and I don't see why we should now. New game != new campaing. And in a time when developers waste too much money and time on graphics it's nice to let them reuse engines and stuff. The new ideas, story, level design and a desire to make a better product than the previous one justifies them selling a new game. We don't have to reinvent the wheel every time a new game comes out. It's nice when a developer does and they should not get too lazy in this department but this is a modus operandus that has been in effect for a long, long time. This is acceptable because you shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel every time you make a new game, polishing it is enough. I find it worse when one companies decides to copy the formula of a game from another company and change the settings and that's it. But I'm still cool with that. I'm not going to say that Dead Space shouldn't exist because RE4 came before it. And I don't hear many people complaining that Gears is a copy of Killswitch sprinkled with RE4. I find even less problem with companies repeating themselves because at least they have a right to their own ideas. And some times, you just want to come back to an expanded and improved version of the formula you already liked.

Oh and engines always improve. It doesn't matter if Gears of War 3 runs on the Unreal engine, it's not the same unreal engine that was running the first game. The same thing applies to Metroid.

So I'm taking your point of view with a grain of salt. It can't be dead serious.

[Vampyr]

The only reason Nintendo is taking this stance is because they don't have the infrastructure to distribute DLC.

If they did, they would be selling it.

But yes, there are good and bad DLC. I really do not understand the people who are anti-DLC. No one is making you buy it.

[BreakABone]

Originally Posted by Vampyr

The only reason Nintendo is taking this stance is because they don't have the infrastructure to distribute DLC.

If they did, they would be selling it.

But yes, there are good and bad DLC. I really do not understand the people who are anti-DLC. No one is making you buy it.

They could have it if wanted to.. the Wii does support DLC and patching. Only a handful of games actually do it though.
The bigger issue was/is the lack of space on the Wii which is why it never went much further than a handful of games.

Also, as noted in the link above, they are putting a structure in place to sell DLC on the 3DS.

And I'm not anti-DLC. But there are a lot of bad practices associated with it, the biggest offender being selling you content that's already on the disc and charging you for an unlock key.

But yeah there are great DLC, Borderlands was fantastic with it, Valve does a great job (better on PC than consoles for the most part), the Fallout Series, Mass Effect, but I think these are more the exception than the rules.