I'm not against Nintendo doing DLC, I'm just against how they do it.
Hey there everyone, Happy Gamer here, and ReviewTechUSA recently made a video about Nintendo locking content in the upcoming Metroid game behind Amiibos. As is to be expected, people are kind of upset about it, and Rich says "this is just the gaming industry today, companies lock content behind DLC and Nintendo is just joining the party."
Yeah...about that. See, I'm a bit of an Amiibo collector. I try to get all the smash amiibo I can, and some of the others I'm interested in. I'm also pretty sure you said at one point "I don't like Amiibo." So allow me to enlighten you on one complain every Amiibo collector has, NINTENDO DOESN'T KEEP AMIIBO STOCKED!
See, I quite like the idea of Amiibo. They are one time purchases, are compatible with multiple games, and give you something physical. One thing I don't like about DLC is that it's digital (hence the "D" in DLC). I buy my games physical whenever I can so I have something to display. Conventional DLC can't be displayed though, because it's digital. Amiibo on the other hand, can be displayed, and I quite like how my Amiibo look around my TV and on my store display rack. They're also single purchases compatible across multiple games. I can buy 1 figure, and it can work on multiple games. If I guy a call of duty 4 map pack, it only works on call of duty 4. If I buy a Super Mario Amiibo, it works on over 30 games. Even if Nintendo charged $0.50 for each piece of unlockable content on each of those games, it still would be cheaper to just buy a $13 figure, that's going to continue unlocking content in the future. It's actually a really great way to distribute DLC, in concept.
See, here's the Achilles Heel of Amiibo. While conventional DLC doesn't have the benefits of Amiibo, it does have 1 benefit that Nintendo just can't seem to remedy, it's UNLIMITED. If I want to buy that call of duty map pack, I go to the xbox/playstation/steam store, add the DLC to my digital cart, download it, and that's it. I don't have to call 20 gamestops, best buys, toys r us, targets, meijers, and walmarts to see if they have that map pack in stock ultimately to find out they're out of stock. If I want the character skin in street fighter, I just get it from the digital marketplace without any problem. I don't have to buy the DLC months before it's even announced speculating that I'll want the game, just because I know if I don't buy it within the first couple days of release it'll be gone forever. If I want to get the season pass for a game, I just buy the season pass from the unlimited digital reserve. I don't have to pre-order the day pre-orders are announced because the pre-orders are going to sell out the next day. How is that even a thing? Pre-orders are supposed to gauge how much demand there's going to be, and you ship some multiple of the pre-orders to the stores. You don't say "we're only allowing this much demand for this product, consumers be damned." There is an entire sub-reddit dedicated to "how to find amiibo." You don't see that with any other DLC.
Look, I like Amiibo. They are a great concept, as I mentioned above. But if you go to the Amiibo section of the store and it isn't completely empty (as I've seen multiple times), you'll find 1 or 2 common smash series, a booster pack of cards, animal crossing (except villager), and maybe a splatoon. You won't find Kirby series, Zelda series, Mario series, 8-bit series, yarn series, or 80% of the smash series. The Metroid game in the video that uses smash series Samaus and Zero Suit? Good luck finding both full suit and zero suit in stores. Just bought Splatoon 2 and want the unlockable content with the Splatoon 3-pack amiibo? Unless you bought them over 2 years ago, the best you'll be able to do is the Splatoon 2 3-pack, if you're lucky. Little Timmy asks Santa for a Turbo Charged Donkey Kong Amiibo because it can be used in Skylanders, well sorry Timmy, Santa couldn't get you that Amiibo because Santa didn't go to Meijer at midnight because the following morning was the morning of the big presentation. I understand the store's perspective of "I don't want these to sit here for months" (like the Animal Crossing series), but I don't understand why Nintendo won't do more print runs of the really popular ones, especially when new games come out that use them.
In the early days one of the arguments I got frequently from Nintendo apologists was "they're just collectables, like other limited print action figures, it's not like you're missing out on anything if you don't get them." Well, now they're legit DLC, and Nintendo isn't allowing customers to buy it. This has been Happy Gamer, signing off, and instead of Milking us dry, Nintendo is just teasing us. Bye.
Showing posts with label DLC. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DLC. Show all posts
Friday, August 4, 2017
Saturday, October 4, 2014
Nintendo's history with DLC
Alright, so it's no secret that Nintendo hasn't been to friendly to modern gaming practices, namely online support and DLC. Lots of people complain about online support for good reasons, and it's been mixed with the DLC. Some people applaud Nintendo for not being DLC happy in the 7th gen, others complain about how it drove away 3rd parties. I'm not here to review DLC on Nintendo consoles and handhelds, but rather to give you a history that most people kind of forget, along with a little theory.
OK, so back in the days of the Wii, PS3, and 360, with the advent of internet connected consoles and digital game stores for consoles, there was this thing called Downloadable Content, or DLC for short. This was extra content for a game that was already released, and would extend the life of that game. Things such as new multi-player maps, new characters, new levels, new stories, new other things that weren't included with the original release because it wasn't made at the time, or because the developers wanted more money. Why DLC exists is the topic for another rambling though. Anyways, the PS3 and 360 embraced the concept of DLC. They added sections to their online stores specifically for DLC. However, Nintendo didn't allow DLC on their Wii. With Nintendo games, you couldn't download the extra content, you either had to have it on the game disc or release a second edition. Again, people were mixed about that decision. Well, here's my theory as to why Nintendo didn't do DLC on the Wii.
Many people may think that the first time DLC was really implemented was with the 7th generation of gaming (PS360Wii). While that is when it was really breaking through, Nintendo actually did a form of DLC on the 6th generation, the gamecube and GameBoy Advance. "What? Really? They had DLC on 2 non-internet connected devices?" In a matter of speaking. They did a sort of DLC with the e-reader add-on for the GBA. With certain games, users could connect a GBA with an e-reader to the other game via a link cable, scan special e-reader cards that they bought, and use them to unlock content. Granted, it's not EXACTLY DLC, but the concept of expanding a game through a secondary purchase and downloading the expansion into the game was present in the 6th generation.
"So what does that have to do with Nintendo not having DLC on the Wii?" Well here's the thing, while rather revolutionary, it didn't go over very well. For starters, the e-reader kind of sucked. I have one and I get read error after read error. It's a very finicky device. The next aspect is that it was kind of expensive. I don't remember how expensive the actual e-reader was, but it definitely cost some money. Plus, if you were doing it for GBA e-reader support, you had to have a second GBA, something not everyone had. The other thing is that it wasn't widely adapted. I know I didn't have an e-reader until after the life of the GBA that I found at a garage sale. I didn't know anyone that had an e-reader. It just wasn't well received. There also wasn't a lot of games that supported e-reader. The most notable one is Animal Crossing. Some other games had it, but not many. The somewaht commercial failure of the e-reader and it's "DLC" I think put a bad taste in Nintendo's mouth. But it's only a theory.
Man, I should do a review of the e-reader some day. But not today. Well this has been Happy Gamer signing off, and Nintendo had DLC before the others.
OK, so back in the days of the Wii, PS3, and 360, with the advent of internet connected consoles and digital game stores for consoles, there was this thing called Downloadable Content, or DLC for short. This was extra content for a game that was already released, and would extend the life of that game. Things such as new multi-player maps, new characters, new levels, new stories, new other things that weren't included with the original release because it wasn't made at the time, or because the developers wanted more money. Why DLC exists is the topic for another rambling though. Anyways, the PS3 and 360 embraced the concept of DLC. They added sections to their online stores specifically for DLC. However, Nintendo didn't allow DLC on their Wii. With Nintendo games, you couldn't download the extra content, you either had to have it on the game disc or release a second edition. Again, people were mixed about that decision. Well, here's my theory as to why Nintendo didn't do DLC on the Wii.
Many people may think that the first time DLC was really implemented was with the 7th generation of gaming (PS360Wii). While that is when it was really breaking through, Nintendo actually did a form of DLC on the 6th generation, the gamecube and GameBoy Advance. "What? Really? They had DLC on 2 non-internet connected devices?" In a matter of speaking. They did a sort of DLC with the e-reader add-on for the GBA. With certain games, users could connect a GBA with an e-reader to the other game via a link cable, scan special e-reader cards that they bought, and use them to unlock content. Granted, it's not EXACTLY DLC, but the concept of expanding a game through a secondary purchase and downloading the expansion into the game was present in the 6th generation.
"So what does that have to do with Nintendo not having DLC on the Wii?" Well here's the thing, while rather revolutionary, it didn't go over very well. For starters, the e-reader kind of sucked. I have one and I get read error after read error. It's a very finicky device. The next aspect is that it was kind of expensive. I don't remember how expensive the actual e-reader was, but it definitely cost some money. Plus, if you were doing it for GBA e-reader support, you had to have a second GBA, something not everyone had. The other thing is that it wasn't widely adapted. I know I didn't have an e-reader until after the life of the GBA that I found at a garage sale. I didn't know anyone that had an e-reader. It just wasn't well received. There also wasn't a lot of games that supported e-reader. The most notable one is Animal Crossing. Some other games had it, but not many. The somewaht commercial failure of the e-reader and it's "DLC" I think put a bad taste in Nintendo's mouth. But it's only a theory.
Man, I should do a review of the e-reader some day. But not today. Well this has been Happy Gamer signing off, and Nintendo had DLC before the others.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
A second look at "day 1" DLC
I used to hate "day 1" DLC, but now I'm looking at things slightly differently.
So I was watching "Address the Sess" from Rev3 gaming and Adam Sessler and he brought up an interesting fact about "day 1" DLC, something I haven't thought about.
Now if you don't know, I am very critical of "day 1" DLC, and so you know, "day 1" DLC doesn't necessarily have to be released on the day the game is released. I consider DLC "day 1" if it was developed along side the game specifically intended to not be released as part of the full game. I am very critical of this because from companies like Capcom, it's used to nickel and dime the consumer and try to capitalize on used games. My argument, "the game wouldn't end up on a gamestop shelf if you give the consumer more bang for their buck and deliver a game that is worth $70 and only charge them $60, instead of selling $50 worth of content for $60 and then selling the other $20 worth of content to them for $20 and calling it 'DLC.'" That right there goes against all marketing logic according to my into to marketing class, and is a primary reason why Capcom is close to dead. The other reason is "no love for the blue bomber," but that's not what this is about.
Anyways, Sessler brought up a good point about DLC and game prices. In the US, new game prices are fairly fixed at $60. In other countries and regions, game prices are a lot more varied. However, if you release a game for more than $60, "well that's crazy, I won't buy it." His example was Skyrim. I haven't played it yet so I can't speak from experience, but I plan to eventually. Anyways, Sessler said that "a game like Skyrim, it's easily worth $100, so I wouldn't mind paying more for more, but because of game prices, it needs to be $60, so they cut out $30 worth of content, sell you the $30 worth as DLC, and you still get an awesome game."
I gotta admit, I haven't really thought of it that way. Not everyone who does "day 1" DLC is being Capcom and EA about it, where "oh we need to send updates and patches and maintain the online servers, and developing the game is just so expensive, and with used games not giving us money for the sale, we need to get the money somehow." Sometimes, game developers make a game that's worth $100 or more, but because of the market price for all new games is semificially $60, they have to cut out some so they aren't undervaluing their games. Sure I'd love to get $100 worth of content for $60, who wouldn't. Well not the developers. I know if I made a game that I know was worth $100, I wouldn't want to give it to people for $60 right from the start. I'm undervaluing my game by 40%. After a year, sure, knock 40% off, let me get some of the hold outs, but not from the start. However, the US game market dictates that "New games are $60, no exceptions, unless it's under $60." And I'm not saying "I put so much work and time and effort that I deserve $100 for this game even though it's only objectively worth $50," I mean actual "this game is so objectively good, I would be practically giving it away at $60." So yes, I see where some developers are coming from.
However, this still troubles me, because even though they are selling you maybe a little over $60 worth of content after the DLC cuts, I'm still bothered by the fact that part of the game was cut out and is released as DLC. I'd rather pay more in the first place and not have to buy it later primarily because of future gamers who weren't able to get the consoles when they were initially released.
I 20 years old at the time of posting. I have an Atari 2600 that I bought at a garage sale. My Atari is probably older than I am. I can still buy games for it, thanks to used games, and I can expect to get the full game when I buy the cartridges. 25 years later, what about the guy that find an XBOX 360 at a garage sale and want to collect retro XBOX 360 games? Servers for online PS2 games released 12 years ago are already gone. Servers for XBOX Live for 360 and PSN for PS3 aren't going to be up forever. In 20-30 years, I expect DLC support for XBOX 360 and PS3 to be gone. How will future generations enjoy the full game once the servers are no longer supported? Emulators? *raspberry fart* Emulators are stupid and only cheaters use emulators. Real gaming is done on the original console, with the original controller and original game cartridge/disk. HD remakes/virtual console releases? That might work for some games, but not every game gets a remake/re-release. Of all the amazing games released on the NES, SNES, N64, Master System, Genesis, Atari, etc, I'm going to guess that maybe 15-20% have had re-releases. So the only way to get those gems is by buying the used cartridges/disks. I pity the future generations of gamers who won't be able to enjoy the full games because of DLC.
Well that's enough rambling for today. Until next time, game and be happy.
So I was watching "Address the Sess" from Rev3 gaming and Adam Sessler and he brought up an interesting fact about "day 1" DLC, something I haven't thought about.
Now if you don't know, I am very critical of "day 1" DLC, and so you know, "day 1" DLC doesn't necessarily have to be released on the day the game is released. I consider DLC "day 1" if it was developed along side the game specifically intended to not be released as part of the full game. I am very critical of this because from companies like Capcom, it's used to nickel and dime the consumer and try to capitalize on used games. My argument, "the game wouldn't end up on a gamestop shelf if you give the consumer more bang for their buck and deliver a game that is worth $70 and only charge them $60, instead of selling $50 worth of content for $60 and then selling the other $20 worth of content to them for $20 and calling it 'DLC.'" That right there goes against all marketing logic according to my into to marketing class, and is a primary reason why Capcom is close to dead. The other reason is "no love for the blue bomber," but that's not what this is about.
Anyways, Sessler brought up a good point about DLC and game prices. In the US, new game prices are fairly fixed at $60. In other countries and regions, game prices are a lot more varied. However, if you release a game for more than $60, "well that's crazy, I won't buy it." His example was Skyrim. I haven't played it yet so I can't speak from experience, but I plan to eventually. Anyways, Sessler said that "a game like Skyrim, it's easily worth $100, so I wouldn't mind paying more for more, but because of game prices, it needs to be $60, so they cut out $30 worth of content, sell you the $30 worth as DLC, and you still get an awesome game."
I gotta admit, I haven't really thought of it that way. Not everyone who does "day 1" DLC is being Capcom and EA about it, where "oh we need to send updates and patches and maintain the online servers, and developing the game is just so expensive, and with used games not giving us money for the sale, we need to get the money somehow." Sometimes, game developers make a game that's worth $100 or more, but because of the market price for all new games is semificially $60, they have to cut out some so they aren't undervaluing their games. Sure I'd love to get $100 worth of content for $60, who wouldn't. Well not the developers. I know if I made a game that I know was worth $100, I wouldn't want to give it to people for $60 right from the start. I'm undervaluing my game by 40%. After a year, sure, knock 40% off, let me get some of the hold outs, but not from the start. However, the US game market dictates that "New games are $60, no exceptions, unless it's under $60." And I'm not saying "I put so much work and time and effort that I deserve $100 for this game even though it's only objectively worth $50," I mean actual "this game is so objectively good, I would be practically giving it away at $60." So yes, I see where some developers are coming from.
However, this still troubles me, because even though they are selling you maybe a little over $60 worth of content after the DLC cuts, I'm still bothered by the fact that part of the game was cut out and is released as DLC. I'd rather pay more in the first place and not have to buy it later primarily because of future gamers who weren't able to get the consoles when they were initially released.
I 20 years old at the time of posting. I have an Atari 2600 that I bought at a garage sale. My Atari is probably older than I am. I can still buy games for it, thanks to used games, and I can expect to get the full game when I buy the cartridges. 25 years later, what about the guy that find an XBOX 360 at a garage sale and want to collect retro XBOX 360 games? Servers for online PS2 games released 12 years ago are already gone. Servers for XBOX Live for 360 and PSN for PS3 aren't going to be up forever. In 20-30 years, I expect DLC support for XBOX 360 and PS3 to be gone. How will future generations enjoy the full game once the servers are no longer supported? Emulators? *raspberry fart* Emulators are stupid and only cheaters use emulators. Real gaming is done on the original console, with the original controller and original game cartridge/disk. HD remakes/virtual console releases? That might work for some games, but not every game gets a remake/re-release. Of all the amazing games released on the NES, SNES, N64, Master System, Genesis, Atari, etc, I'm going to guess that maybe 15-20% have had re-releases. So the only way to get those gems is by buying the used cartridges/disks. I pity the future generations of gamers who won't be able to enjoy the full games because of DLC.
Well that's enough rambling for today. Until next time, game and be happy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)