Nintendo to release *paid* DLC starting this year

[3DS] Nintendo confirms 3DS DLC - Mario Kart Wii - The Biggest Mario Kart Wii & Mario Kart 7 Forum

There were always rumors and pre-concieved expectations that Nintendo would release 'free' DLC based on their company history.

This report however says otherwise. And It's sure to get a lot of fans riled up.

I personally applaud their decision, as their freeware DLC has been lacking. Hopefully this will open some doors for them to try and release bigger and bolder DLC.

Thoughts?

Releasing paid DLC is pretty much necessary for the 3rd party publishers to take Nintendo consoles seriously, as that's where they make a big chunk of their money. Nice to see Nintendo catching up with the times, maybe this will gain Nintendo a little more 3rd party support.

Originally Posted by EmptyStar

I personally applaud their decision, as their freeware DLC has been lacking. Hopefully this will open some doors for them to try and release bigger and bolder DLC.

You are assuming that DLC that has a price tag on it will be better than DLC without one.

InB4 paid Waluigi for Mario Kart 7 and angry mobs.

Originally Posted by Tallgeese

You are assuming that DLC that has a price tag on it will be better than DLC without one.

Because that's what all signs point to
Not only would they have a bigger budget, but they'd also have more of a desire to make something better when there's money on the line.

Just compare the DLC of MKWii, if you could even call it that, to a more fleshed out purchase, Like one of the Fable quest packs.

Originally Posted by EmptyStar

Because that's what all signs point to
Not only would they have a bigger budget, but they'd also have more of a desire to make something better when there's money on the line.

Just compare the DLC of MKWii, if you could even call it that, to a more fleshed out purchase, Like one of the Fable quest packs.

And compare that to the $2.50 Oblivion horse armor. Just because DLC costs money doesn't make it good and just because DLC is free doesn't make it bad (see TF2 and L4D DLC).

I think we had a topic on this before.

Anyway, my opinion remains the same: I do not want it.

And I thought Nintendo just got done saying that they weren't going to do paid DLC. They never said they would do free DLC, just that they had no intention of doing paid DLC. And then, in less than a month they confirm they're doing paid DLC?

If I see paid DLC for Animal Crossing 3DS, and if it is anything like The Sims 3's, it will be the final nail in the coffin for that series. And I will also hate Nintendo forever. They're walking on very thin ice with me right now.

If Nintendo ever goes down that route where you need to pay extra to get a complete "core" experience (kinda like needing to pay extra to get "downloadable scenes" for a movie or something), then things would look slightly less bright for Nintendo's future.

Well, I can't blame them, as it would help them get the 3rd party support they want.

Paid DLC pisses me off incredible amounts. Just lost a LOT of respect for Nintendo.

If you want Nintendo consoles to be more successful, you need more third party support.

If you want more 3rd party support, you must bow to their wishes.

And third parties want downloadable content.

So Nintendo is bowing to their wishes.

I don't see anything wrong with this.

The problem is that these 3rd parties aren't confident enough in their ability to provide a good entertainment experience unless these "obstacles" are removed.

Considering that good entertainment experiences have been provided many times before on consoles with a lot more "obstacles", this doesn't speak well of their game design philosophies, especially when the gamer ends up paying more.

True, but I don't see that as a problem. This business decision will sell more consoles. You and I don't have to play the ♥♥♥♥ty games made by the companies though.

Originally Posted by Zecora

This business decision will sell more consoles.

It'll get more paid-DLC games on board, but will paid-DLC games REALLY sell more consoles?

So... what's bad about it?

Nintendo is releasing one DLC that is paid for.

That doesn't mean they won't release free DLC too. That doesn't mean that there will never be free DLC on a Nintendo console.

That merely means that Nintendo is finally having DLC and other companies can have DLC well on Nintendo companies.

Originally Posted by Envy

If I see paid DLC for Animal Crossing 3DS, and if it is anything like The Sims 3's, it will be the final nail in the coffin for that series. And I will also hate Nintendo forever. They're walking on very thin ice with me right now.

So what you're saying is... if they make Animal Crossing 3DS, with all the features of other AC games and with extras, and then they make a DLC that costs money you'll be too upset to play AC?

I... I do not get this.

If you don't want to pay for extra content, don't. The only time it'd be bad is is if they sell DLC that finishes the game as extra. If it's truly extra content that just adds new things/missions that take time and effort (and money) to make then paying for it isn't much to ask for.

Free DLC is cool, yeah.

Paid DLC is cool too.

And if it has lots of effort and time and money put into the DLC, paying for it is hardly a big deal.

You don't even NEED the DLC probably.

Someone explain what's terrible about it? I don't understand it.

Originally Posted by AA

will paid-DLC games REALLY sell more consoles?

Only time will tell.

But I see it this way: Paid DLC = More third party support. More third party support = a larger variety of games. A larger variety of games = More consumers. More consumers = More success for the console(s). Whether we like it or not, paid DLC is the "in" thing now.

It's a simple logic that I feel comfortable standing behind. Again, I personally don't care for payed downloadable content (unless you count virtual console games as DLC themselves, then I very much care), so as long as Nintendo do not lower their standards with their own games and use DLC as an excuse to be lazy and rush their product out the door, then I'm totally fine with it.

Originally Posted by America

So what you're saying is... if they make Animal Crossing 3DS, with all the features of other AC games and with extras, and then they make a DLC that costs money you'll be too upset to play AC?

I did not say that.

As if all of the good features that were in past AC games will make it back (and in good quality). That would be quite the miracle, let me tell you.

If you read my post, it included "like The Sims 3's". Maybe you're not familiar with The Sims 3, and how it has been handled. I bring it up, because it is a life simulation game, much like Animal Crossing. They are actually quite different, but in the realm of what they can do with DLC, they are identical.

They could hold back loads of furniture (fan-favorite furniture and furniture sets, for example) and charge you three dollars for each piece of furniture They could hold back big holidays and charge you ten dollars for them (probably not that much, but if it were EA yes, very much yes). They could hold back big features, like the ability to get animal pictures and charge you for those as well.

I could go on and on, and honestly, after City Folk (Nintendo charging $50 for a watered down port of a DS game to the Wii) I have absolutely no faith left in Nintendo.

I just want complete games. As I said, I believe Nintendo was just bragging about this themselves - how they won't do paid DLC, but then it gets confirmed? What in the world?

DLC is a wonderful concept, but it's abused horribly. Is it even possible for Nintendo to add further objects into their games that weren't already pre-programmed into them? (Serious question)

Originally Posted by America

You don't even NEED the DLC probably.

You don't even NEED games.

The issue is having to pay for an expansion to the core experience (as opposed to something relatively unimportant like some extra song or extra cutscene. It's like I'm missing out on a part of the core experience unless I pay extra. It's like, you watch a movie and then you need to pay $2 for an extra scene that expands upon what was established in the movie. The movie should be complete when you recieve it. Adding more onto the end is basically an implication that it isn't complete when you recieve it. Which, for gaming, would be tolerable if there wasn't an extra cost involved.

Ideally, they should put all this extra content/effort into their next game. If money is something they're concerned about, they should stick lots of appealing content into their games in the first place, since people pay for content in the entertainment industry. If they really want to expand on their games, gamers shouldn't need to pay for it.

Originally Posted by Envy

I did not say that.

As if all of the good features that were in past AC games will make it back (and in good quality). That would be quite the miracle, let me tell you.

If you read my post, it included "like The Sims 3's". Maybe you're not familiar with The Sims 3, and how it has been handled. I bring it up, because it is a life simulation game, much like Animal Crossing. They are actually quite different, but in the realm of what they can do with DLC, they are identical.

They could hold back loads of furniture (fan-favorite furniture and furniture sets, for example) and charge you three dollars for each piece of furniture They could hold back big holidays and charge you ten dollars for them (probably not that much, but if it were EA yes, very much yes). They could hold back big features, like the ability to get animal pictures and charge you for those as well.

I could go on and on, and honestly, after City Folk (Nintendo charging $50 for a watered down port of a DS game to the Wii) I have absolutely no faith left in Nintendo.

I just want complete games. As I said, I believe Nintendo was just bragging about this themselves - how they won't do paid DLC, but then it gets confirmed? What in the world?

DLC is a wonderful concept, but it's abused horribly. Is it even possible for Nintendo to add further objects into their games that weren't already pre-programmed into them? (Serious question)

Ah, I was unaware they cut things from the Sims 3. My bad. I haven't played it.

If they cut things out then make you pay for them, that is ridiculous. If they have an idea a year after release, and want me to pay a buck or two for something brand new that's cool with me.

Originally Posted by Double A

You don't even NEED games.

The issue is having to pay for an expansion to the core experience (as opposed to something relatively unimportant like some extra song or extra cutscene. It's like I'm missing out on a part of the core experience unless I pay extra. It's like, you watch a movie and then you need to pay $2 for an extra scene that expands upon what was established in the movie. The movie should be complete when you recieve it. Adding more onto the end is basically an implication that it isn't complete when you recieve it. Which, for gaming, would be tolerable if there wasn't an extra cost involved.

Ideally, they should put all this extra content/effort into their next game. If money is something they're concerned about, they should stick lots of appealing content into their games in the first place, since people pay for content in the entertainment industry. If they really want to expand on their games, gamers shouldn't need to pay for it.

If the game/movie is complete without it, and isn't lacking, I'm fine with it.

If a game comes out and has a complete plot line, and then DLC comes out with a new story (like, "play through the story as the villain instead!") which is basically a new game in its own right, I don't see any issue.

If the movie or game works fine on its own, and the DLC is basically a new game but with the same character, what's the issue?

Would you rather wait months while they put effort into a series of quests that could have stood as their own game, or play a game, beat it, then get the DLC for $2 that could have stood on its own as a game?

I realize most DLC packs are pretty bad, and not like that, but if you make something after releasing the game, and it costs you time and money to make it, having people pay $2 for it is NOT a big enough deal for them to be upset over.

It's only if the DLC was something that should have fit into the game to start with, or something they had planned out from the get-go as DLC, where I think it's dumb to make it DLC.

Why should I get a free few hour quest that they made after making the game it's DLC for? If I don't think it's worth the money, the quest isn't going to make them my money. Simple as that.


EDIT: I don't quite get how this will attract third-party supporters. All they have to do is say "you can sell DLC through our consoles", they don't have to sell it themselves to do it do they?

Originally Posted by America

If they cut things out then make you pay for them, that is ridiculous. If they have an idea a year after release, and want me to pay a buck or two for something brand new that's cool with me.

This is how I think payed DLC is awesome. I don't see anything wrong with expanding the game. Paying for an expansion pack is better than it being sold as if it were a full blown sequel. Modern Warfare 3, anyone?

Originally Posted by America

I don't quite get how this will attract third-party supporters. All they have to do is say "you can sell DLC through our consoles", they don't have to sell it themselves to do it do they?

It opens the door for them. I never said they'll come walking in.