Super Smash Bros. for Wii U

[dyne]

Never cared for these games but damn if I don't want all of the Amiibo. They recently announced a 2nd series of figures. My wallet is going to be sad considering I don't want to open any of them.

[ps3bd_owner]

Originally Posted by dyne

Never cared for these games but damn if I don't want all of the Amiibo. They recently announced a 2nd series of figures. My wallet is going to be sad considering I don't want to open any of them.

I'm waiting for the 3rd wave and sure hope they'll have Mega Man for that batch!

[Diesel]

Mewtwo announced ....as DLC if you buy both versions

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/10/...ash-bros-wii-u



It does say 'for free' if you buy both, which likely means those who don't can just purchase him (or maybe there will be a character pack).

[Dynamo of Eternia]

I hate dlc. ALL dlc... even the free kind. Sure, free is better than paying for it, but just put the content on the damn disc. Despite the fact that I have the 3DS version and will be getting the Wii U version as well, it still sucks on sheer principle.

[dyne]

Eh. Free DLC adds longevity. If everything was there day 1 you'd have little reason to return to a game later. I agree though that day 1 paid DLC is a sham and should never be tolerated.

I really wish I was into this series. There is so much to this game. It's pretty nuts.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by dyne

Eh. Free DLC adds longevity. If everything was there day 1 you'd have little reason to return to a game later. I agree though that day 1 paid DLC is a sham and should never be tolerated.

I really wish I was into this series. There is so much to this game. It's pretty nuts.

It depends on how you define longevity. Sure, when released sometime after the initial game, it gives people extra incentive to pick it up again. But for people who keep their games long term and may play them again years down the road, it's a potential issue. If my Wii U breaks 5 to 10 years from now and I obtain a working replacement, there's no guarantee that Nintendo will still support the online network and downloads for it. I may not be able to re-aquire that content (short of going through some kind of unofficial hack-based work around), and will be stuck only playing the content that comes on the disc in the first place.


While there are a few instances where dlc can be argued as a necessary evil (the Rockband music library would never have been as expansive and robust without it), more often than not it's handled poorly.


Even the way people justify some of it is kind of silly. Take for instance your above criticism of day one paid dlc. I agree, that sucks. But some people argue that it's "okay" if it comes out later, theoretically defending it on the basis that it's something that they finished programming after the game was already released.

But we don't necessarily know that was even the case. They could have had everything ready to go and then heald off on releasing the dlc until later. Or perhaps it wasn't "ready to go" when the discs went into production or even when the game was released, but only because they knew that since they weren't going to release it until later, they didn't have to make it an immediate priority. Perhaps it's content that could have and should have been on the disc as part of the game, or even could have been released on day one as dlc (which again still sucks), but they took their time knowing what their sales strategy would be. And even if including it on the disc simply as part of the game from the get go would have slightly delayed the release of the disc... so what? I'd rather wait a bit longer and get more content, then. Heck, if they need to make more money off of the release, charge more for it, but include all of the content that we would be nickled and dimed for after the fact. If I'm going to pay that money anyway, at least sell it to me in a manner that's as lease of a rip off as possible.



I even laugh at people who get offended on practices like Capcom when they would have "on-disc" dlc (in which the content is on the disc, but behind a separate pay wall), but find that download based dlc to be perfectly fine. Don't get me wrong, I find the idea of on-disc dlc to be offensive as well. But what I find hilarious is the idea that if they leave it off of the disc and make you download it, somehow that combined with the timing of when the content is made available somehow makes it "a-okay." You are still paying the same amount of extra money for it either way, only now you have to download the data and have it take up extra space on your hard drive/system storage, and in some cases you have to wait to be able to buy it and use it. Yeah, that makes it better!

It's kind of like telling someone that they are a jag-off if they punch you in the stomach with their left hand, but it's perfectly fine if they do it with their right hand (even if they punch you harder with the right hand than they would with the left).

It's even more hilarious when you are effectively forced to download the dlc content via a "free" update patch, but cannot use it without paying for it. Since update patches (which even those I don't agree with as the game should be finalized on the disc IMO) are free, tend to "fix" issues with any given game, and are effectively something that you are entitled to by way of having purchased the disc, on sheer principle it's really no different than having the content on the disc, locked behind a paywall. Only now you have the added in convenience of having to wait for the download, have it take up space on your system memory/hard drive (with that inconvenience even effecting those who don't even plan to bother with the dlc).



Part of the issue is that while they are different forms of entertainment, I look at my games collection in a similar manner as my movie collection. I want to be able to go back and watch/play them when I want, possibly years down the road, even if they aren't necessarily re-released on the next format (which in the case of games, far fewer titles are re-released on the next format than with movies). And I don't think anyone would tollerate buying 70% of a movie on a disc, and having to pay to download the rest of it just to watch it in full from a service that we may not necessarily be able to count on being around years down the in the event that a player needs to be replaced and the content redownloaded. Yet with gaming, this is somehow considered perfectly fine.

The only rational response to this is to realize how simply f-ing stupid this practice is.

[dyne]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

It depends on how you define longevity. Sure, when released sometime after the initial game, it gives people extra incentive to pick it up again. But for people who keep their games long term and may play them again years down the road, it's a potential issue. 1. If my Wii U breaks 5 to 10 years from now and I obtain a working replacement, there's no guarantee that Nintendo will still support the online network and downloads for it. I may not be able to re-aquire that content (short of going through some kind of unofficial hack-based work around), and will be stuck only playing the content that comes on the disc in the first place.


While there are a few instances where dlc can be argued as a necessary evil (the Rockband music library would never have been as expansive and robust without it), more often than not it's handled poorly.


Even the way people justify some of it is kind of silly. Take for instance your above criticism of day one paid dlc. I agree, that sucks. 2. But some people argue that it's "okay" if it comes out later, theoretically defending it on the basis that it's something that they finished programming after the game was already released.

But we don't necessarily know that was even the case. They could have had everything ready to go and then heald off on releasing the dlc until later. Or perhaps it wasn't "ready to go" when the discs went into production or even when the game was released, but only because they knew that since they weren't going to release it until later, they didn't have to make it an immediate priority. Perhaps it's content that could have and should have been on the disc as part of the game, or even could have been released on day one as dlc (which again still sucks), but they took their time knowing what their sales strategy would be. And even if including it on the disc simply as part of the game from the get go would have slightly delayed the release of the disc... so what? I'd rather wait a bit longer and get more content, then. Heck, if they need to make more money off of the release, charge more for it, but include all of the content that we would be nickled and dimed for after the fact. If I'm going to pay that money anyway, at least sell it to me in a manner that's as lease of a rip off as possible.



I even laugh at people who get offended on practices like Capcom when they would have "on-disc" dlc (in which the content is on the disc, but behind a separate pay wall), but find that download based dlc to be perfectly fine. Don't get me wrong, I find the idea of on-disc dlc to be offensive as well. But what I find hilarious is the idea that if they leave it off of the disc and make you download it, somehow that combined with the timing of when the content is made available somehow makes it "a-okay." You are still paying the same amount of extra money for it either way, only now you have to download the data and have it take up extra space on your hard drive/system storage, and in some cases you have to wait to be able to buy it and use it. Yeah, that makes it better!

It's kind of like telling someone that they are a jag-off if they punch you in the stomach with their left hand, but it's perfectly fine if they do it with their right hand (even if they punch you harder with the right hand than they would with the left).

3. It's even more hilarious when you are effectively forced to download the dlc content via a "free" update patch, but cannot use it without paying for it. Since update patches (which even those I don't agree with as the game should be finalized on the disc IMO) are free, tend to "fix" issues with any given game, and are effectively something that you are entitled to by way of having purchased the disc, on sheer principle it's really no different than having the content on the disc, locked behind a paywall. Only now you have the added in convenience of having to wait for the download, have it take up space on your system memory/hard drive (with that inconvenience even effecting those who don't even plan to bother with the dlc).



Part of the issue is that while they are different forms of entertainment, I look at my games collection in a similar manner as my movie collection. I want to be able to go back and watch/play them when I want, possibly years down the road, even if they aren't necessarily re-released on the next format (which in the case of games, far fewer titles are re-released on the next format than with movies). And I don't think anyone would tollerate buying 70% of a movie on a disc, and having to pay to download the rest of it just to watch it in full from a service that we may not necessarily be able to count on being around years down the in the event that a player needs to be replaced and the content redownloaded. Yet with gaming, this is somehow considered perfectly fine.

The only rational response to this is to realize how simply f-ing stupid this practice is.

I pretty much agree with you about everything. I guess in the end DLC is about what the value is to the individual. No doubt a game like Destiny had content held back simply to nickle and dime players as well as the upcoming WWE game (my God is that one horrendous). I remember the days when DLC was bought in the store and called an expansion pack was was roughly half the size (minimum) of the base game for $10-30.

To break down your individual points.

1. Agree completely. I would hope at some point these companies would release unlock files so that anything you bought is yours after the service goes down.

2. To me this is simply a matter of perception. Sure most companies hold stuff back but at least with say Mario Kart 8 it's a lot of content months after release and it's pretty cheap as well. Many other games have day 1 or month 1 content that you just know were held back. Again, it's perception and while cutting content is never good at least try and bullshit me and release it later. Or quite simply, make it worthwhile and cost effective. I will never understand people that buy the CoD/Battlefield games day 1 at $100 and still don't get all the content included.


3. Agreed. If what you mean is like what they did with Dead Rising 3. Don't take up my space if I didn't purchase anything.

All in all I've never really spent much money on DLC because for the most part it usually adds an hour of single player or multiplayer crap I'll never use. The most recent example that I've bought was the Mario Kart 8 DLC. Both packs at around $10 is a fantastic deal (to me). I have however bought a lot of digital content on my PS3 and learned that I'll never do that again. When that system dies all of my PS1 games I've accumulated will be worthless. Sure I can obtain them on the internet but I bought them on that system for a reason. Now with companies not thinking past the current gen for compatibility I'm really reigning in what I buy digital.

[NJ_RAMS_FAN]

Are most of you buying physical copy?

[snakemaster7]

Originally Posted by NJ_RAMS_FAN

Are most of you buying physical copy?

Only physical for me for Nintendo, besides smaller eshop titles. I'm the opposite with my PS4 though.

Picked this up today, played a few matches. Kirby is my main, and everything feels really tight. Love his new hammer move, you can charge it up now, and move/jump while charging, it's great. I'm bummed that you can't change the controls for moving though, as I like to use the d-pad for movement. I used the wiimote (with no nunchuck) exclusively for Brawl (I never had a Wii, my bro did, so it's not like I played THAT much, I'm not hardcore like he is with a gamecube controller or anything). So, I'm now playing with a wiimote and it feels better than the gamepad lol.

[detective392]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I hate dlc. ALL dlc... even the free kind. Sure, free is better than paying for it, but just put the content on the damn disc. Despite the fact that I have the 3DS version and will be getting the Wii U version as well, it still sucks on sheer principle.

If they waited to put Mewtwo into the game and not as DLC we'd be getting the game in the Spring instead of next month as he's not ready yet.

[Dynamo of Eternia]

Originally Posted by detective392

If they waited to put Mewtwo into the game and not as DLC we'd be getting the game in the Spring instead of next month as he's not ready yet.

I was making a larger, general point about dlc. But using this as an example, the only reason he is "not ready yet" is because they simply didn't bother working on him sooner. If they had planned things out correctly, I'm sure he could have been included from the get go without delaying the game's release very much, if at all.

[dyne]

Originally Posted by Dynamo of Eternia

I was making a larger, general point about dlc. But using this as an example, the only reason he is "not ready yet" is because they simply didn't bother working on him sooner. If they had planned things out correctly, I'm sure he could have been included from the get go without delaying the game's release very much, if at all.

A quote I remembered specifically about this. I only remembered because it's so absurd.

http://www.nintendolife.com/news/201...r_nintendo_3ds

The process, however, of actually creating a character often takes well over a year, where we are constantly working on the model, the animations, the audio and the balancing. For the game balance we have a testing team playing almost every day and we make adjustments based on their results. I was working from morning to night with my responsibilities as director, so I was only able to spend Wednesday evenings and weekends on the balance.

[Smasher]

I just wish there was a meaty single-player mode like Adventure mode from Melee or Subspace Emissary from Brawl

[Bucky]

The game is currently on sale for $41.05 at Wal-Mart.

[dyne]

Tempting. Thanks for the notice.