PDA

View Full Version : Reggie on DLC: Consumers deserve "the complete experience".



Rii
18-11-2011, 08:50 AM
Eurogamer (http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2011-11-17-why-nintendo-isnt-interested-in-paid-dlc)

Nintendo hasn't jumped on the paid DLC bandwagon with its first party titles as it wants customers to feel they've paid for a "complete experience", according to NOA chief Reggie Fils-Aime.

"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 we're unwilling to sell a piece of a game upfront and, if you will, force a consumer to buy more later.

I think I'm in love. In a suitably manly and heterosexual fashion, of course.

I recently bought Donkey Kong Country Returns for what is a frankly ridiculous price for a 2D platformer in the modern age. But it's ok, because beyond knowing that game itself is of a high standard (developer pedigree coupled with reviews) I further know that it will be -

- near bug-free
- presented to a high standard (both software i.e. responsiveness, UI design, load times, etc. and hardware i.e. manuals, packaging)
- not subject to exploitative DLC
- not infested with intrusive DRM
- able to be re-sold (without having to deal with any 'code' bullshit)

Nintendo have disappointed core gamers in several respects this last generation, but in others they remain an oasis in a sea of shit. Thanks guys, don't ever change.

Heister
18-11-2011, 12:59 PM
Reggie - "Now, in addition, if we want to make other things available, great, and we'll look at that. But we're unwilling to sell a piece of a game upfront and, if you will, force a consumer to buy more later."



So Nintendo are going to release and charge for dlc?

Tams80
18-11-2011, 06:09 PM
So Nintendo are going to release and charge for dlc?

I think the idea is that Nintendo DLC will be something extra. Things that didn't make the final cut; were come up with too late for initial release, but the developers don;t want to wait for the next game for and possible extra things players want. This, rather than adding features that probably should have been in the initial release.

Althea
18-11-2011, 06:17 PM
Thanks guys, don't ever change.
Yeah, Nintendo. Don't stop rereleasing the same bloody games.

CuriousOrange
18-11-2011, 06:27 PM
DLC is less of a rip off than rereleasing the same subpar games over and over again with each generation. Nintendo seem to have a similar brainwashing effect Apple do.

Kelron
18-11-2011, 06:50 PM
I think the idea is that Nintendo DLC will be something extra. Things that didn't make the final cut; were come up with too late for initial release, but the developers don;t want to wait for the next game for and possible extra things players want. This, rather than adding features that probably should have been in the initial release.

So no different from most DLC. Day 1 DLC is a different matter, but I don't see how people can claim that x amount of extra maps or items or quests should have been released with the game rather than as DLC.

Rii
18-11-2011, 07:01 PM
In the absence of any examples of paid DLC from Nintendo it's pointless to speculate as to the nature thereof. But the emphasis on having the purchased product offer the complete experience should be easy enough to grasp even if not to articulate precisely, and that's what I find laudable.

Personally I doubt we'll ever see any paid DLC from Nintendo, it goes against their business and design practices in so many ways; I suspect Reggie was (1) referring to free, trivial DLC like Miis and what-have-you and (2) just covering his ass.

Althea
18-11-2011, 07:19 PM
DLC is not bad, though. DLC does not stop a game being a complete experience, either. The best DLC only bolsters the game or expands on it. But even cutting it for later in order to hit release date isn't a bad thing. There's the time between a game going gold and releasing, for example, and that can be used to make DLC and patches. Is it not only fair that we reward them for the extra work they put in? Before DLC, if some content was cut - especially in the case of console games - that was it. It was wasted. But now with DLC, it can be repurposed and added in later if the developer/publisher wishes it.

DLC is only bad when the system is abused by, say, excessive amounts of post-release DLC (Saints Row the Third, perhaps?) or when a game-affecting feature is added in as day-one DLC (BioWare's brilliant, brilliant - yes, that's sarcasm - job with Warden's Keep, for example).

deano2099
18-11-2011, 07:36 PM
So no different from most DLC. Day 1 DLC is a different matter, but I don't see how people can claim that x amount of extra maps or items or quests should have been released with the game rather than as DLC.

I'd normally agree, but you know what, I think Nintendo can. Their games are paced. I mean that's the brilliance of Mario and Zelda, that they feel complete but also feel like removing any one element would weaken them... I genuinely believe Nintendo are one of few developers who really take that approach to games dev. Considering the thing as a whole rather than parts that can be cut out and chunked up. It's a different mind-set, and I can totally see how they wouldn't find DLC in the traditional sense working for them.

Kelron
19-11-2011, 01:11 AM
I'd normally agree, but you know what, I think Nintendo can. Their games are paced. I mean that's the brilliance of Mario and Zelda, that they feel complete but also feel like removing any one element would weaken them... I genuinely believe Nintendo are one of few developers who really take that approach to games dev. Considering the thing as a whole rather than parts that can be cut out and chunked up. It's a different mind-set, and I can totally see how they wouldn't find DLC in the traditional sense working for them.

I suppose so, but I think you could stuff extra levels into a Mario game without any issues. They tend to open up a lot of levels simultaneously and leave you to work your way through them.

I was looking at it from the opposite direction, thinking of the complaints people make about DLC in games that can be cut up into parts. When an FPS releases new maps, a lot of people will tell you they shouldn't be charging for those maps. How do you draw the line between content that supposedly should have been in the game from the start and content that it's fair to charge for?

thegooseking
19-11-2011, 01:19 AM
How do you draw the line between content that supposedly should have been in the game from the start and content that it's fair to charge for?

It's a difficult question, because of marketing-speak. I'd say a game that is "incomplete" without the DLC indicates that the DLC should be free, but marketers have sort of conditioned us to think of "complete" as meaning, by definition, including all the DLC. But I'd say that as long as the game has atomicity and integrity as a self-contained product, that's all the buyer is really owed. Using the term 'complete' is just muddying the water.


But we're unwilling to sell a piece of a game upfront and, if you will, force a consumer to buy more later.

If I will? No, I won't. I have never felt forced to buy DLC. I have, on occasion, felt desire to pay money for something that was offered for a price and was not included in the base game. It's blind hysteria to think that equates to being 'forced'. And that's what he's doing. Playing on the hysteria for PR points. I don't find that particularly admirable.

Nalano
19-11-2011, 01:28 AM
It's a difficult question, because of marketing-speak. I'd say a game that is "incomplete" without the DLC indicates that the DLC should be free, but marketers have sort of conditioned us to think of "complete" as meaning, by definition, including all the DLC. But I'd say that as long as the game has atomicity and integrity as a self-contained product, that's all the buyer is really owed. Using the term 'complete' is just muddying the water.

This.

Remember when content DLC was called "expansion packs?" The game was complete before the expac. I mean, sure, we've most of us grown up playing computer games, and are now more savvy as consumers and basically see how the marketing departments in developers and publishers basically plan on DLC immediately after or even before the game goes gold, but there comes a time when we should take off the cynicism mask and just enjoy the game for what it is.

Heister
19-11-2011, 02:12 AM
I think the idea is that Nintendo DLC will be something extra. Things that didn't make the final cut; were come up with too late for initial release, but the developers don;t want to wait for the next game for and possible extra things players want. This, rather than adding features that probably should have been in the initial release.

And that something extra will cost us.
Play SMB as Kirby? 5
Play Kirby as Mario? 5
New tracks for Mario Kart 8? 5 each
New hats for Mario? ffs

Rii
19-11-2011, 02:23 AM
This.

Remember when content DLC was called "expansion packs?" The game was complete before the expac. I mean, sure, we've most of us grown up playing computer games, and are now more savvy as consumers and basically see how the marketing departments in developers and publishers basically plan on DLC immediately after or even before the game goes gold, but there comes a time when we should take off the cynicism mask and just enjoy the game for what it is.

When DLC is fine - like Minerva's Den for Bioshock 2 - it's fine. 90% of DLC isn't fine. If y'all are happy paying $15 for 'Back to Karkand', well, good for you. But I'm not and I'm glad there's a company out there that still ships games as products - and good ones - rather than seeking to establish a steady revenue stream via an ongoing service relationship.

Nalano
19-11-2011, 02:42 AM
When DLC is fine - like Minerva's Den for Bioshock 2 - it's fine. 90% of DLC isn't fine. If y'all are happy paying $15 for 'Back to Karkand', well, good for you. But I'm not and I'm glad there's a company out there that still ships games as products - and good ones - rather than seeking to establish a steady revenue stream via an ongoing service relationship.

And I didn't buy Back to Karkand. And I don't like mappacks because mappacks didn't used to cost money. BUT I'M NOT BOYCOTTING BATTLEFIELD 3 BECAUSE BACK TO KARKAND EXISTS. Battlefield 3 stands up perfectly fine on its own.

pakoito
19-11-2011, 03:51 AM
"The (same) complete experience" every year for every console. We promise we will remake Ocarina of Time for every new console with hardware powerful enough to do it. Also, virtual console (shameless emulator) for every title more than 3 years old.

deano2099
19-11-2011, 03:59 AM
When DLC is fine - like Minerva's Den for Bioshock 2 - it's fine. 90% of DLC isn't fine. If y'all are happy paying $15 for 'Back to Karkand', well, good for you. But I'm not and I'm glad there's a company out there that still ships games as products - and good ones - rather than seeking to establish a steady revenue stream via an ongoing service relationship.

How much content is 'fine' though? 4 maps for $15 isn't okay. What about 40 maps?

sabrage
19-11-2011, 06:09 AM
If DICE wants to do more like BC2 Vietnam, I'm all for that.

Rii
19-11-2011, 09:38 AM
How much content is 'fine' though? 4 maps for $15 isn't okay. What about 40 maps?

More to the point is what the original game didn't ship with.

deano2099
19-11-2011, 02:18 PM
Every game has content cut out of it. You never get a game with 100% of the content developed for it in the actual game. It's a simple thing that most gamers don't tend to get: games are improved by cutting things out. The 'more, more, more' attitude is flawed. You really don't want every piece of content made for a game. A competitive multiplayer FPS would be ruined if it had 60 maps as you'd never get chance to learn any single one of them. The pacing of DX3's ending would have been spoiled if The Missing Link was built into the game itself. And so on.

archonsod
22-11-2011, 07:37 AM
BUT I'M NOT BOYCOTTING BATTLEFIELD 3 BECAUSE BACK TO KARKAND EXISTS.

I'm boycotting Battlefield 3 because Battlefield 3 exists. Which AIM group do I get to join?