A new game would basically be the same as Smash 4 but with some different characters/stages, you could have the extras be DLC for a Smash 4 port instead
What about Brawl to Wii-U? It retained many assets from that game. I believe about half the stages have come from past games.
With Smash released earlier, the main project for the Smash team can be something else like a new IP or a currently dormant IP (think like how ARMS existed because of no MK9)
Sometimes new IPs do well & sometimes they flop, for the most part, Smash Bros. isn't the latter.
The only people who would be disappointed with a Smash 4 enhanced port are people who are sour about Wii U ports on Switch in general.
I'm pleased to have Wii-U ports, but I have found major flaws in releasing a "deluxe port" of 2014 Smash Bros. to get people to pay for something that they didn't have to pay for before.
@backup368 Well it's $20 dollars for a whole year, it's already cheaper than other services on consoles, Smash isn't the only game you'll be playing online with... and online play isn't the only thing you'll be getting out of the service...
Yes. The online service can be a phenomenal deal if done right, with various triple A online games, indy games, free games, eShop discounts, friend communities, and more. So that makes having Smash Bros. less important.
@Grumblevolcano When there is to be a paid online service, shouldn't you expect more out of it? With Wii-U's online service, it was free of charge. This possible "deluxe port" would be a version of the same games that you enjoyed on that free service. It would be like if a restaurant charged customers for "deluxe water", which is no difference from free, regular drinking water.
Also, I am pretty sure that they wouldn't shut down the Wii-U's online service after just 4 years, and the 3DS is still very lucrative to Nintendo still.
As opposed to playing a sequel on a paid service?
Also, why should we expect a lot from a $20 service?
@TheLZdragon Because as I have said before, Nintendo needs to compete with Sony & Mickrosoft in order to get people to subscribe. That means getting a similar software lineup of online games onto the Switch, and charging a smaller annual fee to play them all. Why else would they be waiting all this time to start charging money for it?
@skywake So you ask me what could be needed in order for a true sequel to be necessary, and then you're saying I am fantasy booking? That's a head-scratcher.
You're talking about the deluxe release as if it would be the exact same thing again and Smash 5 as if it'll deliver on all of your dreams. The likely outcome would have them much closer. Explain why it's needed if you must but be at least a little fair minded about it
@skywake
Is it the same game or a different game? It's the same game.
Nobody is talking about this being the same game except you two. The only reason your saying it is because your argument against it weakens if it's a deluxe edition with new content. If you were confident in your side of the debate you wouldn't be talking down an idea your opponents aren't even talking about
Combining both games would bring plenty of new content for those who only owned one version of the game. For those who owned both, well at least you would have it all under one package.
For $20 a year I am not expecting great things. The amount Nintendo would have to invest to give everyone there dream service they demand now it has gone paid surely can't be massively profitable at $20 a year.
Also if they did port Smash to Switch I'd be curious to see any new single player content.
You're talking about the deluxe release as if it would be the exact same thing again and Smash 5 as if it'll deliver on all of your dreams. The likely outcome would have them much closer. Explain why it's needed if you must but be at least a little fair minded about it.
Or how about you sell me on a port and explain why this just needs to exist, and why it would be something I would absolutely need to play online for, when there are last gen versions that you can already play.
@backup368
You can't play the Wii U and 3DS versions on the Switch. Also a Switch release would be both portable and HD. I don't know about you but I just want Smash on this thing. Games as a service imo is better than resetting entirely every console cycle. In 2018 why do we have to lose all the content that was built for the previous release?
Lastly we can whine about ports in general, that's a thing. But what you seem to forget is that time spent making a new release is time not spent on other things. Smash 5 means less content in Smash on Switch. It means time not spent making something like Kid Icarus 2. I want more content not olive leafs to the people complaing about ports
@backup368 Except this would not be about smash at all.
Nintendo's online has been free up until now, but it will be paid in the future. It's a fact, its happening.
You can play mario kart 8 online for free now, but won't later. Same for splatoon, same for pokemon when it comes out, same for every other single game with online modes that are free right now or on older consoles.
Paid online has nothing to do with a port of smash, it will be a console-wide thing, and it won't stop developers from selling games.
@skywake A sequel could be both portable and in HD as well. It could have been easy for Nintendo to just port Super Mario 3D World and call it a day, but they made Super Mario Odyssey & it is now the Switch's best selling game.
There is no indication that content would be "lost". Many fighting game franchises build upon previous installments; for instance, Tekken, Blazblue, the early Mortal Kombat. Some character or content gets cut, but the amount of content usually grows. Having a complete build of Tekken 6 on the 3DS should have been considered an outstanding accomplishment.
We're not sure how long they have been planning Super Smash Bros. on the Switch. They could have started as soon as they wrapped up the Wii-U & 3DS versions, or they could have started just yesterday. But if people behind closed doors have known that a new console was coming, they had more than enough time to get a port together. Because it is quite obvious that Nintendo has always wanted a Smash Bros. game to be introduced early on in each of their console's life cycles.
@Meowpheel Except it would be free to play online for almost 17 months. If you're a Switch owner and you haven't been interested in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe by now, you likely never will.
Splatoon 2 is a newer game. No last gen version of this game exists on Wii-U or 3DS.
Pokemon is rumored to be a new game. No last gen version of this game is rumored to exist on 3DS.
@KaiserGX Splatoon was a mess on Wii-U too. You couldn't play online unless you used the tube. But now we're thankful we didn't get a port.
Except it would be free to play online for almost 17 months. If you're a Switch owner and you haven't been interested in Mario Kart 8 Deluxe by now, you likely never will.
Mario Kart and Splatoon are games that people have been playing online for free on the switch for a whole year, and then suddenly they want to make people pay for the privilege. Based from your posture about charging for online, you should be steaming mad about the mere thought of it.
How is it any better or more acceptable than porting a game to a console with paid online? What makes Mario Kart 8 Deluxe post-paid-online any different from Super Smash Bros 4 Deluxe?
Pokemon games used to have free online in previous titles, why is it fair for those to get new games with paid online? The core multiplayer modes haven't changed at all in years besides the addition of new forms and attacks; if all you care about is online multiplayer (as a lot of people do), they might as well be ports. Ports you need to buy to stay in the competitive scene, now those people will need to pay extra to play online.
@Meowpheel
People WILL be cheesed off about having to pay for something that has been free even on Switch. That's precisely why Nintendo do need to have something new to justify this new fee. There's also a difference between ports that were released a year ago to plug the release schedule and a port released in conjunction with or even after the launch of online.
@noobish_hat You know what, tough noodle. People get mad at anything. A sale happens later on and people say, "what this is how you treat your early buyers Nintendo?!". What does it matter to me or Nintendo if a small group of people get mad, they're going to buy it anyways and it's going to make them money and I'm sure a good majority of people will get enjoyment out of it.
Honestly at this point, you or the other guy (I can't even tell you guys apart anymore) don't really know what to argue about at this point. I've seen a lot of contradictions and such that it's just not making any sense.
So once the online subscription enters in action any and all ports are strictly forbidden. Right?
That's basically the argument at this point isn't it. Its not about what makes sense for smash, it's about complaining about Nintendo charging for online
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
"Don't stir the pot" is a nice way of saying "they're too dumb to reason with"
So once the online subscription enters in action any and all ports are strictly forbidden. Right?
Good strawman you've got there. Nobody actually said that. It's been said over and over again now, so I don't know how much more simply it can be put: if we're talking about USING GAMES TO SELL THE PAID ONLINE SERVICE, a new game is better than a port of a game that's already been online for free. Didn't realise that was such a mind-bending and controversial idea.
Hate to also have to repeat this as well, but apparently some people are actually this dense: someone who has no intention of playing online anyway is not likely to complain about paying for online. But sure, this argument is making real headway, so please continue with your tone deaf bleating.
Forums
Topic: 2 Major Things That Go Against Having A Smash Bros. "Deluxe Port"
Posts 81 to 100 of 168
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.