News Article

Animal Crossing: New Leaf Will Not Have "Unwholesome" Paid DLC

Posted by Thomas Whitehead

No 99 cent purchases from Tom Nook, then

Nintendo's spent a fair bit of time and effort this year taking steps forward in its download business on 3DS, with one notable area being in-game paid DLC. It's not as if extra add-on content is entirely new for the big N in 2012, but its profile undoubtedly increased with Theatrhythm: Final Fantasy and then, most notably, New Super Mario Bros. 2. If the sacred grounds of the moustachioed plumber could be invaded by paid DLC, what hope is there for Animal Crossing: New Leaf, a game practically begging to deprive us of loose change on a regular basis?

Thankfully, Nintendo doesn't appear to be a company primarily occupied by its bottom line and wringing every ounce of profit out of its gamers. It wants to make money, of course, but it seems as if Animal Crossing: New Leaf is out of bounds. In a Financial Q&A Satoru Iwata stated that the prospect of paying money for items to influence and change the core gameplay is "unwholesome", before stating that paid DLC had been ruled out for the anticipated 3DS release.

That sort of element [paid DLC] is absolutely not being added.

Considering the series' history of giving away plenty of free DLC for gamers to enjoy, this is excellent news for 3DS owners. Nintendo's policy seems to be that DLC should be an entirely optional extra that isn't required to spruce up the packaged content, a noble view that some other publishers would find completely alien to their instincts. What's great for gamers, though, is probably going to frustrate Nintendo's shareholders and accountants.

Would you have considered paying for DLC in Animal Crossing: New Leaf, do you think Nintendo's being too kind to its gamers or are you pleased that it's sticking to its principles? Let us know in the comments below.


From the web

Game Screenshots

User Comments (45)



KingDunsparce said:

Yay! I don't believe that Nintendo should give into having too much DLC. It makes for unhappy customers.



Ernest_The_Crab said:

As I posted in the Kotaku article as well, the quote seems to mean they don't intend to charge for furniture/items but it doesn't mean they won't charge for new areas to explore for example (which could include some different items).

It is nice to know that for the most part we won't be charged for individual items.



mirnkaya said:

I'm willing to pay for new areas - for example if there would be in the future some new island packs to which you can travel by boat or some underwater areas to visit through diving or anything fun and crazy of the sorts. But it's surely a slippery slope as anyone who ever played The Sims should know



Burning_Spear said:

I liked it for NSMB2; I wouldn't like it here. There's so much work that goes into filling the museum and getting all the hybrids; to have to pay on top of that would be too much. They're still providing DLC for City Folk — that should be the model.



Chunky_Droid said:

Nintendo would be more wise to use it as an advertising tool for future games, first and third would be awesome!

And you should be able to buy a TV to put in your house that links to Nintendo Video.



Windy said:

I like where Nintendos head is on this game. But I would have paid for sure. I cant control myself LOL Animal Crossing is Nintendos Beautiful game



Mowzle said:

I don't have any problem purchasing additional levels to extend a game like NSMB2, but I feel most strongly that games like Animal Crossing :New Leaf should come with all the frills in place. Working towards unlocking and collecting everything in the game is mainly what it's all about. Occasional DLC items, as with the extra puzzles that are promised with Professor Layton and the Miracle Mask, should remain as freeby treats. These add to the game's appeal, but not having them doesn't spoil the overall enjoyment for those who don't have routine access to the internet, or funds for additional purchases.



Robo-goose said:

See, Animal Crossing is definitely the perfect game to milk paid DLC out of, so, if Nintendo doesn't do that, they'll win a few one-ups from all of their fans (especially considering that you all ready pay 40$ or more for the game to begin with).



AlternateButtons said:

GOOD. I freaking hate DLC with a passion. When I pay for a game, that's what I want, just the game. I don't want to invest anymore money than I already have in it. There is some good DLC out there like NSMB 2 DLC but it's just not worth it for me. Too many good games are coming out for me investing my money into a game I already bought.



Shworange said:

Hell yea! I looked forward to getting the free monthly DLC from city folk. Hopefully that route will continue. Paying real money for fake furniture angers me. iPhone games, I'm looking in your direction!!!



Morpheel said:

Considering their Animal Crossing DLC often becomes unavailable forever after the initial release, I wouldn't mind being able to pay for it years after that.



Dodger said:

Good. I don't mind new levels as DLC but objects are stupid. That is why I don't play facebook games often.



Boo_Buster said:

This is great news. Mostly all DLC is unwholesome... Mostly. Just one reason why I appreciate what Nintendo does, and how they do it.



Squashie said:

I'm quite pleased with this, but why do Nintendo charge for extra levels in New Super Mario Bros. 2?



Sun said:

Nintendo says it is unwholesome so Nintendo fans say it is unwholesome. If Nintendo charged for DLC on Animal Crossing Nintendo fans would say it is absolutely justified.



TrueWiiMaster said:

That's how DLC should be. Gamers shouldn't have content held hostage that would be a significant part of the game. It's too bad that many major 3rd parties seem to think the exact opposite.



Yee said:

I've always said that games like Mario are perfect for DLC, instead of sequels, just give us new levels to download, but Animal Crossing is quite special, the only way they could charge us for new things, is if the game becomes free-to-play.



FonistofCruxis said:

I'm glad Nintendo doesn't think the way some third parties do but I wouldn't mind paying for new areas.



Hokori said:

Yeah don't make us pay $5 for a new couch, maybe if they made the town bigger or added some BIG feature, of course I'd also be happy if the BIG feature was free



Shiromikio said:

Kudos to them for being more cautious about how they incorporate DLC and the newer business models. Too much or done in certain games, it can feel like crippled games made to entice people to pay to unlock more items. I think Nintendo is well aware of this and they're still testing the waters. They didn't have to make this choice with AC, but it's nice that they did.



DreamOn said:

Nintendo will make its money don't worry about that. We can take comfort that the company is very traditional and seems to want to do things as they always have. For me it's positive as I'm a traditional gamer. But it seems to also mean they embrace changes slower - online accounts and connectivity for instance - and that can also frustrate some. Though like the paid DLC with NSMB 2 they implement it for the revenue that avenue has proven to bring albeit in a way they feel is harmless to the initial purchase, which is nice. I like Nintendo as a company for at least ostensibly having principles.



Neram said:

I think the way they're doing it with New Super Mario Bros. 2 is perfect. They gave us the core game just as we'd expect, but are offering extras for those who want it. It's icing on the cake, really. If they keep offering DLC in that manner, I'd be more than happy to dish out the extra coinage, for the extras.



Prof_Clayton said:

I actually would have bought dlc for this game, but I'm glad its not there! (Only if it was like an island or something).



Aviator said:

This form of DLC does not suit to the paying model.

When you compare it to games that offer new weapons/missions, they add more to the game than a cosmetic change.



RightHemisphereG said:

Nintendo Knows what there doing when it comes to gamesoftwear there defiantly following the right wrool book.
There problem has always been with memory libations and in resent Gen's the OS not a nuf applications(Channels) that will let us create add, shear content in the OS (The big point) then to add that content to our games. Where's Mario Paint, Mario Artist. series. A lot that can stem form the small RAM and internal memory. that can not achieve this.



Xilef said:

@squashie Because those levels were actuall additions to the gameplay. Releasing, say, furniture DLC for AC wouldn't really add anything to the gameplay, it would just be an minor aesthetic change (like a new costume in a fighting game). So thats why Nintendo is charging you for the Mario DLC but not potentional AC DLC.



Hokori said:

@Aviator Especially the DLC released day one rather then have it in there from the beginning and at that some come out if you pre order and for what? An omega sword? Plasma rifle? Electro whip? Nintendos got it right with Pokemon, and animal crossing



Zombie_Barioth said:

I like the way Nintendo is handling DLC, DLC itself isn't bad the practices are. It should be completely optional and not make you feel like you'll miss out on part of the game without it

I'm glad they won't be doing paid DLC with AC, this series could be a DLC nightmare in the wrong hands.



Tindre said:

yes! <3

seriously, too many games adds DLC as - removing part of the game and then selling it, instead of selling it as a bonus... its sad. :<



c1pher_c0mplet said:

@Neram Completely agree. Long live, Nintendo! Like anything else, if DLC was done "properly" in games, I wouldn't mind it. But all too often it ruins games, imo. Part of the fun in any kind of game — smartphone, console, handheld — is playing it through, discovering things, unlocking others, and finding out how to defeat baddies from friends, etc. Being able to unlock a Level 100 Warrior for $9.99USD to whisk your way through a game seems counterintuitive and cheapens the overall experience and thrill of playing a game in the first place to me.



ewaugh said:

i feel like what there doing with dlc in fire emblem is pretty cool not to much and there bringing back classic characters like Ike, Marth, and Roy



Dark_Zero9405 said:

i wholly agree with the paid tv connecting to nintendo video or what about also adding a if you have it connect to netflix kinda would be a little cool to see that also i agree about the extra places like you're not forced to pay for it like everything thats already on the game itself but its withheald untill you pay money you may not have for something thats not going to go very far longer, ide pay for some new change of sceanery if i got board or tired of the same place thats how dlc should be there if you want it but not required to play the game. but as blathers would say i digress.



Kitsune_Rei said:

I would have bought DLC unless it was really shallow or not worth the cost, but its nice to know I won't need to set aside extra money for the game. I'm surprised because they could, but kudos to them for not doing it.

Leave A Comment

Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...