News Article

Talking Point: DLC's Increasingly Important Role for Nintendo

Posted by Thomas Whitehead

Games are a bit less 'final' than they used to be

It's not so long ago that Sony and Microsoft's platforms began to drown in DLC (downloadable content) while, for Nintendo gamers, it was largely restricted to the occasional Guitar Hero or Rock Band track on Wii. Nintendo had an attitude of adopting online trends and practices in its own sweet time, thank you very much; the Kyoto-based company was busy selling ludicrous numbers of consoles to worry about such matters.

Of course, the capabilities of the Wii and DSi undoubtedly played their part in limiting the emergence of additional content, with both rocking relatively primitive online services and third-parties not necessarily being inclined to invest money in making it happen. For a time the main DLC business elsewhere revolved around franchises such as Call of Duty, and the Wii wasn't exactly the primary system for those kinds of titles.

Of course, that situation is rapidly changing, and Nintendo's shown an impressive capacity for quickly evolving in the online market. The 3DS started relatively quietly on the DLC front, with Theatrhythm: Final Fantasy being a notable contender and showing that, ultimately, music games can be solid earners beyond their initial release. Although it wasn't the first to do it, however, the Coin Rush packs in New Super Mario Bros. 2 were high profile as the first major Nintendo release to jump onto the bandwagon, the content on offer prompting debates about value.

We haven't exactly seen an explosion of paid DLC on the 3DS since Mario's initial foray — more notable strides have come with flexible pricing and plenty of retail downloads — but there's been a fair amount of free DLC; the SpotPass functionality of the 3DS has been delivering nuggets of extras almost since launch day. Yet one recent release has been pushing paid-DLC as a major part of the experience — Fire Emblem: Awakening. While players can merrily progress through the main campaign paying nothing more than the core price, there's a significant assortment of extra maps, either individual or in packs, to choose from. These don't just keep gamers amused, but in some cases provide buffs, characters and experience points that help out in the main adventure, fudging the argument that these are harmless extras. Nintendo, like most other game companies, is picking up on the revenues to be had from download only content for retail games — as Satoru Iwata recently outlined, "digital business", in its various forms, is of vital importance.

Those of us that like to hold up Nintendo as a paragon of virtue, shunning DLC practices that aim to deprive us of our cash, may have to accept that it's joining the game. It's an inevitable progression, perhaps, and will bring with it key points to consider in each case — is the DLC worth its price, does the core game still provide full retail value, and can someone who doesn't want the extras still enjoy the game fully? If major Nintendo franchises continue to see DLC drifting into their products, it'll be an argument that could get feisty.

Yet, whatever your personal view on paid DLC, we'd suggest that we should all want it to have a role on the Wii U. The 3DS is arguably a different beast to the home console, with a pleasing userbase of over 30 million and a real sense of momentum and unique identity with its current and upcoming game library. The Wii U, however, is in the early days of a quest to show that it can entertain the masses as much as competitive systems, both with unique content and, of course, multi-platform titles. It's in the latter that DLC is important, as so many third parties and major franchises make it a vital part of their products. If PS3, Xbox 360, PS4 and Xbox Next have extras on offer, then in the interest of sales we should want the Wii U to have them too, so that the system doesn't look like the odd one out.

So far, on that score, it's been a mixed set of results. Assassin's Creed III has lacked a season pass, but nevertheless has brought its additional modes and story segments to the Wii U eShop, while older ports such as Batman: Arkham City Armoured Edition had all DLC included on the disc. On the negative side we have Mass Effect 3, with some of this content on the disc but no support for extras that have followed, and a similar story — at the time of writing — with Need for Speed: Most Wanted U. In the case of ME3 this absence adds to the frustration that the Wii U received a single game while the trilogy was bundled on other systems, while in the case of NFS:MW Criterion's Creative Director Alex Ward made a valid point about the plausibility of bringing DLC to the Wii U title.

And there's the rub. We suspect plenty of Wii U gamers would love to see full DLC support for multi-platform titles, but developers and publishers may be in a position where they need sales to make it worth their while. The latest title to be faced by the issue has been Injustice: Gods Among Us, with Warner Bros. staying silent before breaking cover to state that it expects the content already on PS3 and 360 to come to the Wii U this summer. Considering some of the losses in this area so far, the phrase "better late than never" springs to mind.

The Wii U, as we've already argued elsewhere, has a big second half of 2013 ahead of it which, if things go well, could be an important period of revival and success. Factors will be prices in stores compared to rival successors from Sony and Microsoft, killer first-party titles — which are most certainly coming — and generally getting the word out about the unique offerings of the Wii U concept. Third party games will also be a factor, and we do have a decent, albeit not comprehensive, list of big releases that are making their way to Wii U. With consumers looking for a new system on tight budgets, combining some big multi-platform hits with Nintendo's own goodies may be a powerful force in stores — but DLC will play a part. It probably won't be the main factor for many, but having confidence that a title like Watch_Dogs or Batman: Arkham Origins will have those optional extras may be important to some. Let's not forget that paid DLC has plenty of fans — download product revenues have been on the up in recent years, and publishers (including Nintendo, based on comments from Satoru Iwata) wouldn't invest so much time and effort into the area if it wasn't paying dividends.

Paid DLC will pop up on 3DS, but it's on Wii U where it may really count. The strategy for winning over customers might not just include a robust lineup of third-party content, but also all of the little extras to accompany these games. Nintendo's system has had a mix of wins and losses with DLC so far; we hope the wins will stack up as the Holiday season approaches.

From the web

User Comments (49)



DarkKirby said:

A majority of the time DLC is made along side the main game, or worse, cut from it, so it can be sold separately and increase profits. I highly disagree with such practices. If companies decide to spend more money developing content for a game after a game has been sent to printing/released and charge money for that extra content, that's fantastic.

Also, before Nintendo gets on the DLC bandwagon, I would hope they fix their digital distribution to be less crappy (seriously just copy Steam's model).



GiftedGimp said:

Nintendo has to open up to DLC, its the only way forward, especially if they want more 3rd party support.
It's a fune line to tread though, MS, Sony and almost every publisher has in a lot of peoples opinions have over stepped the mark as to whats considered to be acceptible dlc, and what should of been available from the start.
especially when the supposed dlc is just a key to unlock on disc content, and then there's the awkward matter of Micro-Transactions.
EStore seems to be limited in that it doesn't allow games to have direct access to it, which season passes need to operate.. or have done so far on ps3/360. Games need to be able to link directly to eStore firstly, so publishers can offer the favoured season pass discounts, then I think we'll see lots more dlc from 3rd party publishers, wether the dlc is wort it or not people will decide for themselves, and then all we can hope is Nintendo themselves keep some of thier morality, and make any dlc they create truly worth while.



Einherjar said:

I agree with @DarkKirby about the DLC types. I love it when devs give an established game a few hours more playtime and make it feal fresh again.
Day one DLC is just a way to maximise profits with minimal efforts (cutting an existing game into pieces)
By releasing a full game and afterwards, maybe half a year, bringing it up again with new content, not only extends the playtime, but the game will be in some sort of "ever green state", in that is is constantly on media.
If devs whould look at what fans liked and disliked about their games and craft a DLC for it, that caters to these "problems" (RPG example: too few sidequests, make a DLC with a bunch of them, Good combat system but hampered by story flow, make some kind of arena DLC focused on combat alone)
DLC can be really really good if done well but sadly, it became practice that DLC is just another way of ripping your customers of.



DarkEdi said:

It is a shame a lot of DLC is in the disk or cut off the disk only to pay it separated.

I only support the DLC that is created after, no before the launch.

Games like Just Dance have new content but also they try to sell previous songs which could have been free if it detects you have the previous game memory data.



bunnyking said:

I think developers shouldn't put the DLC logo on the box, unless it's guaranteed.

If they are going to do this game of show us the money then don't stick the DLC logo on the game box.

Otherwise it's false advertisement, simples.



Kirbic said:

I've liked how DLC has been handled by Nintendo so far. The extra maps in Fire Emblem and the extra levels in NSMB2 actually feel like that. Extras. Not something cut from the game, but a pure extra you can pick up if you want. Given I like their handling of it, I wouldn't mind seeing more DLC from Nintendo.

That said, I hope they don't fall into the style everyone else seems to have. The product sold in the store should be a finished product and feel like it's the full package. Any DLC? Just a nice extra helping you can have, but don't need to have.



Nintenjoe64 said:

My guess is that Nintendo DLC will be good but expensive. I would easily buy additional retro tracks for Mario Kart so I'm hoping for that!



rjejr said:

Like it or not, the WiiU needs to have DLC for games b/c you know those games are going to have it on PS4 and Kinectbox.

I think a bigger problem is defining DLC, which stands for "down loadable content". (Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.) If a game is eShop only then it's DLC by default, and some retail games are also DLC at launch. Zen Pinball has a free front end but tables you buy separetly, and free "App" games have micro-transactions for things like berries to feed your smurfs. All of these are DLC but they are very different things which people have very different feelings about.

I don't recall ever spending money for an after-the-fact add-on or micro-transaction but I have bought plenty of digital games and downloaded free ad-ons, mainly costumes for LBP.

So, first things first, DEFINE DLC.



JSuede said:

The problem is that third parties generally cut content or deliberately leave holes in the game in order to fill it later with DLC. Nintendo always releases a finished product, with almost 0 bugs. Yes, the Fire Emblem DLC is completely unnecessary and harmless.....if you get the full story and can complete the game on the hardest difficulty without DLC, it is harmless if people who can't achieve that want to pay some money for xp, characters, buffs etc. It doesn't make the overall game less appealing and nothing has been cut from the game simply to make money later on. Nintendo is entirely retooling all 80+ levels of NSMBU as DLC......THAT is how downloadable content should be handled.....not removing chunks of the game to be sold on day 1, within a month or two after release etc.

If third parties would release a finished game, Nintendo fans might be more willing to support them. 3rd parties are invariably compared to first party titles, there's no way around it. The problem is that Sony and MS's first party titles, while good, still don't have the selling power and appeal of Nintendo titles so 3rd parties look better comparatively. If they took the time to do some QA so the game isn't buggy instead of spending that time and money on making the game look "OMG SO REAL", they could overshadow Sony and MS, and give Nintendo a run for their money.

But they don't.

Off-topic: Shameless plug, but since there isn't a relevant article to post this in, I'm just going to go ahead and leave this here. Details regarding the sordid past involving EA, Nintendo and the Wii U.



tsm7 said:

As long as Nintendo sticks to having a game feel complete without purchasing all the DLC, I'm all for it. Many of their franchises would benefit from it. Mario Kart will definitely benefit and I look forward to a MK entry that doesn't feel old after a month.



onex said:

DLC is at its best when it is limited to side stories and extras that don't interrupt the main game's flow. Nintendo has done an excellent job thus far handling FE:A's DLC, and the thought of additional tracks for MK U - so long as the core lineup is a sizeable number - provides plenty of excitement. DLC in the form of mods - a la Ballad of Gay Tony for GTA4 - is another awesome addition.. basically EA sucks. ;D



Midnight3DS said:

Red Dead Redemption is an excellent example of DLC, or expansion pack, 'Undead Nightmare'. So worth it, and pretty much like a mini-sequel.

I'd like to see more of that kind of thing.



Gameday said:

Ive always felt cheated when dlc comes out specially shortly after the games release.. I feel like devolopers are being lazy not completing the full game just to add something later on to keep the game fresh.

I think they could give us the dlc free unless its the typical outfit dlc not a whole new mode or level that cost 20-50% of the actual game. Doesnt sit right , but some how they decide to follow this trend , i hope it doesnt bite them in the a** later on.



Melkaticox said:

"Games are a bit less 'final' than they used to be"

Yeah, we can't expect all companies to be like Nintendo...



Buduski said:

The reality is, whether the dlc for a game is cut from the game at the beginning and tried to be sold in the form of dlc or just added on as extra content after a whole game experience was completed it's still nice to at least have the option to purchase it, not be tossed to one side and ignored completely like a lot of these third party publishers.



AltDotNerd said:

Nintendo has the right idea for they're first-party DLC. Fire Emblem Awakening is the perfect example of paid DLC: sidequests not crucial to the main experience of the game, but worth the money. Pokemon X/Y would be a great place to have paid DLC sidequests, extra cities to get better items. Maybe even some side stories involving Team Rocket?



onex said:

Basically, Rockstar and Nintendo are doing it right.

Speaking of R*, I would love to see Red Dead on U. Even though it's a couple years old, that game is a modern classic that I'd gladly pay for..



GameLord08 said:

From what I've seen so far, I'd say Nintendo's on the right path with much of their first-party DLC (NSMB2 and FE:A are good examples to me). It's completely optional, yet is still a valuable contribution to the game's overall enjoyment.

I don't want DLC for the sake of DLC, but I definitely want to see it where applicable. With enough effort, I can see potential for it in games like the next Super Smash Bros. (stages, adventures etc.), though games like Pokémon X/Y would require a bit more thinking. More cities, Pokémon etc. are obvious choices but with time, it'll only become overwhelming and a bit cliché.

So, bottom line: games ought to be finished by launch. DLC should only be an after-thought, and not all games can pull it off.



ledreppe said:

I spent more on dlc for Theatrhythm than the actual game cost me. But looking back I feel it was worth it for the many extra hours I got out of the game.



SCAR said:

I don't think it's always a rip-off. They started working on the NSMB.U DLC(Luigi U) after the game came out. It wasn't finished before the game came out.
The only rip-off DLC I've ever seen is Mass Effect day one DLC. If the DLC is started after the original game's release, or legitimatly not a required extra. I can see that being justified DLC.
As for false advertisement on DLC. COD cleared that up by releasing a camo pack. A crappy move, but it clears false advertisement claims.



bizcuthammer said:

I've never bought DLC and probably never will. I'm probably too oldschool, but if its not included in the retail version, imo its not necessary and therefore, usually not worth it. DLC, imo, is a way to cheat gamers out of more money by offering something that shouldve been in the game in the first place. I really wish microtransactions, DLC and the like would just go away personally. I miss the old days when the final product was shipped to stores with everything included.



Spleetal said:

Really the main thing companies care about is where the moneys at, if the mony is there theyll develop for it



dereq said:

Ever notice how most people come off as hugglebunnies on Twitter?



Bass_X0 said:

There already have been "paid" DLC for Pokemon. Only those who travelled to certain stores were able to download specific Pokemon. Wanted a Mew for the original Pokemon on GB? You had to pay to travel to wherever the download event was being held. Okay so you're not paying Nintendo for the download but it wasn't strictly free either unless you lived within walking distance.

@BizCutHammer - DLC is the price to pay for today's modern graphics and power. The old days also had 8-Bit, 16-Bit and 32-Bit graphics. Do you want to return to the old days of graphical power too? Today's games look amazing and often have a lot of speech included too. I would imagine that if the games that have DLC didn't have it, that content would not appear in the game.

Do I want Street Fighter X Tekken without any possible way to play as the DLC characters we did get or do I want Street Fighter X Tekken with the option to pay for another 12 characters? Its a no brainer. The more characters the better IMO. I don't care how the DLC happened, if its something I want then I'll pay for it. Capcom asked 100 Wii Points for Rise From The Ashes in the first Ace Attorney game for WiiWare. Should it have been included with the main game at no extra cost? Should it have been included with the main game and cost 1100 points instead of 1000? I didn't care. It was worth it to me and as far as the points / enjoyment factor went, it was a great deal.

If DLC isn't worth it the cost or has no interest to me, then I won't get it. I downloaded some additional content for My Life as a King/Darklord but only what I felt was worth paying for or needed. Thankfully I don't have OCD that I have to buy all the downloadable content that is produced whether I need it or not. I don't care if my game is "incomplete". There's no point in paying for stuff I don't want or need.



Lostog said:

@rjejr: sure, it stands for 'downloadable content', but what is intended is, -extra- content for a game that already has some content. so an eshop game is simply a downloadable game; for the rest, yes, the distinction between free and paid dlc stands (and is used troughout the article). but, simply buying more in-game money is not buying content, so 'micro-transaction' goes for things like that. that's how i understood it anyway



ccanfield1 said:

This was my issue with Call of Duty: Black Ops 2. I purchased the Wii U version because I liked the off TV support for multiplayer. However, I am now somewhat regretting my decision because DLC isn't available. I hope they at least release some discounted package of the DLC in the future. I would hate to never be able to get any of the content being offered on other systems. Worst of all, it will make me seriously question whether to purchase a main stream game like that on Wii U, even if it is available, because I don't know that I can count on them continuing to support it. Especially, when it comes to making patches to fix issues with the gameplay. It took forever for them to release any for COD:BO 2 on Wii U



Jack_Package said:

NSMBU DLC gives me confidence that when Nintendo do DLC, they'll do it well.

Looking at third party support, Ubisoft and WB are two major publishers supporting add-on content on Wii U. That just leaves Activision and EA as the ones who have DLC but aren't bothering, doesn't it?



SuperCharlie78 said:

DLC is bullpoopies from whatever angle you watch at it.
It's game content being brutally cut, it's players paying full price for a product far from being complete, enjoy DLC if you want, I will always say NO.
Not to mention Nintendo clearly trying to push people towards digital delivery by not distributing games to retailers, I've not seen a single copy of Luigi's Mansion 2 and Fire Emblem yet, I laugh at them loudly.
But you know, it'all our fault, not only we should have not buy DLC, we should have not buy the very games that were deliberately cut from the beginning.



GamerJunkie said:

Nintendo always last to adopt ideas. They wait 5-10 years then do what the others are doing. Things like online gaming, hard drive on the console, using discs instead of cartridges, ways to connect with other gamers, etc.

They innovate with controllers and touch/motion, etc. But always lag so far behind in basic features.

I'm glad they will get DLC because if not theyd have even less games as every game pretty much has DLC nowadays.



XCWarrior said:

I will start off by saying "DLC is the DEVIL."

I do like how Nintendo is clearly making DLC after the game came out. Or at least they are hiding it well by not giving DLC out for weeks after the release. Doesn't feel like it's on the disc, or just cut from the game. It might, but at least they are hiding it well.

I know people will buy it, but I'm not. I will not buy DLC. Unless in cases of game of the year editions when it comes included. I want the whole game when I buy. I will not be nickeled and dimed to death. You people can be.

But Nintendo has to get this all solved, because it's important for the system. Because sadly most people don't seem to care about being nickel and dimed to death.



bassoongoon said:

Not the big N!!!

DLC is a shameful and shifty business practice. Don't sell an incomplete game for full retail price.

The concept of DLC is just horrible. I really hope it does not become as big on Wii U as it is on other platforms and on PC. .



Dpishere said:

I have no problem with DLC, as long as the retail release has more than enough content to justify the price. Luckily, as a Nintendo gamer I have never had to worry about getting enough value for my dollar, since Nintendo has always delivered for me.



Kurtis_the_Red said:

This article hits a point that I think a lot of people miss. The Wii U is capable of both the greatness of Nintendo and the variety of 3rd party. I mean lets face it, DLC is a big subject today, it adds new content as well as keeps a game fresh, lengthening it's shelf life. While valid points can be argued about practicing good or bad DLC options, the fact remains it's relevant.

Nintendo is now in a place where they can offer these types of content or DLC, and have done so in part. Super Luigi U, is the largest one that comes to mind. The trick is getting the Developer/Publisher/ to agree with Nintendo, which as the article said, hasn't been practiced much. It is possible, and DLC will probably roll in as the console matures.

Be that as it may, it is only the 3rd party games where I care about DLC. If Nintendo ever includes, on-disc-DLC in a First party title...I might just ragequit life.



Intrepid said:

As much as I dislike DLC, I think Nintendo did it right for Fire Emblem: Awakening. If DLC gets too out of hand, we can always refuse to buy it and express out complaints via Miiverse. Video game companies have been working hard to address the dissatisfication of their customers as of late, and I feel Nintendo would listen if people felt DLC was a problem. I trust Nintendo; they made the very classy decision of not including paid DLC for Animal Crossing, which could have been a huge source of income for them.



CoAndy said:

Personally DLC should be fun extra's not needed for the story Cough Fire Emblem Awakening Cough and not needed for the main story (looks at mass effect trilogy) i woul like more DLC for Mario Kart 7 BTW Nintendo



Harrison_Peter said:

I wrote a bit about this in 2011 when it was becoming clear that Nintendo would begin making DLC more readily available on their newest systems:

Basically, I'm not against DLC altogether, but I disapprove of some forms of DLC. I'm not a big fan of purchasing a weapon or vehicle for use in a game (but if you like it that's fine). For me, I prefer DLC to be a considerable extension of the game, like extra levels. For years PC games have offered expansion packs that lengthen the main game. That's the next problem... If the content has merely been kept from the main game, and then offered later, I'm not happy paying for that. But if the developers spend considerable time after the release of the game to create more content, then I'll support them financially. Bethesda are good with lengthy DLC to expands their games. They did try to sell small items like armour but that was a publicity nightmare and they became a laughing stock. But DLC that adds 30 more hours of quests and story to a game? Yes please.

For games like Mario Kart, I wouldn't pay for extra karts, but I would pay for a pack of new tracks. For games like Fire Emblem: Awakening, I'd buy extra chapters if they are affordable. So it really depends, but I don't think all DLC is evil. I'm just wary.



Harrison_Peter said:

@Kurtis_the_Red If this was true, the Wii U would be a success story. Sadly, it really doesn't have the 3rd party support a console of its quality deserves. And, just like the Wii, it's only going to get worse by once again releasing out of sync with the rivals. Sure, some 3rd party devs will want to work with Nintendo but when a company like R* is making Grand Theft Auto 6 (for example) they will have the options of the next-gen Sony and Microsoft consoles, but not the underpowered Wii U. Just like many excellent multiplatform titles never made it to the underpowered Wii. By releasing out of sync, it's only able to keep up for a short time. This means that it either gets ignored, or some devs offer spin-offs and lesser versions of games.

Sure, there ARE great 3rd party devs that often work with Nintendo and will continue to do so. But this is why Sony beats Microsoft in my opinion: Both play the latest and greatest 3rd party multiplatform titles, but Sony has become a powerhouse for 1st party exclusives, a crown usually reserved for Nintendo. Sony has the best of both words, world-class exclusives, and all the best 3rd party games. Nintendo have such amazing exclusive franchises that people still want Nintendo products. I do. But if they kept up with the times, they could provide a system with the latest Nintendo magic AND the latest and greatest 3rd party offerings. Games sell consoles.



manu0 said:

Yes, expansion packs are pretty common on the PC and I have no problem with DLC being a digital version of an expansion pack. I would have a problem with DLC like I see on PS3...dozens of costumes every week...this kind of DLC is pretty much spam.



Harrison_Peter said:

@manu0 Some PC games have spam DLC, and some PS3 games have digital expansions packs. The Elder Scrolls series provides examples for both of these. I think both types are common on PC and PS3, just depends which games. I agree by the way, I'm not a fan of costumes and skins etc.



BestBuck15 said:

I think its a very sad state of affairs, Its bad enough 3rd party publishers releasing DLC for their games but Nintendo doing it on the games they are using to sell their consoles. Its shameful and a reflection of how low they have sunk in the last 10 years. They used to care about the gamer now I'm not even sure Nintendo knows what a gamer is. I'm so disappointing with the Wii U, its actually worse than I imagined, it feels like playing a portable system, I don't want to play a portable system, I want console games on the telly.



odd69 said:

im not excited about having to pay for dlc that should be added to a 60$ game, on the wii u, ps3,xbox, or any system for that matter

how about developers making a "final" version of "any" game for Nintendo systems and stop nickel and diming me to death. I understand everyone wants a piece of the pie but I think devs should give us a @#$% break.




I would just really LOVE to know the time and cost to just import DLC to a Nintendo system seriously. What doesn't it only take like a few weeks or something how much more effort would it really TAKE!! You already ported the whole game so I just never understood what the big problem was!? Even if it's a week or a month late for Wii U atleast we know you care just a little bit even if the game sold poorly still SUPPORT the people who supported you!!



Wanderhope said:

I must say I love Nintendo's approach to DLC so far. Their DLC content so far is just extra juicy bits for players who cannot get enough of the main product. Both NSMB2 and Fire Emblem: Awakening have DLC that is both (1) substantial enough to justify extra money and (2) completely optional. Unfortunately, I just don't care enough about the third party games that support DLC, but I want the Wii U to be successful so I hope they bring the goods!



HeatBombastic said:

@Gameday After the devs send their game to the publishers for approval, there is a 2-3 week period of doing nothing for the developers. Making Day 1 DLC in that time gap, would save time, and would be productive.



bizcuthammer said:

@Bass_X0 DLC is not the price to pay for better graphics... it is the price we have to pay now that it has become an option for devs since gaming has gone online. I'm not saying online gaming is a bad thing, but that there have been negatives brought alongside the positive aspects of it. If gaming had stayed offline, yet still had the HD level graphics available today, we wouldn't be seeing DLC... but we would still have the same graphical capabilities we have now. So that argument can't be made. The fact remains that most of what is included in DLC could have easily been put in the original game, but it is more profitable for devs to release it for extra costs to gamers. Do I want Street Fighter that has 10 characters, with 6 extra that I have to pay another $15 for on top of the $60 I just paid for the original game? Or do I just want Capcom to give me the full roster of 16 characters for the $60 I paid like they should and used to do before DLC was an issue? I don't mind DLC if it is stuff like alternative costumes for characters or other trivial things... but playable characters, story content, and other important things should be included in the game from the beginning.

And no, I wouldn't mind at all of we exchanged today's graphical power for the 16-bit or 32-bit eras, as long as devs were still making fun games for consoles like they used to, and still do today. One of the games I'm most excited about this year is Shovel Knight, which is modeled after NES-era games, but the gameplay looks incredible. Graphical power has almost zero meaning to me anymore. I just want to play games that are fun. If they have 8-bit graphics, or are incredibly realistic HD graphics, I don't care. Either way that's not excuse to charge gamers extra for content that should've been included in the original game.

Leave A Comment

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