News Article

Poll: Are You in the DLC Brigade?

Posted by Thomas Whitehead

More and more is on offer

The arrival of New Super Luigi U — our review of which will be posted this weekend — is, as we've argued, a potential evolution of paid-DLC and budget retail titles, as Nintendo seeks to produce a package significant enough to be a fairly expensive (comparatively) piece of add-on software and, on the flipside, a standalone disc game. It could also help Nintendo fill future release gaps with similar expansions, if the experiment is a success.

It's the latest step into the brave new world of add-on paid-DLC from Nintendo, but comes on the heels of various other high profile examples. Nintendo had dabbled with paid-DLC before the Coin Rush packs of New Super Mario Bros. 2, but nevertheless it seemed like the most high-profile example in the company's limited history in the area. We've not exactly had a rush of such content since then, for sure, but Nintendo has stressed — in the company of shareholders, mainly — that the digital realm will be a key business area. The significant success to date of download retail games on the 3DS is probably the standout, but the extensive range of paid-DLC packs in Fire Emblem: Awakening perhaps set the tone. It seems to depend on the franchise, however, as Animal Crossing: New Leaf's additional content is all free.

One thing seems certain, additional paid content seems to have an inevitably enhanced role in the future of games on both 3DS and Wii U; let's not forget that some — though notoriously not all — third parties have served up extras on the Wii U eShop. We also know that Nintendo is planning a free-to-play release by March 2014, apparently with some relation to Steel Diver. If Nintendo is serious about increasing digital revenue beyond retail downloads, it'll have to push all of these areas.

But paid-DLC is a sticky topic for some, especially as, until recent times, it's not been particularly prominent in Nintendo games. We want to know where you stand on the content we've seen so far (from Nintendo, specifically), and what could still come; as always you can share your views in the polls and comments below.

Did you pick up any New Super Mario Bros. 2 Coin Rush Packs? (441 votes)

I grabbed a bundle deal or more than one


I only tried one


I only downloaded the free retro pack


I want to, but haven't bought any


I'm not sure they're worth it


I don't want any of them


Please login to vote in this poll.

Have you bought any of the Fire Emblem: Awakening DLC? (424 votes)

I've bought a lot of maps, my poor wallet!


I've bought a few maps / a pack or two, and I'm slowly building the collection


I've only download the free map so far


I want to, but haven't bought any


I'm not sure they're worth it


I don't want any of them


Please login to vote in this poll.

Will you get New Super Luigi U, and if so in what form? (496 votes)

I've already bought it as a download add-on for New Super Mario Bros. U


I'm thinking about picking it up as DLC


I'm waiting for the disc version


I will buy it, but haven't decided on a format


I'm undecided whether I even want the game


I'm not interested in New Super Luigi U, regardless of format


Please login to vote in this poll.

Would you like to see Nintendo release more small paid-DLC products (like map packs) in the future? (535 votes)

Absolutely, they add value to games


Yeah, as long as the core disc/cart content isn't compromised


I'm not sure, to be honest


I'm not keen, but could be persuaded if it looks worthwhile


No way, I don't want paid-DLC from Nintendo


Please login to vote in this poll.

Would you like Nintendo to release more expansive (Luigi U-style) DLC in the future? (528 votes)

Absolutely, it adds value to games


Yeah, as long as the core disc/cart content isn't compromised


I'm not sure, to be honest


I'm not keen, but could be persuaded if it looks worthwhile


No way, I don't want paid-DLC from Nintendo


Please login to vote in this poll.

What do you think of paid-DLC, as an overall concept? (546 votes)

I'm a big fan, and always look forward to buying extra content


I quite like it, as long as the core game / extra DLC balance is right


I'm not decided yet


It can be OK, but I think it's a negative more often than it's a positive


I think all content should be on the disc / cart, without charges for extras


Please login to vote in this poll.

From the web

User Comments (103)



KingDunsparce said:

I didn't vote on the first two, since I don't have the games. I'm okay with unplanned-DLC but that won't guarantee a purchase from me



BlueNitrous said:

Luckily, Nintendo has remained somewhat restrained in their DLC approach...but there is still the possibility of going completely DLC bonkers.



Zyph said:

I'm always on the fence when thinking about buying DLC packs. Most of the time the content already in the disc is quite fine for me especially for story heavy games. Unless the DLC adds up to the actual story.

What I like about Nintendo is that they always strive to give you complete content on disc. DLC for them just adds optional value and replay value (which is also good). Unlike EA...



Mr_Vengeance said:

I've dabbled, but it doesn't offer great value in my view. I'd rather put my money towards my next full game purchase.



Lin1876 said:

On NSLU, I'm not convinced. I haven't bought NSMBU (I'm quite scunnered with that particular sub-series), but if I wanted to buy them both I wouldn't get much change out of £65! That's a lot of money and I'm not willing to pay that, and I think substantial DLC like that should be accompanied by a price cut on the original game. Though since when have Nintendo not tried to squeeze every penny they can out of us?

I'm more convinced by smaller items, actually. Something like car/track packs in Gran Turismo is something I'm willing to pay for as long as I believe that it wasn't taken out of the original game and the price is reasonable. On-disc DLC, by contrast, must be discouraged.



bbliksteen8 said:

It all depends on the game. I would absolutely buy character/track packs for Kart, and character/stage packs for Smash. I would buy a more expensive master quest type remix of a Zelda game or a smaller single dungeon add on the gives a unique and useful item, like Gerudo Training grounds (more useful item though) and color dungeon. Both of these things would give replay value.



Shambo said:

i'll get nslu on disc, since i skipped nsmbu because i had just recently gotten nsmb2. also, dlc is only half worth it, it doesn't add to my games library if i don't get a physical copy for my money.

and charging extra to unlock on-disc stuff, or to get parts that were taken out of the original game should be labeled thievery and be met with swift justice.

take metro last light for example...
preorder OR pay extra to play the hardest difficulty, or as they say it themselves: "the way it's meant to be played"? that's just plain evil. that goes double since they cancelled it for wii u.



Sonic_Phantom said:

I think the Fire Emblem DLC is actually some of the best content in the game and I've begrudgingly ended up paying up. Unfortunately, the game is a superior package when you include its DLC.

I find the whole concept of DLC unsavory as it prays on peoples natural desire for completeness. I'm the kind of person who's bothered by missing manuals in second-hand boxed games and missing DLC feels similar. That tempting menu of paid-for add-on content never goes away and its irritating.

I like to think I'll avoid DLC-heavy games in the future but unfortunately I'm voting more and more with my wallet...



Linkstrikesback said:

I want More like Luigi, less like Fire Emblem/NSMB2 packs.

Fire Emblem/ NSMB2 packs are very over priced. You'll play each map, what, once, maybe twice (Except the grinding maps in FE:A, which are their own kettle of fish anyway).

In fact, DLC has ruined the harder difficulties on awakening in that lunatic+ (And maybe even lunatic) are downright impossible without abusing at least some of the DLC for levels.

And this is from someone who beat Fire Emblem 7, 8,and Radiant dawn on the hardest difficulties (never bothered with POR for some reason), which while hard, were all much more balanced.



WiiLovePeace said:

I've downloaded 3 of the coin rush packs in NSMB2 & plan to buy NSLU next payday. I don't own Fire Emblem yet, sadly. I've gotta admit I'm all for Nintendo's DLC. The games they make feel complete to me & the DLC just adds to the awesomeness, I don't mind the price either. I was expecting $40 AUD for NSLU but its actually $29.95 AUD, which is far more in line with the UK & EUR price amazingly Its a whole new Nintendo game for $30! A very rare cheap price indeed (I paid ~$70 for NSMBU!) I can't help but want to buy it all haha. Which reminds me I gotta buy more Theatrhythm: FF DLC



Zaphod_Beeblebrox said:

I bought quite a few Fire Emblem DLC packs. But, after playing them, I thought the DLC maps were pretty strange and disappointing compared to the main game. I'm not sure I'd buy these sorts of maps in the future unless the quality were improved.



james_squared said:

DLC is fine as long as the original game was "complete" to begin with. NSMBU was a complete game so the NSLU DLC is appropriate. It's not enough to be a standalone game though as it does not have the Challenges, Boost Rush, or Coin Battle that we see in NSMBU and, thus, it is priced appropriately.



sinalefa said:

In my case it also depends on the game, or I would say the content offered. Say, if Smash Bros. has DLC, I would care about characters but not about stages. Of the first two games on the survey, never got NSMB2 and I haven't opened Awakening yet.

Regarding Luigi U, I think that is a lot of content so the price is reasonable. I heard it even has new power ups (or Wii power ups to be exact). I also like how Nintendo is adding goodies to entice you to get the downloadable content, and I am pretty sure something as simple as a green box has lured tons of people to get the priciest, physical version instead.



Ukulele_Wizard said:

What I'd really like Nintendo to do is release some DLC for some of the older games like Kid Icarus Uprising or even Mario Kart 7. I mean, I generally don't like DLC when it's day one, unless it's free, but what I hate is when companies make DLC, release it day one for a not so cheap price, and then have that DLC come with a weapon or a certain outfit or something that makes the players that pay for the DLC more powerful than those that don't.
What would be worthwhile DLC, for example, for MK8 if a month or two after its launch, Nintendo releases some DLC that adds 4 tracks for 4-8 dollars and maybe there's a new item that you can use ONLY in those 4 tracks, then that would be worth it. But then, for example, if Nintendo were to release DLC for Smash Bros that costs 20 dollars and gives you a new arena themed to a new character that you also get that is SUPER OP, then that is DLC that I do not support.
The Mario DLC is fine and so is the FE DLC, I just hope Nintendo continues to make good DLC and not mindless cash-grabs.



PinkSpider said:

With all there DLC Id like to see some new tracks for Mario Kart 7 whats the hold up.
Also I want some DLC for SSF4



MasterWario said:

DLC like New Super Luigi U is fine because it adds a lot, but DLC like in NSMB2 and FE:A I just don't feel is worth it; I'm not interesting in DLC that small.

@Linkstrikesback You can always train with the Wireless "Bonus Box" teams



Sonic_Phantom said:

@WiiLovePeace Theatrhythm: FF is a great example of tempting DLC menus that get on my nerves. If you don't buy it all, the DLC menu will constantly remind you that your package is incomplete because you haven't got 52 out of 52 DLC songs.
First I ended up choosing my favourite songs but eventually gave in to songs I was indifferent about, like from FF XI. 40+ pounds is annoying but Nintendo/Square obviously did well out of me!



LordGeovanni said:

The first two questions should have had the free DLC be separate questions. For example, my answers would be "New Super Mario 2 - Downloaded the free DLC but don't think the DLC is worth the price" and "Fire Emblem - Downloaded the free DLC and think that the DLC is worth the price". Also, you should have included an option for those who haven't played the game yet. I have played the Mario, however I have NOT played the Fire Emblem game yet. (I borrowed a friend's copy to get the free DLC while it was available!)



Doma said:

@Pikminsi Agreed. I'm not really against dlc but i tend to ignore it 95% of the time because of poor value. Day one dlc is the absolute worst form imo. I'm guaranteed to reject that kind just for being there.

Also, with certain publishers i already know they aim to rip off the consumer as much as possible with dlc, so i'll only buy the GOTY/full edition etc. much later.



Bass_X0 said:

I buy some DLC but not all DLC. People rarely need to buy it all, just what interests them. Just because it exists doesn't mean you have to buy it. 52 songs on Theatrhythm? Well I wouldn't be interested in all the songs, just some.

Day One DLC exists because the developers kept working after the game reached its deadline to be sent to be manufactured and shipped. Its sometimes months between working on a disc's content ends and its release date. So anything produced after that becomes DLC.

How is that the worst kind of DLC?



Doma said:

Even if it isn't the worst kind, it's off-putting enough for me to look elsewhere.



Dizzard said:

More often than not I don't find dlc to be worth the money. Even more so these days with steam/gog sales and humble indie bundles. There's just so many other better options out there and you can buy really great deep games for cheap. I feel like I would be an idiot if I went around buying dlc just because I bought the base game.

I can't recall ever being excited by a piece of dlc, they usually come across incomplete, without an identity of their own, just tacked onto the base game. Best case scenario I get brief enjoyment out of it, worst case scenario I feel completely unsatisfied with my purchase. I'd rather pay 10-20 euros on something I could stick my teeth into.

Granted I hear this Luigi DLC has something like 100 new levels, so that seems more worthwhile than the norm but I'm not a huge platformer fan so I wouldn't buy it anyway.

I have Fire Emblem: Awakening but I'd be more interested in buying the dlc if they either did some kind of bundle deal with them all together at a discounted price (even if just for a few days as a sale) or if they made new dlc that had a new story campaign. Otherwise I'm not interested in picking up tiny tidbits of content.



hYdeks said:

I don't like DLC mainly because most companies over charge for very small dlc. If it's priced right and worthwhile, than yay, I would pick it up. I find Super Luigi U to be worthwhile, definitely, but I still want physical copies if I can.



BF-Medic said:

Just gotta say it, I like New Super Luigi U better then the original game.
The shorter but crazier levels suits me



TooManyToasters said:

I don't mind DLC, I just think the FE team should take it easy with all this new content for those who still have trouble paying for or finishing it all... XP



Hyperstar96 said:

@Lin1876 Really? You don't like complete expansions that nearly double the size of the original game for a third of the price, yet you're perfectly fine with overpriced micro-transactions in a racing game?

Is this what gaming is coming to?



james1j2j3j4j said:

DLC is the worst thing possible as long as it's free like Monster Hunter 3 Ultimate. If you buy the game it should be yours no 'added extras'. We don't want Nintendo to turn into EA. I don't mind Super Luigi U DLC because it's more of an extra game than DLC.



Doma said:

Regarding FE:A, i think the balance in that game was messed up to begin with. The dual-strike/pair-up mechanic was a horrible implementation. The only way any paired up unit would face much difficulty was by using cheap means, such as hoards of sudden reinforcement enemies. So lame.



Lin1876 said:

@Hyperstar96 I never said I don't like big expansions, I just said I'm not convinced that this particular one was good value. NSLU adds a new skin to an existing game, but makes very few fundamental changes. If it cost £10-£12 I would be snapping it up, but the best part of £20 for new levels seems a lot.

Equally, I never said I'm for overpriced microtransactions in racing games. Is £10 for over a dozen touring cars and a track reasonable? For the amount I play, I'd say yes. Is £6 to unlock 10 cars already on the disc reasonable? No.

As I say, I judge DLC on a case-by-case basis, but my overriding opinion is that is should be entirely optional.



Midnight3DS said:

I bought the first couple for FE:A, then tired of it. It wasn't adding much to the experience, and there's too much of it.

I'be very interested in a mass amount of Animal Crossing DLC that I don't have to go to Best Buy for.



puddinggirl said:

I'm really not a fan of DLCs coz it always seems like a convenient excuse to release unfinished games. And even those that are done properly don't really add much experience to the game. So I don't see myself getting any DLCs even for games that I absolutely love.



alLabouTandroiD said:

As DLC for retail-scope games i don't just want more of the same. Gimme something that either adds to the characters or presents a different enough scenario and i'll be happy to give you my money.
New Super Luigi U could be a step in the right direction but i don't know enough about that yet. So far i think i'd appreciate a more aggressive, more out-there approach though.



Kelevra said:

I would if I could, Nintendo doesn't allow Dominicans to purchase anything and that's why I'm using my Ps3 more, it let's me, not to mention that anything I pay is tied to my account not my system, so until then, no DLC for me



SMW said:

I rented and clear NSMBU and plan to do the same for Luigi. I'll buy them both later on, though. (NSMBU and Luigi DLC.) Saving my dough for Animal Crossing and Game & Wario which I plan on buying soon.

I'm not too interested in DLC if its not free, unless its a big addition like New Super Luigi. PC gaming and the Dreamcast got me spoiled, I guess. Of course now even PC games charge you for DLC. (Not that I've played any recent ones.)



Moshugan said:

Paid DLC isn't evil as such. There's always been expansion packs and what-not.
As long as the price, additional content is welcomed.
But selling a game piece by piece (e.g. Killer Instinct on Xbox One) or forcing the player to buy stuff to make a game meaningful (many F2P online games.) is just repugnant.



Moshugan said:

On the topic of digital content in general, I think Nintendo should have lower-than-retail prices in the eShop, just because you're only buying the licence to use a software on a single console, where as you can use your discs on any machine. So the digital versions are inherently of lesser value.



Collinhall said:

I really don't think that the FE:A DLC and the NSMB2 DLC offered good value at all. The Luigi DLC on the other hand <3



Donald_M said:

I'm not against DLC in principle, but it really depends. I won't waste money on cosmetic items for games, but I'll consider map packs, mission packs or additional characters provided the price is fair for the content provided.



Williaint said:

Nintendo Land Would be a great game to add DLC too. So would Game and Wario...
The Luigi DLC is great. I'm still trying to find one or two coins, that don't seem to exist...



ValentineMeikin said:

My personal stance about DLC is like what happened with Tekken Tag Tournament 2, and is something I adore about Fire Emblem Awakening.
I actually was furious with Capcom over it's policy of making on-disc content that was paid, because it was rarely if ever worth it.
Nintendo, with every piece of DLC I've looked at, have given a damn good reason for the price tag, including that New Super Luigi U is effectively able to be a standalone expansion off it's own green-hatted merit.

If Nintendo asked me to pay $20 for a group of legacy characters they clearly yanked out of the game's roster to get that $20, I'd be furious.
Instead, Every single Paralogue with a character in it is FREE, and I'll never run out of good character combinations before I even touch upon a DLC level, of which I have almost all.



Moshugan said:

@Williaint I'm sure were not the only people who assumed Nintendo Land would be made into a hub of downloadable minigames. Even one gaming magazine in Finland misreported that Nintendo Land would be a built in game hub on Wii U.

Now that were on it...
If there ever was a sensible Free 2 Play title then it's Nintendo Land!
Come on, it makes so much sense! A theme park with new attractions made available periodically, for a small fee. As F2P, there would be a few games made available initially, others would be unlocked by paying.
I'd love to be able to download completely new minigames for Nintendo Land. It would also be a great way for Nintendo to try new gameplay ideas.



GazPlant said:

I still don't love DLC. Mass Effect 2 did it best - post-game story expansions. DiRT3 however just locked half the content out behind a paywall. It's a balancing act



WesCash said:

Old-school expansion-pack DLC is all good in my book. I'm thinking of things like the Civ 5 "Brave New World" or "Gods and Kings" expansions. I'm under the impression that the Luigi DLC is similar in that it's a good chunk of content.

I'm just playing through FE:Awakening now. I really don't like micro transactions but the game is a lot of fun. Buying all of the DLC would likely be equal to or greater than the price of an entirely new 3DS game though.



accc said:

Whenever I see DLC, one of two thoughts enters my mind: either the extra content is something that could have been included in the original release but was held back for the sole purpose of making the publisher more money, or it was something that was originally cut from the game because the developers felt it wasn't good enough to be included. I guess I'm just too cynical to ever spend money on DLC.



Haywired said:

My opinion on DLC was the same as most Nintendo fans before Nintendo started doing it; that it was one of the more unsavoury aspects of modern gaming and was very much glad that Nintendo weren't interested. However, unlike most, my opinion didn't do a miraculous U-turn when Nintendo decided to get into it after all. (Though with the fanboy moral high-ground seemingly having to be assumed at all times, it seems "Nintendo does DLC right, unlike other companies" is the new party line...)

I just don't get how people aren't satisfied with the amount of content that's in games, or why they'd want to be tied down to one game for so long. Oh well, I guess I'm probably just too much of a purist or something.

I had written a couple of extra paragraphs, but I've decided to hold them back and charge $10 each for them. Ha! Welcome to the world you've created!!!!!



R_Champ said:


Agreed, I like the optional feeling of DLC. I just got FE:A, and if I want any of the maps, I'll get them, it won't detract from the story to not purchase them, but can be fun bit of fanservice/challenge when I decide to. I bought ME3 day one, then got suckered into buying day-one DLC that was obviously already ready by release, and contributed to the story (grrrr). As long as Nintendo doesn't become EA, DLC is welcome.



Deadstanley said:

One of the most regretful DLC buys I made was the Castlevania: Lords of Shadow Chapters 12 and 13 on the Xbox. I REALLY enjoyed the game and thought that the add-on chapters would be worth it. $10 US each and they were so short, low production quality, and not difficult at all. The worst $20 I've spent. I'd have rather bought Petz Fantasy 3D!



Zodiak13 said:

Just like everything else in life, my opinion on this varies. Some I like some I don't, but honestly that is not revolutionary thinking/opinion. I will say that a lot of this DLC from some companies is ridiculous and has made me very wary of purchasing DLC.



Relias said:

Depends I guess.. if I love a game.. and nothing new is coming out soon of what I want.. I will get the DLC.. but most of the time something pops up in the Eshop.. or at retail I want.. so usually I just don't do DLC.. (Or at least not paid DLC) Simply because I ask myself.. a whole game for 4.00 or a few maps for 4.00 or just save the 4.00 and buy something new at retail.. Bottomline.. DLC is not bad.. but if something else comes out I want.. that takes priority..



XCWarrior said:

Wow, so more than 90% of people would rather buy a game that is incomplete on purpose and pay extra for the rest later than get the whole game when they initially buy it?

People, that's really sad.



Klunk23 said:

For all of the Fire Emblem DlC that I played, most of them are not really aimed at the newcomers but the long time fans as most maps are maps from previous games and feature music from past games along with characters as well.



Emaan said:

I really haven't bought that much DLC in all the time I've been playing video games. The 3DS and Wii U have been my first two systems that I have purchased such, and really not that much at that.

I think DLC is nice as long as without it the game still feels whole.



StarDust4Ever said:

I have been playing lots of Luigi-U. I love it. FYI, you should have included an option for those who didn't own the original game.

I also bought a crapload of Pinball Arcade tables on my Ouya...



Sean_Aaron said:

I think it's good to give extra life to a game. There's DLC for Warriors Orochi 3 that I'll look at once I've finished the core missions and it's nice to know it's there for when I eventually do.

I think the idea of buying individual game modes also has merit - I probably wouldn't have bought all the modes in Warriors Orochi 3, and might have bought the core game earlier for a lower price.

Overall the flexibility of downloadable games is a good thing - it all depends on how it's implemented. If the core game in Tank Tank Tank had been broken up into five-level packs for five quid each, I think it wouldn't have seemed that great a deal as opposed to what they actually did. Moderation in all things!



JayceJa said:

i feel like the poll should have included the new streetpass games as well

im not against dlc, and i bought the streetpass games because i know ill get use out of them, i dont have a wii u, if i did i would probably have bought super luigi U
while i loved fire emblem, after my first playthrough i've set it down for other things, when i went back through for a harder playthrough ill probably pick up all the DLC



Harrison_Peter said:

I like that the DLC on the Wii U and the 3DS tends to be new levels, new maps, new things to do as opposed to extra items that make the games easier. I wrote about Nintendo encouraging DLC shortly after the Wii U was revealed ("Nintendo will welcome DLC in the future. Should they?" -

The prices seem quite high for a lot of people, but the eShop prices are high in general.



Donald_M said:


No, 90% of people are okay with DLC as long as the game it's released for is complete and doesn't feel compromised for the sake of selling additional content. Either you didn't read the poll results very closely, or you're ignoring what people actually said so you can make a cheap point based on your own prejudices.

Now THAT'S sad.



Peach64 said:

Nintendo are over-charging for DLC compared to other publishers. £17.99 for Super Luigi U is 50% higher than very large expansions such as the two GTA IV episodes, Red Dead's Undead Nightmare and Dragonborn from Skyrim. When DLC first started out on 360 with the horse armour saga, fans kicked up a fuss, and ensured that we set a precedent for value for money for the entire generation, but Nintendo fans seem fine to pay these prices. I'm sure I've read that once all DLC is out for Fire Emblem, it will cost more than the game itself! If people just buy this all up without questioning the cost, then it's giving Nintendo the message that we're happy being ripped off.

Just curious, how many people regularly buy DLC on 360 and PS3, and are also okay with the Nintendo prices? It could be yet another factor that puts off non-Nintendo fans from buying a Wii U. All the hardcore fans buy up this DLC, set a precedent for Nintendo having expensive DLC, and then when you try and tempt people over from the other consoles they see the prices and run a mile.



MadAdam81 said:

Some games have amazing DLC, or even just decent, that brings you back into a game you have stopped playing. Fallout games are my favourite when it comes to DLC, with the Left 4 Dead series DLC second and Rock Band songs third.
Other DLC can pretty terrible, $15 for 4 maps is poor value, and on-disc DLC is also terrible.



ValentineMeikin said:

@MadAdam81 I feel that on-disc 'DLC' that is time-release, like Alex Kidd on Sonic and SEGA All-Stars Racing Transformed, is fine. I also don't mind Special Edition DLC bundles, since they are content that was meant to be loyalty based.
What I don't like, at all, is like the fact Street Fighter X Tekken's select screen looks like someone took a hacksaw to it in order to make the PS3 exclusives, THEN had the audacity to have anyone who didn't have a PS3 and Vita with copies for both, a £500+ price tag, need to pay for the characters, all formats, Vita players being the only ones who got it free straight up.

It's more that locking away a third of the game for a later pay-off is wrong than DLC is wrong.



mjhopkins81 said:

I was just having a similar conversation (to this article) the other evening:

I grew up when video games in the home were first becoming a possibility. Prior to consoles that were connected to the Internet, we got games that were complete from the moment you took them from their box and inserted them into your device, ready to be enjoyed, and capable of providing days, if not months and years, of entertainment without the need to purchase "additional content." What the games lacked in immediacy was made up by having better games that have stood the test of time.

As I've continued to play games into my thirties, I've found myself more and more frustrated by the lack of content provided by many games that are released at full retail price, only to have minimal content that must be "expanded" or supplemented by DLC.

Take, for example, Final Fantasy Theatrhythm:

I've just shelled out $39.99 for a 3DS game (at release), only to find out that, in order to unlock all of the songs that are ON the cartridge, they expect me to shell out an additional $81.47 in DLC costs? So, my $40 game suddenly costs over $120...for a 3DS game. The iOS port is even more extortive, costing $20 to purchase the app, and $143.03 to unlock the songs that are already included in the app, for a total of $163.03. All that for a game that is, truth be told, not graphically impressive enough to warrant that price tag. It's literally the cost of some handheld consoles.

To my way of thinking, this is unacceptable. Imagine if, in order to complete New Super Mario Bros. U, you had to pay $5-$10 to unlock each additional map world beyond the first in order to reach the end. This is the kind of anti-consumer behavior that sours people on the gaming industry, and forces lower income gamers to be priced out of the market.

Less troublesome, but no less irksome, for me is that the vast majority of DLC for RPG games I see on the market is absolutely worthless. $1.99 to unlock a costume for your character? This must be some kind of Japanese obsession for creating the cutest character possible, because I have never really cared enough about what my characters were wearing to make me desire to put them in a bathing suit, particularly if that outfit serves no other purpose than to...see what they'd look like in a bathing suit.

Finally, I have a firm belief that, if DLC is something that is already on the disc, it should be provided for free. I'm sorry if your production costs exceed your ability to set an acceptable initial price offering, but frankly, that's your fault. There is absolutely no excuse to offer DLC such as "Unlock 2x Experience (This DLC can be accessed via gameplay - no refunds minuscule print at the bottom of a brightly colored screen in a similarly colored, well camouflaged font) other than to make a quick buck off of lack, entitled gamers who are unwilling to do the work intended by the game's creators.

Ultimately, I believe the rise of DLC as an acceptable form of gaming transaction has been a largely bad thing for the gaming industry. Internet-connected consoles have allowed companies to update their software to fix bugs, which is good; it has also allowed them to provide incomplete or subpar products to a consumer base that is increasingly willing to accept mediocrity in place of quality if it means that the games will be ready more quickly than in years past.



XCWarrior said:

@Donald_M I read it, you can interpret how you want, I'm interpreting how I want. If I have to pay for more content after the initial release, then the game didn't come complete in the box. Period. And companies can make the DLC ahead of time, not release it for a month, and then claim they worked on it after. I don't believe them. They held it out. Period.



Donald_M said:

@StarDust They're releasing the game on disc for those who don't own NSMBU, but it's not out until August (July in Europe and Japan) and will cost 10 dollars more than the download.




It's an ok concept. Some usage of DLC by pubs are a rip off and insulting - however, it can add value to the game when it doesn't compromise the core.



Donald_M said:

@XCWarrior That's just it, you don't have to pay for anything. You don't lose out on anything by not having the Coin Rush stages in NSMB or the additional content in Fire Emblem, both of which are complete games with a lot of content and in the case of Fire Emblem got a good bit of free DLC on top of the paid stuff. It's completely optional stuff that those who are interested can buy and those who aren't can safely ignore. Honestly, a few companies have been pretty crappy with their DLC policies butfor the most part, I see it done responsibly more than not. I've encountered very little DLC that wasn't obviously additional content on top of a complete game and in most of the cases where it did feel a little like stuff was held back, it was stuff I could do without. Your claims of developers holding back content and lying about it is not supported by reality, but whatever. Enjoy your fantasy world of adolescent cynicism, Captain Emo.



Donald_M said:

@LEGEND_MARIOID Eh, sometimes they'll go overboard on the DLC a little, like all the ridiculous cosmetic DLC for Saints Row the Third and Sleeping Dogs, but I don't consider it an insult. You know who pushes stuff like that? Publishers in trouble who don't understand how DLC works and think it's free money. I find that funny. Desperation can be amusing. THQ is history now and Squeenix is circling the drain. I can't say I feel sorry for them.



XCWarrior said:

@Donald_M Nope. I'll give you two great examples of how you are wrong. Goldeneye for N64 had its base game, plus multiplayer. Let's say you want more to the multiplayer. Did you go online and buy some DLC? No, you went back into single player mode, beat some times and UNLOCKED new stuff.

Second example, Valve on PC. I still play Team Fortress 2 now and then, it's like 6 or 7 years old now. Why? Because they will make additions to the game, BIG ADDITIONS - FOR FREE. No cost. Why? Because I already bought the game, and I shouldn't have to pay more. Yes, they have a store now that you can purchase minor items, but the big stuff - maps, new weapons and abilities, etc etc - are FREE. FREE.

So if Nintendo wants to do DLC, fine. But copy Valve and do it FOR FREE.



UnseatingKDawg said:

I don't mind DLC, as long as it's something that adds to the game - like extra levels, extra songs (Guitar Hero-wise), etc. Something like an outfit you have to pay for, like for an avatar, isn't worth its purchase.



WesGrogan said:

@Lin1876 Did Fallout 3 lower the price of their game when they released the expansions? Did GTA4? It's bizarre to expect Nintendo to do so when there is absolutely no precedent for it. You're not required to buy NSLU along with NSMBU. NSMBU stands on its own, and is just enhanced by NSLU. It's really as simply as that. It is brilliantly designed and blissful in its challenge level. Even with my wife backing me up in Boost Mode, there have been many moments of cursing. lol



WesGrogan said:

@XCWarrior Such a sad, unhappy world you live in. Try a little bit of optimism in small doses, in issues that aren't really high stakes. Maybe start with video games! Perhaps these levels were designed after the fact, and NSMBU was complete to begin with. Perhaps NSMBU has a clear beginning, middle and end? The idea that the existence of NSLU suddenly makes NSMBU incomplete is baffling to me. To use your Valve example, the original Half-Life wasn't incomplete just because Gearbox created Blue Shift as an expansion. Also, Valve charged full price for the Left for Dead 2 game, which was undeniably an expansion. It is an odd place for you to draw a line. It really is amazing to me the negativity that people choose to add to their own lives.



Donald_M said:

@XCWarrior So, something multiplayer FPSs still do and one company that gives all of its DLC for free (That, by the way, rakes in the money selling other people's games through its online storefront. Other publishers are focused on selling their own games.) proves what exactly? It doesn't prove me wrong. DLC is not a scam, it's a revenue scheme. You don't have to buy it.

Valve do charge for one thing in TF2 - hats. Some DLC is worth is, some isn't. The vast majority of it is hats, as in you don't have to buy it, you don't need it to enjoy the game, you can ignore it as I do, or froth at the mouth over the very existence of it, like you're doing.

You've allowed your hatred of DLC blind you to sense, reason and reality. There's no arguing with someone like you. Go froth in the corner some more, I'm done with you.



AltDotNerd said:

I would like to see a big DLC pack released for Super Smash Bros 4, similar to New Super Luigi U. Eventually, a major game like Super Smash Bros 4 will need more maps, characters, and other additions to keep it from feeling outdated.

Take Brawl for example: released in 2008, most players (like myself) unlocked everything by 2010. By then, Nintendo could release some kind of "New Super Luigi U"-like update for more event matches, trophies, stages, additional campaign modes, and maybe even characters.



LavaTwilight said:

If I enjoy the game, I'll want to add more playability to it and therefore I will pay for DLC. If I think the game is mediocre, or even a 'good' game but not one I'll see myself picking up again and again then I'll probably leave it and stick to just free DLC. I'm not against it but I think it's important to get the price tag right.

I mean I hate to admit it but I do like to dabble in the Sims every now and then and I've bought a lot of DLC from the Sims store, except in the past year. The rate at which the DLC is coming out is staggering and most of it isn't even new stuff to make the game 'deeper'. It's just the same old. So thank you EA, once again you have made a gamer sick of gaming (your games anyway).



Araknie said:

NO to all.
I will get DLC after i'm dead.

PS: The answers show how much real gamers Nintendo has left, feel offended all you want i don't care.



StarDust4Ever said:

@Donald_M I was referring to the Nlife polls. There's no option to vote if you don't own the original game. For example, I don't own fire emblem. People vote anyway and that taints the results, not that online polls have ever been an accurate response compared to casual consumers. I believe N-lifers are a different breed of Nintendo gamer.



siavm said:

Some companies can do dlc well like the dlc from fallout 3 and new Vegas. A lot of times a company like ea almost cuts parts of the games out so they can be dlc which is not something I like. And companies like capcom go and lock dlc on the disc. I liked the fire emblem dlc because it feels like something extra that would not be in the game other wise. And the luigi dlc looks ok. I don't think I am getting it, since I don't have the original game, and I rather pay the cheaper price. But going forward nintendo may be able to keep doing dlc right.



unrandomsam said:

I will never buy DLC I have avoided games with it in altogether up to now.

The thing about it is when I finished both Super Mario Bros 3 and Super Mario World. I felt content and satisfied.

If you want to sell DLC you would never try to make a game that good (So you can sell some more shortly after.)

It is the same type of tactic as books that always end on a cliffhanger to get you to buy the next one and it breeds mediocrity.

Look at the lost levels for example you can play it with both Mario and Luigi and is totally different with each they could have just done that with the original.

The amount of copies being sold of these games are not reflecting in any way the amount of effort being put in by Nintendo to make them good.



Donald_M said:

@Araknie You're OFFENDED that other people are okay with DLC? The "real gamers" thing tells me all I need to know about you, saddo.



Donald_M said:

@unrandomsam Yes, it's JUST LIKE books with cliffhangers . . .

You know, some DLC is undeniably bad, some is worth it, the claim that it's all held back content is childish paranoia. I have yet to see a logical argument against DLC as a whole.



unrandomsam said:

@Donald_M It is never worth it because of just how companies behave and it works because of people like you.

All I am interested is the best game of its type regardless of age. Whether it is held back or done after the fact is not the issue. I just want the best levels not necessarily tons of them no stupid stuff like star coins. (multiple exits is ok) and overall it to be better than Super Mario Bros 3 / World. I don't want to finish it quick either. (Certainly not without using a continue which has happened on the last 3 new super mario games I have played).

If you accept DLC you will never get any truly outstanding games ever again.

One of the fundamental things you need for it to work is to make sure that the customer never is satisfied so they always want more content.

DLC is a marketing/business strategy it is not a good one. Nintendo are only doing the worst part of it as well. (GOTY editions with all the content for 50% of the price is the other part of it). Doesn't fit with Nintendo properly whereas the other companies want maximum value at every possible moment from everything. Nintendo is more like Disney keeping things artificially scarce.



Oniros said:

If it's first party, you know it's gonna be quality. So I really want more DLC on Nintendo games.



Donald_M said:


"If you accept DLC you will never get any truly outstanding games ever again."

If you honestly believe this, you're mentally ill. Get checked.



Araknie said:

@Donald_M Oh see, i'm not alone.

I'm so a sad person, my first passion in life is games and i had a SNES. What a sad person i am.

Nintendo Life was asking, i answered you should get angry at them if you don't like my and others responses.



mjhopkins81 said:

No; he thinks that you're a troll and a twit who can't let others have their own opinions without pillorying them.



WYLD-WOO said:

DLC needs to be more extensive like the new Luigi game. Please Nintendo start doing this for games like Fire Emblem and Mario Brother 2 on 3DS. We want a long fun experience not short maps/levels with no real depth and pointless gains. I would rather pay £17.99 for a full game add than a few quid for a quick and normally easy experience.



Ernest_The_Crab said:

@Ukulele_Wizard I think the problem with Mario Kart 7 was they didn't have the proper infrastructure to do either patches or DLCs straight from the game itself (look at how they handled the patch for fixing track bugs) at the time.

Kid Icarus did have DLC; free stuff like weapons.


Fire Emblem's DLC's were mostly there to make your life easier (except in the case of the triple star maps) or to screw around in the case of the seasonal blast maps. Even if you found it pointless there's definitely a market for it especially in regards to the fan service.

The game also had it's own share of free DLC. You also have to factor in that the series is handled by a different studio (and of differing size). Just because they are both owned by Nintendo doesn't mean they have the same man power (or same take on game aspects). Considering the situation they were in with Fire Emblem, I doubt they (intelligent Systems) had the time or state of mind to even plan out for a large scale DLC in the same lines as NSLU.



WYLD-WOO said:

Hey Ernest The Crab,
Not understanding much about the DLC development structure for each game. I just cant understand why you would what to make a game even easier and pay money for it. Moving forward Intelligent Systems must start to factor in massive amounts of decent follow on DLC like the new Luigi game. This in it`s self would add even greater value to such a great game like Fire Emblem.



tchaten said:

There should be another option in the Luigi U poll for those buying both DLC and physical version - I'm doing that



Znerd said:

DLC for me in the case of being planed i the beginning is a excuse to incomplete the game especially when its released like a week later. Nintendo though finally geting into it is doing a really good job like with fire emblem giving us extra maps to do for a low cost and characters from the last fire emblem games. Super Luigi U is another good example of how DLC is done compared to how capcom made ultimate marvel vs capcom 3 wich should have been DLC in the first place A Full 60$ game! it really expands on the game well after its been released and for 20$ ? thats how DLC should be done

Leave A Comment

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