News Article

Talking Point: Nintendo Must Take Careful Steps Into Paid DLC and Free-to-Play

Posted by Thomas Whitehead

The balance seems reasonable, so far

As more first-party games arrive on the Wii U and 3DS, we may need to stop thinking of paid DLC and free-to-play models as exotic rarities on Nintendo systems. To an extent they still are, in that there's a degree of surprise whenever either emerges in a Nintendo title, but it's quickly becoming the norm, with Mario Golf: World Tour even going so far — in North America, at least — as to brand a collection of packs as a "season pass". Strap yourselves in, traditionalists, your disc / cart no longer has the full game from the off; there are extras, and you may have to pay for them.

Before we all declare the apocalypse and the end of good, honest get-what-you-pay-for games, there are some important points to make. Nintendo is still picky about which games have paid DLC, so it's not become a standard business practice as it has for some big-name contemporaries such as EA, Activision and first-party efforts from Sony and Microsoft. You can pick a number of high-profile releases across Wii U and 3DS that have either had no DLC of any description, or just free goodies — in either category and recent bona-fide blockbusters are the likes of Super Mario 3D World, Donkey Kong Country: Tropical Freeze, The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds and Pokémon X & Y. With these games we've all just paid once and enjoyed a lot of content for the money, just as it was in the days of Bit Wars and cartridges.

These examples do reflect a core philosophy shared by Satoru Iwata way back in 2012, when he stated that Nintendo would not deceive gamers with DLC:

And one thing Nintendo has determined as a company policy, what we are not going to do is create a full game and then say, ‘let's hold this back for DLC.' That's not our plan. We're definitely not doing that. It's an extreme example, but I think there are examples of games where you get that initial purchase — the very core part of the game — and everything else around it is all DLC. However, if you do that I believe customers will have no motivation to go out and buy the retail package to begin with.

In a sign of how rapidly the gaming scene has changed, however, Nintendo is moving from being an occasional dabbler in DLC to a more active participant. Since that time in 2012 we've seen paid extras in titles such as Fire Emblem: Awakening, the expanded DLC of New Super Luigi U (also released as standalone software) and Pikmin 3, while tentative early steps in free-to-play have arrived most recently with Steel Diver: Sub Wars and Rusty's Real Deal Baseball on the 3DS eShop. Nintendo, like with online gaming in general over the past few years, has realised that it must react to trends in order to remain in competition not just with other consoles, but smart devices. Not only that, but as a business that desires to make a lot of money, ignoring the option of various content and pricing models simply isn't an option. This is something that was acknowledged by Iwata-san in early 2013, no doubt setting to foundations for the range of varied payment options we're now seeing.

We [as an industry] can now do distribution by digital means as well as micro-transactions, and the ways to obtain money through supporting entertainment have increased. It's a change in our landscape; competing in game-quality, and working on how money is obtained, I think both are things that require creativity. Therefore, I have no intention of denying charged [DLC? subscription?] games, or the free-to-play model. If we were to talk about if Nintendo were to do that, however, I do not much inclination to do that with Nintendo's established well-known products, where people trust their interesting-ness.

For example, for people who are used to Mario games costing 4,800 or 5,800 yen, we will not have a proverbial door to full enjoyment that can only be unlocked via payment. However, this is separate from say, having something where because there are people who want more stages to play on in Mario games, we will create new courses for those people and charge for them. We have already begun this process with some of our titles. For new titles with no established base, if, in the process of development, we found it to suit the free-to-play model, we might follow that route, or we might do something like 'Cheap-to-play'. Our sales methods have been freed up and I have no desire to extinguish that freedom. If we were to release something like that, it is not a betrayal but the birth of an interesting idea through our new found freedom, that's all. I am not talking about changing how we sell Mario or Pokemon.

As per those examples cited at the top of this article, top shelf main entry titles are often being spared DLC. Of those that are having paid extras, the argument can certainly be made that Nintendo's approach has been fair, to date. In the case of retail games with extras, we suspect few would argue that the extra challenges in Pikmin 3 constitute content that should unequivocally be in the main game. Likewise with Fire Emblem: Awakening, a title that is lengthy and enjoyable without any extras — the latter is a sticky point, however, as paid DLC in Awakening can provide substantial boosts to accelerate progress and ranking up.

That perhaps best represents the slippery slope on which Nintendo has to maintain balance. Its free-to-play efforts, meanwhile, outlined above — or 'cheap-to-play' as Iwata-san may prefer — both represent steady and relatively generous packages. Sub Wars actually delivers a fair amount in the free package, and while individual subs are relatively aimless purchases, the full option is attractive for those immersed in the experience. Rusty's Real Deal Baseball is different in that it rewards consistent play and a small investment with a lower cost for more content, through haggling — the initial free content is far less substantial, however. In both cases they adopt either generosity or quirky tweaks to the formula, and as stated by the Nintendo President in 2013 these experiments are kept to new or less-known IPs.

The notable recent example is DLC for Mario Golf: World Tour, which attracted some critical comments upon its reveal due to the very obvious detail that the first pack arrives on day one and includes two full 18-hole courses. It's day-one DLC that often frustrates gamers, as it's clear that this isn't extra content developed after launch, but rather pre-prepared and ready along with the core game. It raises the inevitable question of why it's not simply part of the retail package.

Nintendo's clearly aware of this, as the press release was decidedly cautious and defensive in tone. Before it detailed the three DLC packs and the three-pack set — bizarrely called a "season pass" in North America — the statement pre-justified itself by highlighting the 10 courses included in the core game. The message was simple, that the company was adding extra options to a full package, even being at pains to highlight that the main game's content is equivalent to series predecessors. The company is aware of the sensitivities of day one DLC, and tried to tackle the pre-conception held by some that it's unjustified.

The question gamers should ask themselves, and one we'll address in our review, is whether the core content of the game is — as Nintendo suggests — the expected level that's expected of a retail game; one at a reasonable price on 3DS, too. The DLC appears to contain reasonable value for money, meanwhile, with each individual pack adding two full courses and a playable character; European gamers will also have a chance to grab the three-set pack at a lower rate, an option unfortunately not included in North America. Yet it's a sticking point for some, and by definition the optional nature of the World Tour packs will mean a good number will resolutely stick to the main game.

It's the latest of a fairly busy 2014 of paid download content from Nintendo, on 3DS at least, when you consider those free-to-play options. One arguably pointless option not covered yet, showing that Nintendo is still figuring this side of its business out, are the matches that can be bought in Nintendo Pocket Football Club — they're somewhat hidden away and irrelevant. It's perhaps an example of unnecessary DLC, the type that can draw criticism; the saving grace is that the title doesn't actively plug it to the player.

As Nintendo looks to maximise profits from games, we're likely to see more extra content seeking our credit card numbers. Nintendo is gradually ramping up its activity with DLC and dabbling with new pricing models, so it's likely to be just a matter of time until a higher percentage of games are brought in. The question is whether Iwata-san will be good on his word that core experiences will remain untouched; will we have a 3D Mario with DLC in years to come?

This is a situation that'll continue to evolve. What do you think of Nintendo's paid DLC and free-to-play efforts so far?

From the web

User Comments (179)



PrincessEevee9 said:

The sentence about your cartraige no longer having the full game isn't entirely true. Since it's not pay to win and not required it's just extras.



XCWarrior said:

"And one thing Nintendo has determined as a company policy, what we are not going to do is create a full game and then say, ‘let's hold this back for DLC.' That's not our plan." - Iwata

And yet, Mario Golf was delayed in summer 2013 until May 2 so they could make those DLC courses. So uh, you lied Iwata.

I'm still buying the game, but unless that DLC drops to free or maybe, MAYBE $1, I'm not buying it. Day 1 DLC, season pass BS. Shame on you Nintendo.

Oh, and if one more person says, "Well it's $30, so with $15 in DLC, it's still only $45," I may scream. Look what your saying at it's core. Instead of buying a 3DS game for $40, you are now spending $45. That's NO GOOD.



Galenmereth said:

PrincessEevee9: That something is "not required" is at this point uncertain, and also subjective. Some may say that half of the racers in a Mario Kart game are "required", and the rest not, while others would feel differently. Day-one DLC is a touchy topic because of this, because in many cases, the content feels "required" for mostly everyone, and yet you have to pay even more for it, making it feel like a sneaky way to inflate game prices while preying on the human mind. After all, paying 40$ for a game and then 20$ for extra content "feels" better than 60$ upfront for the game, at least to some, and if it's presented cleverly. This is the problem.



kingc8 said:

I consider paid DLC and season passes to be a show of weakness and sign of product shrinkage and fight against used games.

I'm not a fan of it. -It's not about driving value for me..



TruenoGT said:

As a business practice, I don't think Mario Golf is a particularly egregious example of anti-consumer DLC practices (though I'm not a fan overall), but I get concerned for the long term archiving of these types of things. With the advent of closing online servers, it's already becoming impossible to enjoy a game for what it was when released, and fragmenting content up into this distributed DLC, it becomes even more tricky for 5, 10, 20 years out to be able to enjoy this content. Think about Satellaview and other older services, where it's really challenging to enjoy this historical Nintendo content legally or otherwise.



SanderEvers said:

@XCWarrior It's $30, and you have a CHOICE to pay extra for the extra.

DLC on Nintendo games has always been extra. And Mario Golf IS NO DIFFERENCE. You can play the entire game without paying ANYTHING for the DLC! You'll just miss out on some extra characters and maps. These are in no way part of the main game so you could play it from beginning to the end without paying anything more than that $30.

However if you WANT to you can pay extra to play these EXTRA courses and characters. You have been given the option to do so.



larry_koopa said:

Good read. Personally, I'm not a big supporter of DLC. Gaming is an expensive enough hobby as it is and I am not willing to pay extra cash for content packs or new maps or new character skins or whatever they're trying to pitch. A game should stand on its own the day you buy it, not requiring DLC down the road which half the time only gives you the content that you should have had from the beginning when you paid full price for the game.

Unless we're talking about free bonus content (like Sonic Lost Worlds) I'm just generally not interested.



SanderEvers said:

@Diddy_kong DLC is nothing new. In the good old PC game days we got DLC in form of "Expansion packs" which you had to buy in a physical store in order to get them (since the internet wasn't that fast back then).

Actually games like World of Warcraft, The Sims, SimCity, etc. still use these today.



Falchion said:

@XCWarrior i dont think Nintendo said they delayed it because of the DLC, ur just purely speculating. I am not a huge fan of DLC, never bought any of it, but i think its a good option to expand the game for people who want more content. So u should calm down a little, this is pretty generous DLC



Tops said:

Nicely put, Tom. I think the Mario Golf DLC is a step in the wrong direction, and the game is only priced lower to compensate for that.

In contrast, I thought Rusty's was well handled and to me it felt more like buying separate games individually rather than purchasing DLC that was tacked on to any core experience



Randomname19 said:

I think DLC should only be free like Sonic Lost World's or like Bioshock Infinite's DLCs Burial at the sea episode 1 and episode 2 (you pay for them but you get a sequel to the original game splitted in 2 episodes)



kingc8 said:


Fair point. But modern DLC doesn't come in a retail box.. by design.

You know, if you wanted to second-hand your PC game, you could just duck-tape the main game and the expansion together and give it to GameShop(TM).

DLC is ephemeral and controlled by the publisher puppet masters who think they're entitled to a slice of the sales of second-hand games.



GougeMan said:

"Only to a dark place this will lead....." Nintendo needs to keep the golden rule: Pay for the entire game and get the entire game. If they wish to add more content, turn it into a sequel like the old days and we will buy that as well.



DarkCoolEdge said:

I think the Mario Golf case is outrageous. They are stripping the game of two of its core elements: characters and courses.
I'm really mad about the route Nintendo is heading. Not only they keep most of the Nintendo annoying traits but they are adding some of the ones they hadn't and said they never would.

If they do something similar with MK8 I won't care anymore about the future of the company (not that it ocuppies my thoughts now).

I'm feding up with their twisted and sometimes plain dumb way of doing things and this dlc crap is just finishing my patience.



UGXwolf said:

How you feel about this depends entirely on how you look at the situation. There's a demo, there's the game itself, and then there's the bonus content. Respectively, that's free, $30, $42. I'll try it one step at a time, and if I feel the DLC isn't necessary, I won't bother. If I feel the game isn't worth my time, I won't buy it. It's that simple.

I think this is a great idea, but if you don't like it, well, I guess that sucks for you.



rjejr said:

I don't think Nintendo is doing anything different than any other game company has done over the past few years, but Nintendo's problem is they seem to always do things after they say they wouldn't and they demean other companies for doing it. They like to hold themselves up as some gaming standard barer when other companies do stuff but when they do it they say it's for the benefit of the gamer. So for me it's not what they are doing, it whats they say and they what they do after that.

I don't think they have anything to worry about w/ paid DLC though, sure people may whine and complain, while others congratulate Nintendo for catching up to modern gaming, but I don't see some huge backlash hurting sales overall. A few levels, a few characters, a few bucks here or there, it's nothing compared to all of Microsoft's PR faux pas' last year.



SanderEvers said:

@kingc8 Actually I never sold my games.

But these days are the days of digital games. You can't go to the App Store and sell your purchased game. Same goes for Steam, Origin, PSN, XBL and the eShops. As soon as you purchase a game online it's bound to your account until that account is removed.

Now look at DLC. DLC can be used if you buy a game in a retail store, or when you buy it online. In both cases the DLC would be tied to an account (just like purchasing a game online).

Also some games require you to activate it's license online. (Like all the games I named in my previous post) so you wouldn't be able to sell them anyway.

So DLC is basically the same thing. Only now your license will automatically be bound to your account (instead of having to buy a box with a disc and a code and needing to enter that code online)

(and with DLC I meant DLC that actually adds stuff to your game, not pay-to-win DLC)



Tops said:

@UGXwolf Yeah, but the irony is it also sucks for Ninty if people don't buy the game because of they feel ripped off by the DLC



mike_intellivision said:

A point with the article — Europe is getting a substantially lower combined package price (an additional savings of 3 e/2.7 UKP) for early adopters who buy all DLC.

The North American price and the full European price for the combined DLC is roughly the same savings ($3/3 e/2.6 UKP).



SanderEvers said:

@TopLaytonsHat Well it's simple.

A. You would have a game with 10 courses.
B. You would have a game with 10 courses, that you can expand by paying a small amount of money.

I pick B.



mike_intellivision said:

A point with commenters — If Mario Golf normally has 10 courses, and the 3DS game has 10 courses before DLC — how is DLC a rip off?



noctowl said:

@mike_intellivision exactly. its added content, not something they took out to sell by itself.

@XCWarrior of course its good. they'll move more copies by selling it for 30 instead of 40. Those that want to spend 40, can spend 40. if they want to spend 45, they can. theres nothing wrong or broke with the retail package.



Yoshi said:

This is absolutely ridiculous.


Let's take a look at the DLC

  • It is not pay to win.
  • The original game comes with ten courses and many game modes that could've very easily retailed for $40, but it's not.
  • The game is complete with or without DLC
  • The DLC will most likely not be shoved in your face, unlike other companies that do so. (Think Fire Emblem Awakening and New Super Mario Bros. U, the games did not emphasize DLC. It mentioned it once, if that, and that was the end of it)

Now, while I do believe that the DLC should've been held back a bit longer instead of being Day One, this really isn't that big of a deal.



CroRock said:

I have paid for many extra contents, dlcs, free to full versions, extra in game items or whatsoever... for my iphone games and applications, and I'm not agains paying more for games that I like... BUT all those games were free or about a few dollars. With Nintendo it just doesn't feel right to me to charge us for extra stage or two, especially at day one of game release. For a price of 1/10 average croatian wage for a nintendo game, I want those "extra" stages to be included in full game. I was interested in this game for some time even I didn't play any previous Mario or any other golf games.. but now I think I won't buy it



kingc8 said:


I think the whole digital way, with accounts and DLC is driving prices and quality (and the industry) into the ground.

See minecraft. It might or might not surprise you to learn that physical retail has been the major win for them over digital and physical merchandise has been insanely successful for them too.



Hy8ogen said:

I don't mind DLC if the game is COMPLETE without it. Activision is by far the worst company with DLCs. For example in COD Ghost...thanks to their DLC models, Wii U owners do not get to finish Extinction mode. They release the freaking game with DLC in mind, without DLC players could not get the full Extinction experience. What the actual F?

Not to mention on disc DLCs >.>



Anguspuss said:

the golf actually for DLC is a good detail. Fire Emblem is a massive game already without the dlc



Nintendude789 said:

*People whining for paid DLC.

Making DLC cost money too.
Developers needs to gain money too.

It's up to the developers if they want their DLC free or not.

The cheapest DLC I've seen is Steel Diver: Sub Wars and Thearythem Final Fantasy. (Spell fail). In Steel Diver: Sub Wars, each submarine DLC is $.99

In Thearythem Final Fantasy, each DLC track is $.99, almost as much to buy a song on Apple's App Store.

It's amazing how Sega makes their DLC worlds free, but it can hurt their stocks, so they depend on the game sales, unless if they start to fee the DLC.

I may get this game, but DLC can wait.

(At least Nintendo didn't do that stupid mistake Capcom did with In-Disc DLC, lol.)



erv said:

Nintendo should stick to their guns and sell quality, dedicated gaming. They are, after all, the masters of it.

Or sell chocolate lollipops. The entire world would like chocolate lollipops.



AyeHaley said:

Mario Golf is supposed to be 30 bucks/euros to justify selling 15 bucks worth of DLC but most stores over here sell it for 40. I would buy the game and the DLC if the game was 30 euros.



divinelite said:

Well just put this practise as GOOD
Now dont just nintendo plz, please do tell cod battlefield assasin creed etc is also good practice

Case closed



divinelite said:

And sony gives many free dlc for soul sacrifice and infamous, so while I know nintendo is generous please dont say other company is greedy

In fact, they are similar in way to have as much profit as they could



james_squared said:

The DLC for Pikmin was done pretty well and I had no problems purchasing those as they added a lot of new (local) multiplayer content that was not required in anyway to complete the main single player campaign.

Interestingly enough, I think I've played the multiplayer missions a lot more than the single player campaign.



Peach64 said:

I find it pretty funny how people lambast these other companies for their practices, but defend Nintendo for the same thing. Look, DLC is not a bad thing, not when Nintendo do it, but neither when others do it. Nintendo haven't found some 'charming' new method of free to play gaming either, they're doing exactly the same as everyone else.

The problem is so many on here refuse to look at anything outside of Nintendo, and then go spouting off this nonsense about incomplete games or pay to win DLC, which just isn't the case.

My only issue with how Nintendo is doing things right now is the price, and that mainly seems to be a problem with them putting them right up when it comes to Europe. The New Super Luigi content was disgustingly priced.



BinaryFragger said:


The difference is expansion packs added extra content to an already-complete game, and were released months, even years after the game came out. For instance, the Brood War expansion for the original StarCraft came out 8 months after the game's original release date. It made a lot of sense: buy a game, enjoy it for a while then get more content for a relatively-low price when you start to get bored with it, making the game feel new and fresh again.

Today's games have DLC the day the game comes out, which is ridiculous (sometimes the DLC is even on the disc). It's annoying to spend $60 on the newest first-person shooter only to find out that half the maps need a $15 map pack to unlock. Or racing games that come with a fraction of the cars than previous games.

I'll gladly buy DLC that adds new content to a complete game. Unfortunately, the current trend is to remove content from a game then make it available as DLC on day-one.



Corleonis88 said:

anyone knows the cost of the game in canada? I think they´re adding 5$ to every new game. I buy through Canada eshop because in Mexico the prices are too darn high.



mipaol said:

I like DLC, it extends the life of a game after I've completed the initial offering. What I don't like is feeling like I purchased half a game, only to be sold the other half over time, something I have not felt was the case with a first party title on a Nintendo platform.... yet. So if Nintendo is really smart about it I have no problems with them selling downloadable content to extend the life of an already complete game, or even attempting free to play business models. But if Nintendo starts with the sort of greedy shenanigans companies like Electronic Arts and Capcom have become known for, well let's just say Nintendo has made plenty of consoles over the years with hundreds of games I enjoy, that will never have any of these modern issues.



Chouzetsu said:

Nintendo seems to know what they're doing. I have no problem with DLC as long as it's not, like Iwata said, holding part of the full game back so they get more money. New Super Luigi U is fair. Injustice: GAU is not. As long as Nintendo keeps it that way I'll be happy.



CroRock said:

@brewsky I just said that I'm not against paying for extra content if that content really is extra. 3 dlc packs at day one just feels like milking money for content that supose to be in full game. Didn't expect that from Nintendo. Easy as that. And yes, if Nintendo continue with that policy, yea.. I'm going to sell my 3DS XL. And I really like my 3DS and all games I have for it, and its the best gaming platform I ever had if you ask me. And I had them more then a few in my 30 years.
Btw.. I would never buy extra maps for Fire Emblem, but when they make a sequel, I will gladlly pay 48euro for a game at first day of release.
call me stupid



Starwolf_UK said:

I was under the impression Nintendo was keen to offer a mix of free and paid DLC. I'm not really seeing a lot of the former. Fire Emblem is the only example of a lot of free (but technically that is unlock keys).

The season pass term was silly of Nintendo as season passes usually cost more and you have no clue what you are getting. These seem to be used as a method of extending the life of the game.



User1988 said:

Honestly, if they release the full game at a lower price and then offer DLC on top of that for 5-10 dollars, I don't see a problem. But if Ninty goes anywhere near the pay to win thing, I'll start having a hard time buying Nintendo products.



Caryslan said:

@Hy8ogen Outside of zombies and extinction, Call of Duty has a pretty good model on how to do DLC. The Map Packs, extra weapons, camos, and extra create-a-character slots are all extras that a person never has to buy if they just want to enjoy the single player or even the multiplayer.

Honestly, I don't think many COD players tend to buy map packs beyond the first two that come out with each game. I remember buying the last two map packs for Black Ops II, and there were fewer players on the playlists for those map packs.

I'm not saying Activision is perfect, but they are a lot better than most companies when it comes to DLC. Single Player and Multiplayer tend to be pretty complete on their own, and everything else that they sell is extras. Plus, they have been known to give maps and camos away for free.

With that said, I do agree with you about Zombies and Extinction. I wonder if Nintendo and Activsion still can't come to terms about DLC with Call of Duty. I remember Black Ops on the Wii was supposed to get DLC, and there was a dispute between those two over the pricing model or something.

And the Wii U may get the map packs for Ghost. The Wii U recently got Free Fall despite it not being a pre order for the Wii U version, so there may be some hope.

I think you have a point, but the DLC model for Call of Duty is one of the better ones. You could safely play any Call of Duty with the core game, and the single player and multiplayer would be pretty much fully playable. Now, compare that to how Capcom did their fighting games like Street Fighter X Tekken which had half the roster locked on the disc.



noctowl said:

@Peach64 i think their free to play is quite charming. how is it the same as everyone else? i dont remembering trying to "haggle" with nathan drake or clementine. some people blindly will pay full price, others will lower it. its thats been done before, i'd love to know the examples.



MAN1AC said:

This comment just seems sour since people have impressions on DLC and Nintendo just started releasing DLC content in their games. And it seems that most have an issue with companies go about pricing and releasing the content the extra content.

I'm usually on the fence with DLC and it depends on both the price and the content, but I see no issue with this. They're offering the game at a discounted price and giving you a lot more content that will come out to $5 more than the normal $40 retail game if someone chooses to purchase it. Its not mandatory.

Also, those of you saying you have no issue as long as the game is complete have no clue if the game was stripped of its original content and used for DLC or not in most cases There's just no possible way of knowing for sure. Whether the extra content is released on the same day of the game or 6 months later is irrelevant. If you like the game and the extra content, then buy it and show support. If not, then skip it.



TingLz said:

@XCWarrior Are you gonna base your accusations on actual evidence or just simple conjecture? Your logic also makes no sense. Why would they delay the entire game to sell the DLC (which is separate content) on Day 1?

@Peach64 It's not necessarily all bad, but some companies have been caught holding back content to charge extra for it (read: on-disc DLC) and often taking good ideas (DLC, online) and ruining them with corporate greed



SavoirFaire said:

I don't get why people take a good or evil view on DLC. To me, it is a case by case basis.

Is mario golf "supposed" to have x characters and y courses? How do you determine what someone "took out" of a game? This tends to show people who already have a bias.

I will pick up mario golf demo this week (I hope), and if I like it, get the game, and if I love it, get the dlc.

My past experiences with dlc (all wii u) were:
-arkham origins (not worth it, go glad I got season pass refund)
-injustice gods among us (got characters and they stopped short of full roster other games got)
-castlestorm (enjoyed game and dlc)
-Pikmin 3 (game was too short, but dlc was good)

So for what it's worth in my view, Nintendo and zen studios seem to be doing dlc right, and WB will not get another cent of money from me. I get the feeling those heavily anti-dlc have been burned a bit too many times by Xbox/ps/PC games.



UGXwolf said:

@TopLaytonsHat True, but that is the company's problem. Not mine. It'll also suck for them if I play the demo, get the game, and then decide I don't need the DLC, so I view it as a risk, rather than a cheap shot.



Kevlar44 said:

@DLC Haters

I made an account just so i can complain about the attitude on here towards this DLC. What's with the generalizations and need to paint all DLC with the same brush. Just because some DLC is bad doesn't mean all DLC is, i ask Nintendo for DLC in my club nintendo surveys when it comes to games i think it would work well for (i.e. Mario Kart Wii, Mario 3D World).

In regards to this particular game it's clear that the DLC is not necessary for a full game experience with the roster, game modes, and courses being as abundant as ever. The game is already priced very cheaply considering what there is to play through in regards to previous installments and other retail releases. Essentially what i see it as is you can buy a mini sequel for 15 dollars, as 105 courses is a substantial addition and 4 extra characters adds about as much diversity as many sequels would to the roster. Whats wrong with that?

Also there is no way of knowing if this content was available at the time when the game was finalized, or in other words "left off the cart", i'm sure the process of getting a game to retail is fairly extensive and there would be an ample amount of time to add additional courses using an already complete engine. Day one seems like a missed opportunity and a pretty naive way of going about adding content but claims of wrongdoing are being greatly exaggerated.

An idealistic standpoint that doesn't critically evaluate each situation on it's own individual merits is a foolish position to take as such idealism does not allow an individual to give credence to the differences in execution. The devils in the details so to speak, and there's some pretty big details being left out by people when evaluating this situation. The option to play Mario Golf for 30 dollars is a great one, the option to add a mini sequel for half the price is an amazing one. People should be applauding the option to get the same game content for cheaper with the option to get a far bigger game for just a little bit more. I can't believe you people can complain about this, i'd be stoked if this exact same scenario played out for Mario Kart.



unrandomsam said:

@Peach64 Nintendo are not doing it like everybody else. With everybody else if you choose to then you can just wait and get the GOTY edition (Or whatever they choose to call it). Which is the complete game. Nintendo time and time again chooses anything but that that benefits the end user.



Cengoku said:

I'm not a golf fan but this game looks crazy.
I think I'll buy the game + DLC this may besides MK Wii U. I'm not joking



dkxcalibur said:

I'm cool with DLC if it's additional content that is not necessary to play the game but more like a bonus. I remember a few summers ago, Magic the Gathering Duels of Planeswalker 2013 was hacked and it was discovered that the DLC was already in the full game. That's when DLC angers people and I get that. I rarely get DLC when it is released with a game. I play the game through until I get to the point that I'm ready to move on or invest more money in the experience.



Stu13 said:

The Smash Bros. DLC is gonna cause some serious flipping out on this site.



Senario said:

@XCWarrior are paying only 30$ for the game and if you want you can get 108 more new holes to play for 15$. Plus more characters.

Honestly, DLC is DLC and at the very least this seems like a good value currently if you want it. It isn't something like "8$ for 1 character".

And no, arguing that now you are paying 45$ is incorrect because DLC is optional and not needed to play the game.



Hy8ogen said:

@Caryslan Agreed. The map packs and guns are okay, but the Zombie and Extinction modes just pisses me over the top. I know making games is getting expensive and they need to survive. But making a mode where DLC is absolutely necessary is BS.

Also agreed on On-Disc DLC. That's like selling you a car, and you need to pay extra to use the fast foward function in the CD player.



Shadowkiller97 said:

@Peach64 How was New Super Luigi U "disgustingly priced"?! The game had 82 new levels! Compare that to NSMB2 where you get 3-level gold rush packs for $2-3 or Pikmin 3 level packs which were 4ish stages for $2-5. Why is that acceptable but 82 new levels for $20 is disgusting? If you match it to the NSMB 2 or Pikmin 3 pricing for 3-4 levels a pack... it would come out $40-$60 for 82 levels.

Would you have felt better if it was four separate 20-level packs for $5? Most other content DLC I have seen on the PSN store are around $10 a piece. I loved New Super Lugi U and probably played it as much as the original game. I had a blast searching for the hidden Luigi easter eggs in each level.



tetrizheroz said:

In way Nintendo has been doing DLC longer than it's competitors. To get all content in last 2 console versions of Mario Golf, one had to buy a portable version and unlock characters.



Kevlar44 said:

I think it's hilarious how people are worried about "current trends" in relation to removing content to make DLC when Nintendo is a company that ignores "current trends", sometimes to the point that it's annoying. Nintendo makes plenty of mistakes but they are rarely of the unethical or anti-value variety. Let's not prosecute Nintendo for the crimes of other companies.



0utburst said:

30$ on US? Here in Italy it is 40 Euros on Amazon and other retailers. Is this the final price in Europe or only in Italy?



LinkJr_Rezende said:

The one mistake they made was to make it a "day one" DLC. If it was announced a week later and started releasing two weeks after launch no one would give a poopoodoodoocacapoopledoopledoggiedoodoo and would be even happy to buy it.

The thing is, they could have it already done anyway, and you wouldn't know it was ready before or after, or theorize if it was removed or not from the game. The reaction is just towards two words: "day one" and I hope they learn it for the future to never use these words again.

I don't mind most DLCs though and bought a lot in the past, so my non-reaction might be because of it, I'm already way past denial, anger, etc.
Please watch the profanity — TBD



Nintenjoe64 said:

If it's worth the money to you then buy it. If the game is not worth the money without the DLC, don't buy the game or you are just allowing them to get away with offering less value.



unrandomsam said:

@Kevlar44 Nintendo is the worst value of all. (No GOTY editions / hardly any discounts). I have played the demo of this and it is archaic.



Hy8ogen said:

@Peach64 Clearly you haven't played any Japanese made games? Almost all their DLCs are ridiculously priced. Examples: Gundam vs Extreme Full boost, Fire Emblem Awakening, J-stars and the list goes on and on.

The catch though? You DON'T NEED THEM to enjoy the game as originally intended. Instead of making you pay 45 bucks for the game, they give you the choice to buy the "extra content" or just pay 30 for the "basic" game. Don't like it? Don't buy it! I don't see people having any problems with optional extras when buying cars. Gamers are a bunch of whiners really. I seriously believe DLC give games longevity.

However, I do despise company who abuses the DLC model. Making games that is incomplete without purchasing DLC is plain evil and yuck.



faint said:

im guessing none of you guys had an e-reader for your game cube/gameboy advance. nintendo was the first console company doing dlc. look up those ecards. maybe you will be enlightened



Kevlar44 said:


I'm not sure i understand how you claim Nintendo has offered poor value in regards to DLC? They don't have GOTY editions because they rarely have DLC and when they do it hasn't typically been on their biggest games. However what they do have is the player choice games for 20$ for the Wii. Still Nintendo doesn't have to offer there games at a discount once they become old i think they rightfully feel that the consistent quality of their games allows them to retain their value. That's fair for them to decide. If the game was once fairly valued at one price then why must that change for them to offer value?



NintyMan said:

It's puzzling how people think Nintendo's entering a dark age of DLC when it is always absolutely optional and Mario Golf: World Tour is still a complete game without it. To me, DLC is good as long as the main game itself is still complete without it. If Mario Golf: World Tour really is just as big as the past Mario Golf games on its own, I don't see the problem. If someone is all huffy about not getting to play Rosalina without paying up, then too bad. If he or she wants her, he or she needs to pay up. I think some people are too arrogant to pay up, but then again, you are never forced to pay up. It's entirely your decision.

Don't like it? Don't buy it. Do we really have to complain about options?



tanookisuit said:

@XCWarrior That post right there entirely. They say one thing, then don't honor it. You can't make the argument they did and have courses, characters and a buy the whole pack super character in a $15 overall bundle the day the game comes out and make the promises they did. I'm kind of pissed about it as I was planning to buy the game. I don't like they're excluding characters and courses without paying another 50% on value (game is $30) over the retail price to get the full game. It's not 'extra' DLC the day a game comes out, that's planned and calculated the same way Capcom would hide fighters on copies of SF4 to sell as DLC extras.

Sure it's an option to buy, but at this rate it's an option to get the full game or not. Had this been planned after and came out say 3-6months from now to extend its life that would be an entirely different story. All designed at the same point, the upsell the parts for more profit. Boo.



Doma said:

@outburst I think it's been established that Nintendo has lowered the price in NA only, while blatantly ripping off everybody else. Just ignore this game.

I haven't touched a single piece of DLC (or any paid downloads) from Nintendo because of how overpriced and inferior their service is. That won't be changing any time soon.



DadOfFour1972 said:

"It's day-one DLC that often frustrates gamers, as it's clear that this isn't extra content developed after launch, but rather pre-prepared and ready along with the core game"

What a stupid thing to say - the game had to be ready at least 4(?) weeks before launch to get the cards "printed" and shipped world wide - the developers had all that time to finish off the "day one DLC" - so how could it have shipped with the game?? - think things through before pressing the keys please



ZurrrrBlattTron said:

@DarkCoolEdge for God's sake the game is $30 and has just as much if not more content then the previous two Mario golfs
are people aware that a budget for making a game and the budget for making dlc for said game are two different budgets? It is possible they ran out of resources for making the main game(which is possible because like I said it has tons of content) and wanted to add in extra content available from the start why does Day one dlc automatically mean Nintendo pulled a capcom and removed content for dlc?



aaronsullivan said:

DLC is not evil or good. It is an alternate method of selling things. Looking to the App Store as a rapidly changing market that is full of experiments with methods of selling the idea of "whales" has emerged. These are important to game distribution as they have tons of disposable cash that they don't mind spending on your game. If your game can get these beasts to pay crazy amounts of money, you can sustain your business.

It's really too bad that Nintendo is not in a better situation because I think the DLC moves they've been making are pretty good. The key is to satisfy the core gamers while letting the "whales" support the business. The problem is that if Nintendo were in a less risky position it could begin to lower the entry cost further. Games could come in at $10-$20 less knowing that some would pay enough for DLC to easily make up for it. (For instance, in the App Store the games that make the most money are free.)

Nintendo wants to take advantage without diminishing games to obsessive click fests with no decisions or rewards for skilled play which I admire. It's not so easy when your customer base is diminishing.



aaronsullivan said:

Also, about this "day one dlc" and "dlc already on the disk" malarky. What difference does it make? It costs money to pay people to work on a game. If the DLC plan wasn't there to make more money, it wouldn't magically mean that all that content would have been completed with no people to work on it.

There are so many factors that change prices. Hypothetically, Nintendo could have surveyed and found that a disappointingly small number of people were going to buy Golf at $40 and a price of $30 could increase the number of buyers. Having already put in for a too large budget they could turn much of the assets into a seperate DLC for those who really love the game and find it worth it. Why does it matter exactly when the content was finished?



Hortencio said:

I personally love the idea of DLC because, as many of you pointed out, you ultimately decide whether or not to purchase it. Sure, it can feel like they're short-changing you on the 'full' game, but if you really like the content you're playing, well, then just fork over the cash and be done with it. Remember, unless your game breaks or is stolen, you get to enjoy the extra goodies for the rest of your days! You think you'll remember the +15$ you spent on extra courses and characters in 10 years, or how Nabbit's been your golfer ever since the 3DS version of Mario Golf?
Nintendo, if you're listening (and you're not), I would be willing to pay upwards of $15 US for a single Smash Bros. DLC matter how many you decided to churn out. I love that game and would have no problem throwing more money at the beast, Day One or Day Five Hundred; more content for games I like makes me happy, and I certainly wouldn't boycott a game because of it.



Arcamenel said:

I don't really care either way about it. As long as I'm not paying for stuff that should have been in the game it's fine. I don't have much familiarity with these games but if you are getting about what you usually get or more before the DLC, don't really see the problem.



RoomB31 said:

I'm okay with DLC when the "initial" upfront cost is less than expected. With Super Luigi U, $20 was a steal (also i wouldn't really consider it DLC). With New Super Mario Bros 2, you got 3 courses for $2.50, no one would argue that this should have been in the game, no one was even expecting it, but I do feel the price was steep for what it was.
$30 initial price for Mario Golf is somewhat unexpected, considering most first party games are $35-40, but if Nintendo really wanted to change the landscape they should have released the game at $20, and emphasized DLC for those who wanted more. Thus harming no one and allowing people the choice to invest more in the game.



aaronsullivan said:

Right, and there are certainly ways to do DLC wrong and anger people, but I think the best way is to let those who love the games get more out of them if it's worth it to them and let those who don't care as much pay nice bargain prices so they don't feel ripped off. This is a consumer oriented approach that can work.



aaronsullivan said:

@RoomB31 Exactly my point. I think if Nintendo was in a position to take more risks, a $20-$25 initial cost could have happened. I honestly think it should have tried it, but that's easy for me to say.



aaronsullivan said:

@Arcamenel That's a problem though because every consumer has a different idea about what should have been in the game proper so there's always room for complaints.



bizcuthammer said:

I'm fine with DLC as long as the game i'm paying for initially comes with a full experience. DLC should always be for players who loved the game so much that they want to play even more, and so that option is there as extra content. DLC should never be something that must be purchased in order to access content that should just have been part of the game.

For example, i hated it in Halo on Xbox Live when they'd release the map packs, and if you didn't download them, then you couldn't play certain modes online anymore until you bought them. They practically force you to pay for what is supposed to just be extra content, or else you can't enjoy the game as it was meant to be played anymore. That's crap. But that's not what Nintendo is doing here. The Mario Golf DLC is by no means necessary, and the full game comes with enough content to justify a retail price point. The DLC is extra fpr those who want it, but isn't mandatory for enjoying the game for those who aren't interested in it.

This type of DLC is the kind i'm ok with. I get why some people may not like that it's Day 1 DLC, but i personally don't care as long as thr main game is substantial enough.



DragonbornRito said:

Plain and simple, there are three kinds of DLC: Good, Bad, and Iffy.

Bad: Paid DLC (usually that brings gameplay changes, such as map packs or gun packs in CoD games) that has been fully developed and could be released at the same time as the core game OR was made during the development of the core game but was specifically made to be DLC so the developer could charge more money.

Good: Any free DLC or DLC that was developed after the game was released to bring new content to a game that may be collecting dust.

Iffy: Paid DLC made during the development of the core game (possibly even ready day one) that is entirely optional and has no effect on the core game other than aesthetic changes.

Mario Golf by my definition falls in the camp of "iffy" DLC. That said, I don't find the DLC on offer here to be very egregious. The two courses per pack give significant replay value, but I think it would've been slightly more intelligent for Nintendo to simply put off DLC for about a month, or even a few weeks. This is DLC that is clearly finished and could've been core game material, even with bringing the price up to $35.

That said, I'm all on board with any DLC they release after this initial 3-pack. The best DLC is stuff that gets developed for a game out of nowhere. Kinda like the devs go "WHOA, you know what would've been awesome for this game? Let's do it!" Of course, this DLC is the rarest to come by, because once a game hits store shelves, the dev team usually move on to a new project.

I'm still crossing my fingers for MK8 and SSBU DLC, but it's doubtful.



RoomB31 said:

@aaronsullivan I think nintendo takes risks all the time, they don't always work, but they always take risks. I think they are less likely to take risks with solid franchises, although I doubt that pricing structure would have hurt the game in any which way, and possibly sold way more in the long term (opening up the possibility to more DLC purchases)



SkywardLink98 said:

Let's keep in mind that the base Mario Golf games has 10 courses (according to the Wiki) which is more or as much as all of the past Mario Golf games.



DragonbornRito said:


The fact that Nintendo games still hold value as well as they do is a good thing, not a bad thing. Skyrim is a terrific game, but that copy you bought day one for $60, what's it worth on the secondary market now? $15?

I bought a copy of Mario Kart Wii for $3 from a lady at the flea market and took it to GameStop for a clean $21 profit. Can you do that with Uncharted? Call of Duty: MW3? Borderlands?

Not saying I don't love those games, but they don't ever hold value! Buying Nintendo games vs. buying non-Nintendo games is almost like the video game equivalent of investing in gold vs. spending that same money at a fancy restaurant. Both will leave you feeling like you made a good purchase at the time, but the food will wear off and you're only left with memories.



aaronsullivan said:

@Kevlar44 Missed you post before, but I agree. I'll just add that when the DLC is made/released hardly matters. It's all about the value proposition and how they can make a return on their investment and who will pay for it and if they'll be happy about it.



aaronsullivan said:

@RoomB31 I love how Nintendo takes risks, but the last couple (Wii U, for instance) haven't payed off as well as the Wii. In the era of the Wii, Nintendo made Wii Music. Just wow, right? Now, it is struggling to make sure it can keep up some profit while the 3DS does moderately well and the Wii U sits on shelves. It's a hard place from which to take a bunch of risks.



DragonbornRito said:

It's just too bad that people don't realize the best "gaming" system is the Wii U out of the 3 new gen systems. Xbone would rather have you watch TV than play games on it and PS4 is just a Twitch Box with about 5 actual decent games (and I'm being lenient here). It's this darn Internet culture. Everyone wants to be a "hardcore" gamer. Nintendo fans are "filthy casuals". Xbone is stupid (that one's true at the moment actually).



aaronsullivan said:

@DragonbornRito "Bad: Paid DLC (usually that brings gameplay changes, such as map packs or gun packs in CoD games) that has been fully developed and could be released at the same time as the core game OR was made during the development of the core game but was specifically made to be DLC so the developer could charge more money."

I don't get it. Why is it bad for a company to want to make more money from the extra work they put into a game? So they hire more staff and just don't pay them? How does this work?

I have other reasons for disliking the DLC in some of those types of games (and mostly don't buy it), but why does it matter when they made it? They should wait? I don't get it, though you certainly aren't alone in thinking this way.



aaronsullivan said:

@DragonbornRito I don't want to be argumentative with you but why are you bringing up XB1 and PS4? It's possible people just value different things in their gaming systems and that's why they don't prefer the Wii U. Not sure if it has anything to do with "internet culture" although there's plenty to blame on that.



CthulhiGames said:

One thing being overlooked here about the day 1 DLC is that the final version of the game was completed probably something like 6 months ago, it takes a long time to go through ESRB/PEGI ratings and the manufacturing process, even for Nintendo. So its likely that the DLC has been in development after they started this process.

Typically I dont care for DLC, If a game isnt complete to my satisfaction then I wont buy it at all. But in this case they could be charging $60 like some of their competition and then charge for DLC on top of that, so I see no reason to complain.



SkywardLink98 said:

@DragonbornRito The amount of "decent games" on a system is up to the gamer themselves, not what gets a high score on metacritic. The 2 games that interest me on the Wii U I can get on my 3DS (Monster Hunter and Smash Bros.) and the one PS4 game I want is only on the PS4, so the PS4 would be a better deal for me. It's not up to you to decide whether or not what the best gaming system is. You get annoyed by the fact people look down on the Wii U and then say "[the] Xbone is stupid" and that "[the] PS4 is just a Twitch Box with about 5 actual decent games". Hypocritical much?



DragonbornRito said:

@aaronsullivan "I don't get it. Why is it bad for a company to want to make more money from the extra work they put into a game?"

I understand your point completely. It's just a matter of ethics (which is always a grey area, so you could say this is subjective). What I'm really referring to is the Call of Duty line up. Activision goes into development with the idea already firmly in mind that there will be at least 4 $15.00 DLCs. The aim is to turn a $60 game into a $120 game. Sure, there's the season pass, but that just further validates that line of thinking for myself.

I suppose I'm letting my own feeling towards this type of DLC really affect my feelings here, but I'm not against DLC in its entirety. I've even bought those map packs that I shun Activision for.



Hy8ogen said:

@DarkCoolEdge Outrageous? How? They are charging you 30 bucks for the game and extra 15 for the extra content. Mind you the 30 dollars comes with 10 courses. Not buying the dlc will not affect your gameplay in any possible way unless you have an unhealthy attraction towards Rosalina



astrogamer said:

@XCWarrior The game was likely delayed to this May from Summer 2013 because they weren't going to finish it by the end of Summer of 2013 and golf games tend to sell the best between the period of May to August. The DLC was likely started to be implemented in the last couple months



BinaryFragger said:


If the DLC is already on the disc (which was the case with BioShock 2), it's obvious that the content was already created before the game was sent to the printers. The developers didn't need extra time to complete something that was already on the disc.
THAT'S what a lot of people have a problem with. Adding content to a game to extend its life is OK. Removing content from a finished game then selling it separately is not. Imagine if your reading the latest Stephen King novel and when you turn the page, it says "send us $5 to see this page."

Would you be OK if the next Mario Bros game charges you an extra $10 to access World 5? If that sounds absurd, that's exactly what Ubisoft did with Assassin's Creed II. Two entire chapters were missing from the retail game, and later released as DLC. Ubisoft said it was because they needed more time to complete the chapters, which is a laughable excuse. Though could have simply delayed the game to give them more time. After all, they had no problems delaying Rayman Legends or Watch Dogs.

But whatever. If you want to be nickel and dimed, that's your choice.



DragonbornRito said:


Ouch, walked into that one. You got me.

Again, I just call it like I see it though. I see gloom and doom for Nintendo all over the place, while the PS4 walks along offering little in the terms of gaming for most people, but it's about to overtake the Wii U, even coming out a year after.

I have to applaud Sony in that regard, after being in last place during the last gen, they performed an impressive PR campaign to move back to the front of the pack.

That said, I still feel that there is a stigma surrounding Nintendo that affects not only sales but third-party support. Nintendo has admittedly made some errors in promoting the system (beginning with the name, which confuses quite a few consumers). I think it has earned an unfair reputation though.

As for the Xbone comment, I meant for it to go along with the "Nintendo fans are filthy casuals", but reading it now, I can see that it came out a lot harsher than I planned it. I still think the system is lackluster at the moment and entirely unnecessary. Will I ever buy one? Absolutely. Same for a PS4. They're just not of good value to me right now. I am certainly first and foremost a Nintendo fanboy, but I own and regularly play my PS3 and Xbox 360. PS4 and Xbone both have their merits as well. But I can't help but feel like the better video game choices right now are in Nintendo's favor. The hardware and sales certainly aren't, but the quality of games is.



Doma said:

@aaronsullivan I don't want to be argumentative with you but why are you bringing up XB1 and PS4?

Obvious fanboy who can't be taken seriously.



DragonbornRito said:


Dang skippy. But the answer to his question was more along the lines of how the Wii U sits on the shelves. Hurt me in my fanboy place.

"who can't be taken seriously"

OUCH. Hurtful edit! I think I certainly can be taken seriously. Did me bringing them up have a place in this discussion? Upon reflection, nope. But I think I can at least be taken seriously.



unrandomsam said:

@aaronsullivan Best character (Gold Mario) is paid DLC exactly the same as what Activision does. (Presuming he is the character with the best power in the game). Obviously I have only played the demo but stuff like Longest Drive competitions where the DLC character has a massive advantage is exactly that.



BinaryFragger said:

"I don't get it. Why is it bad for a company to want to make more money from the extra work they put into a game? So they hire more staff and just don't pay them? How does this work?"

The problem is a lot of DLC is already on the disc (like Bioshock 2). They'res no extra work involved in that type of DLC!
DLC used to be used to add extra content to a game. Now, a lot of developers and publishers are using DLC to unlock content that is already on the disc. Taking a finished product, removing content and selling it separately is becoming a big problem and I don't know why gamers are letting the companies getting away with it. They'res absolutely NO way that book publishers or movie companies would get away with that. Imagine buying a BluRay movie for $30 and having to pay an extra $10 to access chapters 6 and 7.



SkywardLink98 said:

@DragonbornRito Like I said before, quality is up to the individual gamer. There is literally, not a single reason for me to get a Wii U except for MH3U Multiplayer and a prettier version of Smash Bros. I'd get a PS4 for inFamous Second Son, so I could say that the PS4 is a waaay better console for the Wii U since it has more games I want, but just because I view it that way doesn't make it fact. Actually, I would want to try Dead Rising 3 on Xbox One, so that's two consoles I'd prefer to the Wii U, but that doesn't mean the Wii U is bad, it just means it's not to my taste, and it would appear many people agree with me.

@BinaryFragger (cough) The Hobbit (cough).



DragonbornRito said:


Totally understandable. I concede on that matter. The post I made had no place in this conversation, and I acknowledge that. I let my fanboyism get the best of me and my fingers typed what my heart was saying before my mind could stop it.



Caryslan said:

@DragonbornRito I don't see the harm with what Activision does when it comes to Call of Duty. In fact, one could make the argument that they are trying to extend the lifespan of a game by offering a player several new maps every few months.

You don't have to buy the camo packs, Map Packs, skins, or the extra character creation slots to enjoy the game. I've had Black Ops II for years on the PS3, and I have not bought a single map pack for the game. I still get tons of enjoyment out of the game just one the core multiplayer levels and with the default stuff.

I have Black Ops's first Map Pack, but that was included with the game. The only Call of Duty that I'm getting all the map packs for is Ghosts, and that's because I got the Hardened Edition as a Birthday Gift. Otherwise, I would not have gotten any of the map packs.

I'm unlikely to buy any of the map packs for the new Call of Duty that is coming out this year.

I don't really bash how Activision does DLC, because the Map Packs and other DLC feel like extras for games that are typically loaded when it comes to content. Its not like Activision is making you pay for mines or perks that should have been included with games.

It's very possible to play a COD game without buying a single bit of DLC content. Now, compare that to the model of DLC that companies like Capcom pulled where content is already on the disc, and you're paying to unlock it.

That's kinda the thing. I've always gotten the impression that IW or Treyarch work on the map packs post-release. Treyarch even added some camos to Black Ops II recently, which kinda shows they keep working on these games to some degree. I think the DLC is planned, but they work on it after the game comes out.

I think Call of Duty has a better model of DLC than most games. It is planned, but you're not required to buy the DLC to enjoy a COD game. Many people never bother buying anything.



DragonbornRito said:


Good points, but I'm totally on board with you about the DLC on-disc. That's the DLC that truly sets me off. As I said, I've bought map packs before, and I feel like they are of decent value. Does it feel a bit like extortion? Yes, but it is new content for an aging game.

But making me pay for a "key-code" to unlock something on a disc I already paid full price for? You cross the line there.

(Fun debate though guys! But now I gotta go back to the real world and run errands...)



DarkCoolEdge said:

@Hy8ogen First day dlc is stuff that should've made it into the game.
That they sell us characters is sad. This is not the Nintendo I'm a follower of.

Plus it is not going to be cheaper in Europe.



BakaKnight said:

No problem with DLC in my opinion, at least as pure concept.
In theory the extra contenents are all stuffs the developpers would have never spend time on if it wasn't for sell them apart, the company invest more money in making the game cause they plan to sell it in that way.

Unfortunately it's impossible for us customers to know if a company actually spent extra money and time for make extra contenents to sell as DLCs or if the DLCs are things that would have get anyway in the game, turning them in a litterally "stealing from players".
It's just my opinion, but the better thing to do with DLC is simply to judge how well the game stand up for its price and doing the same for the DLCs. Of course it will all be a matter of personal opinions how "fair" things are, but that has always been what push a customer to buy day one and another to avoid or wait for get a product ^_^

On a different topic instead I'm not getting why Mario Golf is 30$ in NA and 40 € in europe and that's the eShop price too! @.@;
For 30€ (that technically are still more than 30$ >o>) I would be damn tempted by both the game and the DLC, but golf is not something I love enough for pay the actual EU price, even if it has Mario in it and the Demo was definitely fun to play >.>;;;



Bass_X0 said:

Doesn't matter if the game is only 30£/€, this is clearly an unfinished product.

But if it contained the same content without the DLC and the DLC content never exists anywhere, you wouldn't be saying it was an unfinished product.

I also wish that Mario Kart 8 had DLC characters. Whatever the amount is in the retail game will be the amount they were willing to sell at retail. I don't know who is in the full roster but I'm sure there will be characters missing or could have been added. Bring back Pauline and Stanley for one.



GalacticMario28 said:

I don't have a problem with Nintendo making DLC for certain games, as long as those games feel complete without the DLC and the DLC itself feels like something extra. So far, I feel Nintendo has been doing a good job of that, though this day-one-DLC for Mario Golf has me concerned. When I think of day-one-DLC, I think of content that was originally intended to be a part of the game, but was separated so the company could make more money. However, I don't think day-one-DLC necessarily has to be that way. It could be that the developers managed to design something extra in the time between the completion of the main game and the release date. There are probably other possibilities as well, but I can't think of any right now. The bottom line for me is whether I feel like I'm getting what I paid for; if I pay $40 for a game and I feel like I've gotten $40 worth of content, I have no problem with there being paid DLC available, even on day 1, as long as that DLC also makes me feel that I'm getting what I paid for.



Nintendude789 said:

I facepalm every person who cries for paid DLC.

Now I can already imagine their reactions if Smash Bros or Mario Kart gets paid DLC.



TwilightOniAngel said:

@Nintendude789 well if that happens almost everyone is going to freak out and say things like well nintendo you just lost a sale. In my opinion i really don't care im going to get this game regardless.



Tobias95 said:

Its bad when others does it but acceptable when its done by Nintendo. Or free. If its free, everyone can do it.



Bass_X0 said:

Free DLC should just be in the game to begin with. There's no point in delaying free DLC.



FJOJR said:

I don't mind DLC as long as it's like how they added new stages to Pikmin and such. Personally wouldn't mind if Mario Kart 8 had past MK tracks that you could pay individually for. Would be a Build-Your-Own-Mario-Kart type of deal where you don't have to play courses that you hate just to get to the ones you like.



UGXwolf said:

Soooo, I just crunched the numbers out of boredom. And because we don't have tax on downloadables, here, the game and season pass are going to cost me about 20 cents LESS than a full $40 game would. And this game is about twice the size of the usual Mario Golf title with a bigger roster, too, I think everyone is silly for complaining about this. It actually costs LESS this way.



SkywardLink98 said:

@DragonbornRito All you really need to do is add an "IMO" somewhere in there and I can't touch your argument, lol. I have to agree with you that people tend to think of Nintendo the more "kiddie" side of gaming, though when the other guys are churning stuff out like Dead Rising, inFamous, Killzone, Titanfall, I can see why Mario might be considered kiddie, because at the very least it is waaay more family friendly than the likes of those games.



Sanqet said:

I don't mind dlc a month or so after release but day one no way am I buying the game I hate greed from game company's so nintendo won't be getting my money this time



CthulhiGames said:

You say they are being greedy but in reality Nintendo is 30 percent cheaper then the competition.

Okay Nintendo , you hear them right? They don't like your full game and DLC costing $45. Better up it to $70 and be more like the competition. Jk



somari said:

I hope Nintendo know what they are doing. Not a big fan of DLC myself lets just say.



Webby-sama said:

Super proud of Nintendo and hope they keep it up.

Everyone was super content and happy before yesterday. "Oh wow, 30 bucks (sorry not US people, I know you suffer the higher prices) and it's ten courses totaling 126 holes. That's pretty good, compares to previous titles well."
Then the DLC pops up, the game is still 30 bucks and ten courses and 126 holes and if you're super duper into the game, you can get six more courses (108 holes, plus four characters) to expand on it for not too bad of a price, I was expecting 3-4 bucks for one course.
But no. Yesterday's content is tomorrow's complaint. "I had this game preordered but I cancelled it cause I already knew there would be DLC (nobody ever said when) and the game I thought I was getting is what I'd be getting. But no! Nintendo is evil suddenly!"
But hey, it'll be cool in August when Smash Bros comes out, right? Nintendo's not so evil anymore, right? "That was three months ago, surely it's okay to support the same company that I was protesting against before."

Lemme stir this cauldron. Ohhohohohoho. What do I need for this concoction. Sugar? Spice? Everything nice? Oh no I'm out of everything nice. Can't find that anywhere online. I know what to do. I've got the two ingredients that will surely cover for the lack of everything nice. A splash, just a splash, of entitlement. Oh that will add a bitter element, layers of flavor are important in a dish. But to pull it all together, a bit of hypocrisy surely will do the trick. Yess, yessss. This is turning out better than I expected. I must stir. Stirrrrrrr.

Now let simmer four to six hours.



aaronsullivan said:

"The problem is a lot of DLC is already on the disc (like Bioshock 2). They'res no extra work involved in that type of DLC!"
How on earth do you figure that? So the content just created itself because it's already on the disc? The logical leaps around here are making my head spin.



BinaryFragger said:


Let's take a game that has, say, 40 hours of gameplay. Whether the game is released in its entirely as a 40 hour game, or the game is split up so that it becomes a 30 hour game + 10 hours of on-disc DLC, the development time would be the same either way, would it not?



neohopeSTF said:

Day 1 DLC is prolly the best kind of DLC atleast it makes the most the sense business and consumer wise.



crazycrazydave said:

DLC doesn't bother me if it has good value. I'm quite happy to spend a little bit of money for a few extra hours of gameplay in a game i've been enjoying. Expansion packa have always existed in the past, so if the DLC is substantial enough, why complain?
it's when it's bad value and if the game feels incomplete without the DLC is when i refuse to buy it. I hate being prompted or reminded to buy DLC while i play the game. While Fire Emblem on 3DS is NOT a good example of how to price DLC, i felt that it taking a back seat with a substantial game and with free content being offered is how DLC should be presented. The call of duty map packs that people talk about here are in my opinion horrible value and definitely how NOT to do DLC. Overall, DLC should be seen on a case by case basis and you should make sure you know what you are getting for your money.



Gerbwmu said:

IMO, I thought 10 courses and 126 holes was a complete game so I have no issue with the DLC in Mario Golf. I never purchased any DLC for Awakening and I've played through it 3 times. I don't see the issues with how Nintendo is currently handling this. Extra content for those who want it. Standard price for those who don't, and nothing for people who aren't buying the product.

I paid $59.99 for Super Mario 64 15 years ago. Games really haven't gone up in price so really we as gamers have been lucky from that stand point. If this is a way to keep full games at a decent cost while allowing additional profit and content for both ends then so be it.



FilmerNgameR said:

DLC for Smash would be awesome. There can be many characters and stages as DLC just don't release it right after the game is out. T_T



SMW said:

@TruenoGT The uncertainty of the future is exactly why I never cared for DLC. Now I doubt I'd still be playing Mario Golf: WT whenever they take down the 3DS eShop many years from now, but if I wanted to, I better hope I still have that DLC installed on a functional SD card. Otherwise I'm out of luck, well aside from getting it from someone else's SD card.



SecondServing said:

Knowing NIntendo, they'd be really good and fair about DLC in the beginning but once they see how many people love DLC, they'll take it too far. Especially with games like Mario.



aaronsullivan said:

Right. So now are talking about the amount of work that goes into the game and the value you get out of it.

This is going to be the real issue whether the content happened to be on the disc but locked away or locked away on a server. I would argue that I'd rather have it on the disc so I don't have to wait for a big download.

The false assumption I see many making is that if it's already on the disc then it isn't extra or it is somehow bad to distribute it this way.

What they are really trying to argue is that the game without the dlc (on disc or not) is not a "full" game and you are being charged to make it into one.

The problem here is that it is all about perception. There is no rule about what makes a game a "full" game. Considering how small the percentage of people who even finish a game is I don't even know how to come to any sort of consensus on this issue.

And perception is such a huge problem in all market categories right now. TV is ad supported or lumped into subscriptions with other benefits, web sites aren't just ad supported but many simply share demographic information for cash, video games are free with all sorts of silly things to buy, even physical stuff is subsidized, leased, loaned, mortgaged. It's hard to know the true value of anything.

People see games as a dime a dozen and us gamers know there is so much more to it. If you've ever developed a game you realize how incredibly labor intensive most games are. But how do you educate everyone that is just shoveling in the free stuff and stumbling across Facebook games?

Iwata and the gang have their work cut out for them. That's for sure.



BinaryFragger said:


I agree. Nintendo has done a good job with their DLC so far and I don't see that changing anytime soon, but then again, they might be tempted to do the same as other publishers seeing how many people love buying incomplete games.
Nintendo has always gone against the grain and followed their own path, let's hope they continue to do so with DLC. I don't want the next Mario Bros game to have six worlds, with worlds 7 and 8 being $5 each.



aaronsullivan said:

@FilmerNgameR Why NOT release the DLC for other SSB characters just after the game is out? You like to wait? I guess it's because people are irrational. I'm throwing in the towel on this issue. lol.



BinaryFragger said:


Final Fantasy XIII-2 ends with "to be continued" and requires you to buy DLC to actually see the ending. In my opinion, having to whip out your credit to card see a game's ending is not a full game.



unrandomsam said:

@aaronsullivan They should just make the game more expensive if they need to but not nickel and dime everything. Or release two standalone games. (Or take up the standard practice of GOTY version at reduced cost with all the DLC after a year or whatever). Smash Brothers I will get as a download complete for whatever cost anyway but basically anything else I just won't buy. (Or I will become part of the used problem deliberately).



DreamOn said:

@andjahiam This right here.

Darned if they do, darned if they don't.

I want Nintendo's DLC because their games with DLC aren't any shorter than the equivalents on past consoles which also were sold at the same base price.

@the couple commenters here I ALWAYS expect to see telling people/Nintendo they are wrong: don't reply to me.



aaronsullivan said:

@unrandomsam Price a game too high and it sells less. Breaking into two games means making each separate enough to stand alone. I don't see why having a third option is such a problem. I like the idea of buying a game and only paying more if the extra content is something I want. You can do DLC wrong, for sure, but DLC can be a great boon to many games as well. Balance is key and obviously pleasing people who have a natural aversion to anything new or different is part of the problem to solve.



BinaryFragger said:


Glad we can agree on something. And to be honest, I don't hate DLC in general. Games such as GTA IV and Fallout 3 had excellent DLC. I just feel that we're on a slippery slope and we'll be seeing more crap DLC like the aforementioned Final Fantasy XIII-2.

Nonetheless, I still feel that video games offer great value when it comes to entertainment. I can spend $15 to see a movie or $100 to see an NHL game (well, maybe not now, my team didn't make the playoffs ) or I can spend $60 on a game that'll give me 20, 40, even 100 hours of entertainment.



divinelite said:

I guess dlc on nintendo would be no problem IF nintendo fanboys dont say other dlc company as evil...

Its called biased



Senario said:

@divinelite Case by case basis. 108 new holes to play + new characters for approx 15 USD seems fine to me.

1 fighting game character for 8$ is wtf (granted I still bought the DLC because I'm a fan of Blazblue but still...should have been cheaper). Don't get me started on how much the announcer voice data for everyone costs together. (50$ lol)



DinoFett said:

I would rather have Nintendo DLC than to live with a world of crooks with their DLC. The crooks shall be name-less for now.



DinoFett said:

Also Nintendo should release DLC for old games on E-shop.
Wii and Wii U, GB and GBA.



ecco6t9 said:

So basically the people who have an issue with this probably would not have had an issue with
*Surprise Nintendo Direct about 6 weeks after game comes out.
*"Good news for all of our fans that have enjoyed and have made Mario Golf a success we have decided to expand the game by DLC."

So Nintendo needs to old off on announcing DLC so it feels like it is an expansion pak rather than something removed from the game.



TySoN_F said:

I find it strange that they attempt to make DLC for games like this and not games like Super Mario 3D World, Mario Kart 7, or DKC:TF. I guess it makes sense because they're trying their hand in "Season Pass"-style DLC on a game that's not the most anticipated.

I usually like how Nintendo does their DLC so I won't bother to form an opinion until the game is released and then we'll see if the extra courses and characters were really worth the price point.



Sceptic said:

They need to make quality games again first. Iwata was certainly right in that their stuff usually doesn't offer enough variety or depth to allow them to hold anything back, because it would immediately impact your gaming experience.

Also, since we're talking 'DLC', they also need a functional, user-friendly and current-gen unified account system first. The general public will not buy DLC that is tied to a specific device and I would wager many that did so far were unaware of this restriction (family friendly, yeah right).



XCWarrior said:

@Brickbuild101 I know that. I'm still buying the game, but the delay was for some polishing and the DLC. Think about it, the DLC basically doubles the hole count. That would take about 9 months, about the time of the delay, plus the 4 extra characters.

I feel like for $30 I'm about to buy 1/2 a game, I don't care how you word it, that's a fact. And then for $15 more, I can buy the other half of the game (if I want). I know it's optional, but TO ME, I feel like I'm buying 1/2 a game.



XCWarrior said:

@aaronsullivan Why did you spend more than $40 on either of those? I got SMT IV special edition for $40... just have to look out for deals. Joys of buying physical over digital, there are sales within 2 weeks of a release anymore.



XCWarrior said:

@tanookisuit "Sure it's an option to buy, but at this rate it's an option to get the full game or not. Had this been planned after and came out say 3-6months from now to extend its life that would be an entirely different story. All designed at the same point, the upsell the parts for more profit. Boo."

Amen. This exactly. Even if Nintendo finished the DLC and it was ready for Day 1, you still wait 6 weeks to make it look like you worked on it after the original game went gold.



XCWarrior said:

@PrincessEevee9 That's $5 I could have put toward a fun 3rd party eshop game. So Nintendo just leeched money off of the 3rd parties they are claiming to support by doing this. We all have budgets, can only spend so much money on games. $5 doesn't come out of thin air.



aaronsullivan said:

@XCWarrior I think you meant to respond to @BinaryFragger about GTA IV. Never played it. My question would be why wither of you bought it in the first place. I kid. I kid.

Digital sales are insane, though. I have several of AAA games I haven't played yet that I bought for less than $5 each on Steam Summer sale. Never seen them that low in physical copies anywhere. Then there are the Humble Bundles. If you are looking to resell games, you need physical. Sales? Physical copies have been losing that battle for awhile... on PCs at least. But the trend is there on consoles, as well.



DragonbornRito said:

So I think we all hit a good mood about it in the end. I ate a little crow and feel better for it, to be honest.

I'm definitely downloading the demo today, and in the end, I'm sure I will be getting this and the DLC. And I can certainly see @aaronsullivan 's point on the on-disc DLC / day-one DLC. It was made by someone, and it was made with the intention of making money.

I think @BinaryFragger hit the nail on the head with the best example of "bad" DLC, or more accurately, "bad DLC practices". Someone mentioned Fallout 3 as an example of good DLC and I couldn't agree more! You really get your money's worth out Bethesda DLC.

I hope Nintendo has enough sense to never pull a FFXIII-2, and as long as that never happens, I think Nintendo getting their feet wet in DLC is a good thing.

Oh and @SkywardLink98, I'm adding "IMO" to my internet vocabulary.



Bass_X0 said:

Also Nintendo should release DLC for old games on E-shop.

Four player SNES Super Mario Kart.



XCWarrior said:

@PrincessEevee9 It's $5 this time. Then it's $7 next time. Then it's $10 the time after that. Within 3 years, you are paying $90 for the next Mario, because for this game, you shrugged your shoulders and went, "It's only $5."

Give a mouse a cookie, and he'll ask for a glass of milk, etc, etc...

I keep my budget well in order, that's why I don't live paycheck to paycheck like the majority of America. And it's because I don't tolerate BS like this.



XCWarrior said:

@aaronsullivan I said SMT IV, not GTA IV. Reading is fun!

I totally agree on the PC front, digital is the way to go. I only buy on Steam, and I never pay more than $5 for ay game anymore. Day 1 purchases are just silly.

But Nintendo rarely puts their first party games on sale. However, stores either put the games on sale OR do B2G1 sales. When those happen, I get all 1st party games so. 2 Summers ago I got MK7, Mario Tennis and Fire Emblem for $28 a piece rather than $40 b/c of B2G1. Yeah, Tennis is now much cheaper, but the other two were $40 for a long time (MK7 just now was dropped).

Now I do agree with you if you only a PS3/PS4, just get a PS+ membership, and then never buy another video game again. Cause they will give you like 10 free ones a month. How they make money, I'll never know.



PrincessEevee9 said:

@XCWarrior VVV As you've said down there reading is fun dontcha think. Go back and read my comment I'm calling you cheap for complaining about 5$. That's the most asinine thought train I had to follow this week. Obviously you need help learning how business works if you think that this trend's going to continue for the worse.



aaronsullivan said:

@DragonbornRito Cool beans. Every thread should have someone summarizing in a civil manner at the end.

@XCWarrior Fair enough about GTA. SMT IV meant nothing to me but your post didn't either since I never mentioned buying a pair of anything for $40 so I had no idea what you were talking about. (You said, "Why did you spend more than $40 on either of those? I got SMT IV special edition for $40..." )
I actually went up and searched through other posts and that was my best guess about matching up to a previous post.

Here I'll do it again for you more carefully: It was @Hy8ogen I think you meant to respond to.



MikeLove said:


You think it took Nintendo 9 months to make 6 new courses for Mario Golf (most of which are remakes of N64 ones) and 4 new characters!? And that the game was delayed to produce it??

Come on...nobody can be that dense!

Golf games (and all sports games usually) are traditionally released during the seasons they are played. This was supposed to be out last summer and evidently wasn't ready in time. Then Nintendo delayed it until the following spring, when people play golf. They weren't going to put out a golf game in the winter!

During this delay, its likely the team went back and kept busy for a couple months by producing a handful of new holes for the game which would then be added as DLC upon it's release.

You and everyone else complaining about "day one DLC" keep ignoring the fact that the main game was in all likelyhood finished several months ago, but was delayed until after the winter in a completed state. Some of this time was used by the developers to make new courses and characters that were not going to make the cut in the original game had it been released when it was supposed to, and were instead added as DLC.

It's not something to get angry about, nor is it a conspiracy by Nintendo to eventually jack up the cost of a Mario game to $90....



Itglows said:

I think so far Nintendo has done a good job of making the DLC really feel worth it and not like a part of the original game that was removed.

Leave A Comment

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