The last couple of weeks has seen some major shakeups when it comes to DLC, loot boxes and how the consumer reacts to them. I think now is the perfect time for Nintendo to step in and announce something that would regulate these business practices on their brand new system, setting a precedent in the hopes that the rest of the industry will follow. It would also allow them to strengthen their brand as family friendly.
I've been thinking about this quite a lot lately and here are some points I came up with:
Any form of DLC cannot be randomized
The total price of DLC cannot exceed the price of the base game
The total price of DLC cannot exceed $50
I think with regulations like this Loot Boxes would be out of the question, cheap e-shop games cannot add an endless amount of DLC and retail games cannot charge higher prices for the base game to increase the DLC cap.
Feel free to discuss them, and if you disagree, I would love to hear alternatives.
Definitely some issues with this one. Look at Shovel Knight for example. I'm fairly certain if you get the base Shovel Knight campaign, all the DLC will easily exceed the price of the base game, but I've never heard anyone suggest it isn't worth it. Or look at a model like Zen Pinball, where you get the base game free, and can buy the tables you want. Both of these are very positive DLC practices that would be banned by rules 2 and 3. Quite frankly, the total cost of DLC shouldn't be limited, because as long as you are making content that people want to but for the price, it'll sell. Putting an artificial cap on how much you content you can make and charge for is just restricting things unnecessarily.
For another example, look at Snipperclips. The first DLC released for it is the same price as the base game. Under your rules, they would need to put out a new game if they want to expand it any further, and force people to rebuy it. Rule 1 is one I would like to see put into place however, along with maybe this as an alternate rule 2: "The total price of all DLC available for a game must have a hard cap." Meaning that buying in game currencies with money a la FIFA would be out.
@Armbouncer I don't think that they need to make a statement to be honest...actions speak louder than words - and their actions kind of speak for themselves; they don't use loot boxes in any of their IP, the micro-transactions they do use are well-thought out (and consciously not 'money grabbing' or essential) and their DLC is always reasonably-priced and value for money.
I don't think that they've been 100% perfect in their approach (eg. Breath of the Wild's DLC Pack 1 contained certain things that they perhaps, in hindsight, shouldn't have charged for) ..but their general approach seems to be to modernise - monetise where they can - but never be seen to be taking advantage of their customers...and I think that they're striking a pretty good balance on the whole.
It always comes across like they're trying to approach their implementation in a fair and balanced way - and, so long as they keep this conscientious attitude at the forefront of the decision-making process going forward, I don't have a problem with it.
I got burnt with the smash dlc but at least gave a discount on the 3ds dlc. I must of spent more than the game. Mario kart 8 received good value for money dlc
We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing.
@NaviAndMii@subpopz I was talking about a more general rule for games that are being published on the Switch, not just Nintendo games. Because yes, Nintendo has been doing their DLC mostly right.
Getting new blades in Xenoblade 2 could've easily been a gacha inspired mechanic where using real gets you better odds compared to using core crystals from the story and enemies.
For me, one of the issues with the loot boxes is that it allows an uneven PvP environment. I've never been one for PvP, but to allow one player to have an advantage over another simply because they can buy better gear is unfair. Apparently for the new UFC game they've already put in loot boxes in the beta which allows for one fighter to be stronger than another fighter, simply by throwing money at it. It basically reduces PvP to a "Who can spend more money to be better" match.
As for DLC, I typically think of DLC to mean such things like the DLC for Mario Kart 8, Smash Bros Wii U/3DS, Breath of the Wild, to name a few. Basically expansions to the base game. I tend to judge those on the content, and if I find the price/content right I will likely buy it. If not, then I skip it. For instance, I have all the MK8 DLC, but felt like the total price for all the Smash Bros DLC was a bit to steep. Breath of the Wild felt reasonable enough, so I got that as well, and have so far enjoyed what's been released. However, going forward the BotW expansion (season) pass will probably be the last time I pay for season pass content, so instead of paying ahead before the content is released, I will probably buy it after the content is released so I know what's in it. As a side note, I only bought it after the 2nd DLC was released, since by then I felt it was worth the money up to then.
As for the pricing of DLC, that would be difficult to judge. How much is a certain piece of DLC worth vs the base game? For me it's always been a case of "to buy or not to buy". If I feel the price matches the content, I'll get it. If not, then I won't get it.
tl;dr:
I would prefer the following not to exist:
Random items for $$$
PvP items that can be bought to give an advantage
Season/Expansion passes: no guessing what you're going to get in the future.
Even if Nintendo made a statement, I wouldn't trust them. They flip flop on these kinds of things quicker than a politician. I remember when they said they'd never do paid DLC, but then turned around and released a game with paid DLC very shortly after (I think it was FE:Awakening, but I forget).
This practice comes straight from mobile "Free 2 Play" games which have, unfortunately, been met with great success. I've been playing Kingdom Hearts mobile since day one (but have never paid for a pull). The game has a pulling system which is randomized, and the pulls cost $15+. It is absolutely absurd, yet there are people who are willing to spend hundreds - perhaps even thousands - on this. These include non-casual gamers.
EA's just capitalizing on this. Whether or not we like it (I most certainly don't understand it) there is a market.
Hope all we may that it will never spread to Nintendo, but it is a cancer on gaming, thus I can only see it spreading. This will drive me away from gaming if and when it does happen.
@link3710 You made an interesting point there on Zen Pinball which I didn't think about before. What if the base game is free but the content can be bought individually. A "pay for what you want to play" system. That would indeed be made impossible by my suggestions.
On Shovel Knight however: the base game is $25 and all additional DLC is free. So, your argument there doesn't hold much ground I'm afraid.
@Harmonie The fact that there are people who spend ludicrous amounts of money on F2P games is exactly what Nintendo could prevent on their system. It's not because there is a market out there that it should be allowed. I truly hope Nintendo will never go down the same path as EA and will put rules in place on their E-Shop that will prevent business practices like that to ever happen. I believe it can be done.
Nintendo is in a position right now that they have the power to implement rules like these. It's too late for PSN, XBOX Live, Steam and the likes. Those shops are already riddled with schemy business practices and it would be nigh impossible for the parent companies to remove them from their shops. The Nintendo E-Shop, and in extent their upcoming paid online service, are hardly tainted at all. Nintendo can make a precedent and prove to the whole world they're family friendly by not standing idly by, while companies like EA try to take every last penny from their children. I believe it could work in their favor and boost the sales of the Switch even further.
@Armbouncer I'm afraid you're misinformed. For Shovel Knight: Treasure Trove which costs 25$, yes all DLC is free. For Shovel Knight: Shovel of Hope (only $10) each expansion also costs $10.
@link3710 Ehm, where exactly do you buy Shovel of Hope separately? I can't find it anywhere. Even if you have a physical copy of the original game without any of the expansion packs, those still come free.
@BezBot Really? Damn, didn't know about that. That's insane!
@dew12333: Sadly this doesn't work. Otherwise we wouldn't have the degrading textile industry in Asia, we wouldn't have barbarous slaughter houses and so on.
The problem is always that there are always enough people that don't think, don't care or just think that they can't change anything.
Regarding this idea: Nintendo is not in the position to change the video game industry. Don't forget that the bulk of the gaming industry is still in smartphones with free to play models. Nintendo can just to try to implement a more decent system for itself.
@Armbouncer Having looked into it further, apparently they haven't launched it separately on the Switch yet? You can however get Plague of Shadows and expand from there I think... I'm not sure at this point, a lot of the info on the web is conflicting.
Forums
Topic: How Nintendo can make a statement regarding Loot Boxes
Posts 1 to 20 of 20
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.