My (perhaps optimistic) thought here is Nintendo may be experimenting with planned substantial “free” DLC instead of future paid DLC, and baking the dev cost in upfront. I’m sure they have analysis of engagement rates over time with paid DLC vs base games. For multiplayer games, I wouldn’t be surprised if base game engagement drops off after a paid DLC lands because the player population is now in two pools. It’d be easier to boost engagement or re-engage players when new content drops when they don’t have to make a new purchase, “lemme try out this new stuff”. It keeps players in one pool since everyone has access to all the new content. It’ll help matchmaking with everyone trying the new stuff. It also probably will lessen the sting of paying for both online access and paid content in the future, thus no more “ugh I have to pay even more to play with my friends” feeling. Provided the new content is good enough with multiplayer, NSO numbers will be stronger.
I think I’d be happier with a game with a higher initial price and getting good content drops and support over a game that eventually just dies off or requires me to play another $20-$30 to dive back in with my buds. Plus, I’m more likely keep my NSO subscription going, or go for annual NSO, if I know I’m going to get more stuff regularly to play online with.
IF this is their strategy, they have really got to make that clear in the upcoming Direct. Not just to ease player minds but also to signal to the industry and everyone the $80 isn’t a new standard for simply a base game. But they have to deliver on what they (hopefully) promise.
Comments 1
Re: Nintendo Comments On Mario Kart World's Controversial Price
My (perhaps optimistic) thought here is Nintendo may be experimenting with planned substantial “free” DLC instead of future paid DLC, and baking the dev cost in upfront. I’m sure they have analysis of engagement rates over time with paid DLC vs base games. For multiplayer games, I wouldn’t be surprised if base game engagement drops off after a paid DLC lands because the player population is now in two pools. It’d be easier to boost engagement or re-engage players when new content drops when they don’t have to make a new purchase, “lemme try out this new stuff”. It keeps players in one pool since everyone has access to all the new content. It’ll help matchmaking with everyone trying the new stuff. It also probably will lessen the sting of paying for both online access and paid content in the future, thus no more “ugh I have to pay even more to play with my friends” feeling. Provided the new content is good enough with multiplayer, NSO numbers will be stronger.
I think I’d be happier with a game with a higher initial price and getting good content drops and support over a game that eventually just dies off or requires me to play another $20-$30 to dive back in with my buds. Plus, I’m more likely keep my NSO subscription going, or go for annual NSO, if I know I’m going to get more stuff regularly to play online with.
IF this is their strategy, they have really got to make that clear in the upcoming Direct. Not just to ease player minds but also to signal to the industry and everyone the $80 isn’t a new standard for simply a base game. But they have to deliver on what they (hopefully) promise.