DLC Discussion

[Mega Altaria]

Releasing an alternative third version as DLC might be more effective than releasing another physical copy.

I personally do find it better if third versions were released as DLC add-ons rather than another physical version considering how much the Switch games are expected to cost. Newer Pokémon can be added through these DLC too.

 

[RileyXY1]

I personally do find it better if third versions were released as DLC add-ons rather than another physical version considering how much the Switch games are expected to cost. Newer Pokémon can be added through these DLC too.

I don't like this. I don't want the Pokemon games to adopt the "games as a service" model.

 

[Mega Altaria]

I don't like this. I don't want the Pokemon games to adopt the "games as a service" model.

But at least it's still cheaper than having to spend another $60 to buy a physical copy of the third version.

 

[Akashin]

I don't like this. I don't want the Pokemon games to adopt the "games as a service" model.

So... you'd rather pay full price for a game with minimal differences rather than see those differences be applied to the original game as (undoubtedly cheaper) DLC? You do you, I suppose, but don't you think that's a rather ironic way to rebel against greed in video game development?

Now granted, I'd rather a return to third versions that are more significant like BW2 than seeing them go this route.

 

[RileyXY1]

So... you'd rather pay full price for a game with minimal differences rather than see those differences be applied to the original game as (undoubtedly cheaper) DLC? You do you, I suppose, but don't you think that's a rather ironic way to rebel against greed in video game development?

Now granted, I'd rather a return to third versions that are more significant like BW2 than seeing them go this route.

Well, your arguments could also extend to remakes. I actually do prefer third versions to DLC.

 

[Storm the Lycanroc]

Just because they release a third version or DLC doesn't mean you have to purchase it. It's your money so do what you want with it.

 

[Akashin]

Well, your arguments could also extend to remakes. I actually do prefer third versions to DLC.

In what way? Remakes are no more fit to be used as DLC than the likes of BW2 would have been. And I'd much rather pay full price for something like that than pay for a more traditional third version as DLC.

And prefer them all you like. But it doesn't change the fact that in a case like this, DLC is actually the less profitable and less greedy of their options; not exactly indicative of them going for a games as a service model. Which is exactly why I hardly expect them to go this route, but I digress.

 

[Storm the Lycanroc]

Riley it just seems like you're being brash about this whole discussion.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

Well, your arguments could also extend to remakes. I actually do prefer third versions to DLC.

Eh, not really. Remakes would have to be rebuilt from the ground up around the new engine. And because they're older, there's more of a willingness to pay for the same content over again. Third versions as full games is more problematic because everyone just played the original and Game Freak is just copy/pasting from the game they just made a year or two ago. So DLC would be more profitable for that as opposed to remakes.

 

[RileyXY1]

Riley it just seems like you're being brash about this whole discussion.

I just really hate DLC and Microtransactions. Blame EA.

 

[Orphalesion]

USUM should have been a DLC, it didn't bring nearly enough to be it's own game and be worth another 60$(AUD) and you could argue that things like Necrozma's story and Mantine Surfing *should* have been part of the Base Game. And personally I'd actually purchase an additional story DLC while I absolutely refuse to use my money on slightly dolled up copy of a game I already have.

Only because EA uses that concept less than optimally doesn't mean GF will do that as well, EA is pretty bad about a lot of things. Ads for "micro transactions". Eh, micro transactions aren't the same as DLC, and even if micro transactions show up in Pokemon it's probably for crap like "Ash's Hat" or "Cyntthia's hairstyle" stuff nobody really needs and that is very easy not to purchase without missing anything.

For a positive example of DLC look at Ubisoft's "Southpark; Fractured but Whole" the basegame was a complete experience and in March they released a story DLC that added a short side-campaign. It made me dig out the game and play the whole thing again. And in Summer there will be another similar Story DLC. There are some cosmetic DLCs, but well....who needs those?

I mean it's the difference bewtween playing 60$ for a (very slightly) enhanced version of something you already own or, let's say 20$ for the new stuff from USUM to be added to regular SuMo.

 

[Bolt the Cat]

I just really hate DLC and Microtransactions. Blame EA.

EA tends to be the worst of the worst when it comes to DLC, let's not judge the entire concept based on what its worst examples are. There's plenty of examples of DLC that legitimately add value to the game, and Nintendo games tend to fall more towards that side of it. If Game Freak tried anything EA-like Nintendo would likely come in and stop them, they're very protective of their brand and they don't want to see Game Freak ruin their reputation with this kind of stuff. Meanwhile, comparing third versions with DLC, DLC is without question the better value. You're already paying $40 for that content as is, and it'll be $60 on the Switch. Paying $10-$20 for it as DLC is a better value already. So if anything, the third versions are even worse than what EA does.

 

[Storm the Lycanroc]

Another example of good DLC would be Breath of the Wild. The base game itself is great but the DLC makes it even greater.

Maybe Pokemon can do the same and add more content to the base game.

 

[RileyXY1]

Another example of good DLC would be Breath of the Wild. The base game itself is great but the DLC makes it even greater.

Maybe Pokemon can do the same and add more content to the base game.

It's a very scummy business practice. Some content really needs to be in the base game.

 

[Orphalesion]

It's a very scummy business practice. Some content really needs to be in the base game.

Nobody denied that the basegame should be "complete" but...

Apparently according to you:
Selling an expansion pack (Because that's what well done DLC is)? Scrummy business practice!
Selling the same game again with a few very minor extras for the same price as the first (because that's what Third versions like Platinum or USUM are)? Brilliant!

I just don't understand it...

 

[RileyXY1]

Nobody denied that the basegame should be "complete" but...

Apparently according to you:
Selling an expansion pack (Because that's what well done DLC is)? Scrummy business practice!
Selling the same game again with a few very minor extras for the same price as the first (because that's what Third versions like Platinum or USUM are)? Brilliant!

I just don't understand it...

The actions of EA helped shape my opinion on this stuff. I don't want GF to adopt EA's business practices.

 

[paipr_christian]

Another example of good DLC would be Breath of the Wild. The base game itself is great but the DLC makes it even greater.

Maybe Pokemon can do the same and add more content to the base game.

A better example is Xenoblade 2. It gets occadional free content, in addition to th paid DLC stuff.

 

[Storm the Lycanroc]

Fact is Nintendo wants their games to be fun. Additionally they prefer quality over quantity, if they release DLC you know it'll add value to the game.

Fact is your argument is invalid because you're comparing Nintendo to EA. Two companies who are on different ends of the video game industry.

 

[Captain Jigglypuff]

The DLC I wouldn’t mind paying for are optional side quests in a fashion to ORAS Delta Emerald episode or the Looker Missions from XY that contribute to the region’s story but aren’t necessary to complete the game. I also wouldn’t mind paying for customization options such as clothing based on past regions or new hairstyles and colors. I really want a neon green Mohawk for my character!

 

[Orphalesion]

The actions of EA helped shape my opinion on this stuff. I don't want GF to adopt EA's business practices.

You just repeat the same few messages over and over. "Things need to be in the basegame"(which nobody denies and which isn't the sort of DLC the rest of us are talking about) "EA has ruined the idea for me" (which is kinda irrelevant, since Nintendo isn't EA)

You just repeating these two things again and again won't improve those weak arguments.