He plans to find a balance between flexibility and security.
http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/29130
Nintendo President Satoru Iwata explained how Nintendo will use micro-transactions during a recent Q&A with investors at the recent financial briefing.
Iwata stated that Nintendo plans to keep an appropriate level of flexibility in its handling of micro-payments (transactions involving a very small sum of money for things like downloadable content or game enhancements, which are already seen in many social games), but also remarks that Nintendo must keep a similar level of strictness to account for its younger audience.
"We have a belief that our games should be a trusted brand for a very wide variety of consumers, including children and casual users who are not so familiar with the trends of video games. Therefore, we would like to have regulations with a certain degree of strictness so that consumers will get a sense of reassurance from our games."
When asked about the place of third parties in such a system, Iwata stated that Nintendo plans to ensure "a relative level of flexibility for the Nintendo 3DS and the Wii U" in response to those saying that the company is too strict and behind the times in its third-party publishing guidelines. He also stated that if third-parties show interest, he would have no intention to decline their implementation of micro-payments.
We as consumers should fight against the nickle and diming of gamers, and not buy any of this crap. Ohh, $10 of real money to buy fake money in an imaginary world. The only people I wanna slap across the face more than the developers are the people who buy this crap
We as consumers should fight against the nickle and diming of gamers, and not buy any of this crap. Ohh, $10 of real money to buy fake money in an imaginary world. The only people I wanna slap across the face more than the developers are the people who buy this crap
Are you against DLC in general? Because DLC can be good. Look at games like GTA or Mass Effect, which had hours of new content added through DLC.
The problem is also that you can never actually tell if the DLC is "real" or not. Is it already on the disc/file/cart but just locked with a code? Was it going to be in the game originally, but removed to sell later as DLC? Is it just using the exact same assets, just slightly remixed? (cough Dead Space 2)Actually you can tell by how much data you have to download/how much space it takes on the hard drive. Simple!
In one extreme you have Railworks (http://store.steampowered.com/app/24010/) which has a combine total of $1659.12 USD for all DLC and it's not going to stop at anytime soon.
The problem is also that you can never actually tell if the DLC is "real" or not. Is it already on the disc/file/cart but just locked with a code? Was it going to be in the game originally, but removed to sell later as DLC? Is it just using the exact same assets, just slightly remixed? (cough Dead Space 2)Actually you can tell by how much data you have to download/how much space it takes on the hard drive. Simple!
Reading over this, a couple questions and observations popped into my head...
Was Microsoft looking at dumping their ms points system for straight money transactions, or was that a rumor? Which makes more sense for a company like Nintendo? I can see pros and cons for both...
According to Capcom smart guy Christian Svensson, games sell more if DLC is announced for them before they come out. I see some (sometimes justified) hate on DLC on this forum and elsewhere, but I guess it's cool with gamers at large that vote with their wallets.
Sure, you can see how big the file is, but it could just be an inflated key.I've never heard of a game company doing this. Got any examples?
In other words, my PS1 stopped working, but I have a PS2 which can play its games and read its memory cards. But imagine if current practices were applied to that model and Vincent from FF7 was a "free DLC" saved to the PS1's internal memory ... now I still paid full price to own FF7... but my access to Vincent becomes an expired rental.
Since the content is already on the disc, technically it has already been paid for.While I agree with the sentiment, I don't believe this is actually the case. Counterpoint: remember the old id software Quake 1 demo CD that actually had the entire id game collection up to that point on it? Unlockable by ordering codes over the phone. I wouldn't feel entitled to all that just for paying less than 10 dollars.
Since the content is already on the disc, technically it has already been paid for. Things that previously came with a video game in the past now require a fee.
While I agree with the sentiment, I don't believe this is actually the case. Counterpoint: remember the old id software Quake 1 demo CD that actually had the entire id game collection up to that point on it? Unlockable by ordering codes over the phone. I wouldn't feel entitled to all that just for paying less than 10 dollars.Fair enough. To clarify: one buys Game X specifically for the content of Game X so the belief is that one has already purchased that content at retail. In any case, as someone who has never purchased DLC, I don't have an opinion either way on the subject. I was merely attempting to explain the line of thinking.
This, of course, doesn't acknowledge the fact that development costs have skyrocketed in today's world.It does. I believed these things to be understood. More sophisticated games may require larger budgets but the industry has matured since Zelda 1 and is much larger today. Budgets have risen due to technological demands and so has the audience for such products.
Budgets have risen due to technological demands and so has the audience for such products.
36 from-scratch characters = anemic ::)
ERR ANYWAY, I think we're approaching the conclusion that on-disc "DLC" is basically a scam except maybe in certain cases, and game companies are basically on the honor system here/vote with your wallets/etc. I can't imagine any cases where it's been a huge success for a company, but maybe I'm just being too optimistic?
Has the audience really expanded *that* much?Yes. Significantly more people play videogames today and more are born every year.
Obviously, this chart only reflects Japanese numbers and is a few years old, but a twenty year old port of an NES game outselling the high-budget "next gen" Mario Galaxy?I find it odd that you would use Mario (or really any Nintendo IP) as an example. Nintendo games are low risk, high reward products even with higher budgets. While I don't think the comparison is fair (the port was $30 less and sold mostly on nostalgia), it's important to note that Super Mario Galaxy still made Nintendo tons of money, certainly enough to justify a direct sequel using the same exact engine which also made Nintendo tons of money.
The audience may have expanded, but so has the selection available to them. Outside of a few HD Winners (Call of Duty, for example), the extra sales are in no way comparable to the increase in budgets from the NES-era to today.The selection has expanded, but isn't today's larger audience also buying more games? Also, if you're going to compare budgets from 1986 against budgets in 2012, it looks a lot worse than it actually is since it doesn't take over 25 years worth of steady increases into account. Go back even 10 years ago (prior to DLC on consoles), budgets continued to rise but companies still made money.
I'm still surprised at the number of people who actually care if the DLC is physically on the disc or not. Like, this particular horse armor isn't worth $2 because it's already on the disc, but if I have to actually download it from their servers, well it's totally worth $2 then...
While I don't think the comparison is fair (the port was $30 less and sold mostly on nostalgia), it's important to note that Super Mario Galaxy still made Nintendo tons of money, certainly enough to justify a direct sequel using the same exact engine which also made Nintendo tons of money.
I will now state that UncleBob has bought a lot of DLC content in just his e-Reader card collection.
Uncle Bob, its just the principle of it. It isn't really a real problem, but the idea that this content is already there on the disc and that you have to pay in order to use it even though you already have the disc is revolting. Its nothing more than a cheap money grab from the publisher.
Nintendo makes more money today than it did back in the 1980s, a lot more and despite the increased costs.
So, you'd be okay if the exact same content was on the server for the same price?
So, basically, you're advocating for publishers to play mind games with consumers. Instead of them deciding what they want to charge for a product and doing it, you want them to analyze the best way for them to go about "tricking" you into giving them money so you don't "feel" like you're getting ripped off?
So, basically, you're advocating for publishers to play mind games with consumers. Instead of them deciding what they want to charge for a product and doing it, you want them to analyze the best way for them to go about "tricking" you into giving them money so you don't "feel" like you're getting ripped off?
No, I'm advocating they DON'T play mind games with consumers. Right now what they are doing is deceitful and underhanded, because they don't tell you all you are paying for is the unlock and probably the majority of consumers aren't savvy enough to realize that a tiny download can't possibly contain all the new content they are getting. For the most part there is no outrage because few know what's really going on. They should be honest and upfront with their customers.
Do you think its fair what publishers are doing now and tricking people?
Whoops... (http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/forums/index.php?topic=36878.0;topicseen)Does this have anything to do with development costs which is what we're talking about? Probably not when you look at sales of Nintendo's actual games vs. their respective budgets. Nintendo had next to nothing new on the Wii besides Skyward Sword and botched the launched of 3DS. It's not difficult to see where Nintendo fudged things. Nintendo posted years of profit before 2011 when they had major titles to sell throughout the year and weren't trying to sell a $250 handheld with a weak launch lineup.
For those bringing up the rising development costs of games today, I think it is incredibly naive to think that that is the sole justification for companies doing this.
As consumers adjust to the new environment, more and more people are just going to start sitting out on games and wait for the GOTY edition if they aren't outright discouraged.
Likewise, the developers and publishers will have to adjust to the new market. If everyone just sits it out until the GotY edition is released, then publishers will have to determine do they not release a GotY edition? Do they make DLC cheaper for first-time buyers/early adopters? Do they stop DLC all together.
if it's a weapon or upgrade that gives players an advantage or map packs that segment the online community.
Or maybe just cut the crap and just release the GOTY.
There are some games, like Skyward Sword and Portal 2, that I got day of launch or very close for 1 simple reason. Community. I want to talk about the game here why everyone else is talking about it. That social aspect to me is worth more then the $40 of potential saving.
