Topic: New Super Mario Bros. 2 DLC Plans Announced for North America

[Webmalfunction]

Who's excited?

http://www.nintendoworldreport.com/news/31955

The first pack of downloadable Coin Rush levels for New Super Mario Bros. 2 will be available in North America on October 4. The three-level set is the same as announced for Japan previously. Each pack costs $2.50, and names for the levels are below:

Three-Pack Set (1, 2, 3) 
1: Gold Rush Pack 
2: Coin Challenge Pack A 
3: Nerve-Wrack Pack 

The Nintendo Direct was hosted by Nintendo of America President Reggie Fils-Aime and featured gameplay from the DLC. 

[tendoboy1984]

Leaderboards are only available in one Coin Rush pack? Why couldn't Nintendo have separate leaderboards for every single pack?

[NeoThunder]

That's way too much for me, I'll be passing

[xcwarrior]

DLC should be free. This goes out to all gaming companies. I hate the thought of being nickle and dimed.

[Adrock]

I don't think all DLC should be free. There should be a mix, depending on what it is. Micro-transactions can be egregiously priced at times. $1 for a piece of armor? That's like saying 60 of those is worth the entirely of the game itself. New levels and such are the only things I would pay money for, but that's just me. I can deal with not having a costume pack or something whereas additional gameplay is far more alluring.

That said, I would consider this NSMB2 DLC. They look fun. I wonder if they'll ever go on sale though I don't have the game yet.

[Luigi Dude]

Need I remind everyone that for Mario Advance 4, the e-Reader cards costed $6 and got 5 levels out of them.  So even at $2.50 for a pack of 3 levels, we're still getting a better deal with this game then the last time Nintendo had DLC levels for a Mario game.

Not to mention we'll all be able to download these levels, unlike Mario Advance 4 were some of these cards were only available at certain stores and some were exclusive to just Japan or North America.

[Stogi]

I always felt that DLC should have a name your own price model.

Simply because developers made an extra level or quest doesn't mean their entitled to charge for it. But on the flip side, if you really enjoyed the game and are happy to see new content for it, then why not show your appreciation?

If the market went this way, then games on launch would be a much tighter package, and developers and people could both look forward to DLC if the game was well received.

Just a thought.

[Adrock]

Need I remind everyone that for Mario Advance 4, the e-Reader cards costed $6 and got 5 levels out of them.  So even at $2.50 for a pack of 3 levels, we're still getting a better deal with this game then the last time Nintendo had DLC levels for a Mario game.

You don't. Anyone who thinks the DLC's price is unacceptable probably also thought the e-reader cards were as well. Getting a better deal today doesn't automatically make it a good one.

For the record, I think the price is okay. I'm only explaining why people might still think it's too much.

[TJ Spyke]

Simply because developers made an extra level or quest doesn't mean their entitled to charge for it.

They used time and resources to expand the game even more and give you extra content, they are more than entitled to charge for it. I do think that crap like skin packs should be free (Capcom charging for Street Fighter skins), but I don't thin anyone should feel entitled to free levels and stuff like that.

[Stogi]

EDIT: WEIRD.

But that extra content as it is now could just be withheld resources. There's no way of telling and thus, there is no way of knowing if the customer is getting screwed. Look at Capcom and their DLC-on-disc debacle.

Now I hope that the majority of developers aren't actively trying to screw their fans, but I wouldn't put it past them or especially their publishers.

There is a lack of trust.

So why not just let your fans dictate the worth of your DLC? That way we know for a fact that it was made close to or after the game's release. And we also know that we'll become more loyal just for the fact that you gave us some power as fans.

Yes, there will be people who take advantage of said company, but you know what? If you're game was good enough to be taken advantage of, then you are in a position of luxury.

[Adrock]

I do think that crap like skin packs should be free (Capcom charging for Street Fighter skins), but I don't thin anyone should feel entitled to free levels and stuff like that.

Skins are exactly the type of DLC I wouldn't pay for (though a Daisy character skin for Peach in Smash Bros. would be tempting). Free may be asking a bit much. Being coupled with like a level/character pack would be an extra incentive for anyone on the fence and a bonus for people who were buying anyway. That would make it "free" in a manner of speaking.

[Stogi]

Name your own price doesn't have to mean free. You can start with zero if you wanted, but you could also start with a million.

Why I think this has never been done is because Nintendo, Sony and Microsoft need their cut no matter what...on every download. Bandwidth surely isn't free.

[joshnickerson]

Hmm, about 50 cents more than I expected, but then again, I've spent more on worse DLC.

I'd like to see a floating polygonal Reggie head next time, NoA! Then maybe I won't spend the next video trying to figure out what all that crap on that shelf behind him is.

[koovaps]

Name your own pricing models are ridiculous. It's simply a way for loyal, paying customers to subsidize cheap bastards who think everything should be free. I'll happily pay $2.50 each for these level packs.

[Stogi]

But would you pay for DLC that's already on the disc?

And no they aren't ridiculous. Radiohead did this with their last album and made MORE money than they ever have.

[koovaps]

Yes, ridiculous. And no, that was not Radiohead's last album. And they did not use pay what you want a second time.

[Stogi]

They came out with a new album? Damn, I need to get that.

And they probably used the sales as leverage to get a better deal from their label.

[koovaps]

You may be right. I mostly have a problem with products being valued at zero. I don't mind a cheaper base price to allow a wider audience, and then pay more as you want, with possible proceeds to charity as incentive.

[tendoboy1984]

But would you pay for DLC that's already on the disc?

And no they aren't ridiculous. Radiohead did this with their last album and made MORE money than they ever have.

But the level packs were not already on the cartridge. They were created after the game shipped, which is how all DLC should be made.

[TJ Spyke]

They came out with a new album? Damn, I need to get that.

And they probably used the sales as leverage to get a better deal from their label.

It's not like they only did the name your own price digital release, they also released a physical disc, which was responsible for a good chunk of the sales. Their most recent album is The King of Lambs, which came out in February 2011.