YoshiRider123 wrote:You have no evidence to believe otherwise. If you're going to propose this, you better back up your claim.
You are right, I have no evidence. It could be true. But you don't know either. <shrug>
If they had no idea who they would add in as DLC until after the game code was sent off for carts to be manufactured, then yes, it's totally new content. Now, should they get revenue for it? No one can say "should" or "should not." For example, the Mass Effect "Bring Down the Sky" DLC on PC has always been free for everyone. Sometimes, DLC is free.
YoshiRider123 wrote:The DLC in Fire Emblem: Awakening is meant to extend Fire Emblem: Awakening. These ideas are exclusively meant to be used in conjunction with the same game, as the game itself was clearly meant to be an anthological entry.
If it's an anthology, then wouldn't you expect all the pieces to be there before release? Instead you have many characters but several favorites are left out. You wouldn't sell "The Complete Works of Shakespeare" and leave out Hamlet and Othello (sold separately), would you?
In any case, anthology or not doesn't mean they couldn't have designed a sequel. Shakespeare Vol I, and Vol II.
YoshiRider123 wrote:Comparing the price of DLC to a full game in order to determine value is wrong.
Er, okay. What is the right way?
YoshiRider123 wrote:Price in no way affects the duration of availability, and just because something may be free doesn't mean it's actually any good.
Likewise, just because it costs money doesn't mean it's any good. However, the fact that it's digital means you probably can't return it or resell it. It's also not like there will be demos for DLC.
YoshiRider123 wrote:In addition, you're clearly meshing together two different concepts. All of this game's DLC are additives and do not inhibit the sense of value that you would have from the game itself if they were no longer available. Regardless of whatever finity the DLC may have, there's no way that it'd be considered punishment to consumers if they were to be discontinued, because they are not a part of the game contextually.
If I offered to sell you Lyn for $5 and you didn't have Fire Emblem: Awakening, you would have no interest in buying Lyn. DLC is part of the game.
Broken_Cartridge wrote:All of this DLC that is being made would not be in the game if it wasn't for Nintendo supporting DLC. It has nothing to do with the game whatsoever. It's there for fans who want a way to extend their gameplay (on what is already a massive game) and purchase content that is 100% made after the game was done being made.
Another way to put it is "All of this DLC that is being made could have been in the game if Nintendo pushed the release date out a bit further." I mean, it's not like we haven't seen Animal Crossing & Paper Mario for 3DS at two E3s now. They clearly take their time when they want to.
Or "All of this DLC that is being made could have been put with other things into a complete second game if Nintendo felt sales of the game justified making another Fire Emblem game." (Unless of course, this is the final Fire Emblem game, ever.
However, the assertion "All of this DLC that is being made would not be in the game if it wasn't for Nintendo supporting DLC" is not true because at launch, the 3DS already supported DLC. Remember Dead Or Alive: Dimensions had free DLC? What about Samurai Warriors: Chronicles?
Broken_Cartridge wrote:It has nothing to do with the game whatsoever.
If it has nothing to do with the game whatsoever, then they don't need to sell it since it's so unrelated. Or, sell it separately.
Broken_Cartridge wrote:It's there for fans who want a way to extend their gameplay (on what is already a massive game) and purchase content that is 100% made after the game was done being made."
"Extend their gameplay?" SRPGs tend to have hidden items and characters to look for on multiple play-throughs. They already have a way to extend their gameplay; they can replay it and comb for secrets.
"100% made after the game was done being made?" You have no evidence to back up your claim. It's not like the developers would ever come out and say, "NO! We planned this from the start!" Fire Emblem: Kakusei was released 19 Apr 2012. Conveniently, Marth DLC was available on 19 Apr 2012 as well. How long does it take to manufacture carts? If you're certain they didn't start thinking about Lyn DLC until the moment after the final code was sent off, then you can say "100% made after the game was done being made" but they certainly were thinking about Marth DLC before it was done!
Broken_Cartridge wrote:Fred Duck, you can deal in what if's and maybe's all you want, but there is no evidence supporting the claims that you're making against it.
There is evidence supporting my claims that:
1 They could have saved the ideas for a sequel.
2 Companies used to save ideas for sequels.
3 They wouldn't have been able to charge you $5/character if they didn't have DLC.
4 $5 is about 1/8 the cost of a new game.
5 They don't want you to compare the cost of DLC to a full game because it would make the value look atrocious. Remember also, that the price of the game will surely go down at least a little while the DLC is less likely to go down in price.
6 The only good DLC is free DLC which is available forever.
7 People play classic games all the time.
8 Sometimes they even use the original hardware.
9 Nintendo systems tend to last a long time.
10 There is less than 100% chance that in 2030, Nintendo will still be selling Lyn DLC on 3DS.
11 Not having a complete copy of a game is a form of punishment. (Having an incomplete copy is certainly not a privilege!)
12 DLC is part of the game it's for.
There is no evidence supporting my claim that:
1 This DLC might not have been made after the game was released.
Broken_Cartridge wrote:You're either basing your opinion of Nintendo DLC from what other companies have done, or off of your own deluded feelings.
Yes, and yes.*
The key word is companies. These are not charities giving games away. They are companies and as cuddly as they want to appear, they're in it for the money. If there was no hope of profit, they wouldn't be doing this. They might even choose not to release games if not "enough" profit was forecasted by say, releasing "Disaster: Day of Crisis," "Pandora's Tower," or "Fatal Frame 2: Wii Edition" in the US even though the costs are low since fully-translated English versions already exist in Europe! Companies are selling DLC because they believe people will buy it and it will make them money.
*I'm not sure if I agree with the "deluded" part.
Broken_Cartridge wrote:Either way it makes your points invalid.
All of them?