Fire Emblem: Awakening - next round of DLC

[AmicableWalrus]

Or so they tell you. =_=

Here's another idea. How about they take all the great ideas they have and instead of trickling them out over time, they keep them until they can make a full-fledged sequel? That's how it used to be...

Not to mention a lot of stuff that might have been a free, unlockable bonus or easter egg back in the old days is now becoming paid DLC. Not that this necessarily is, but just to illustrate what's changed.

Oh, right. They wouldn't be able to charge you $5 per character. That's what, 1/8th the cost of a new game? They don't want you to think in terms of "percentage of a new game's MSRP," though. They want you to think, "Oh, it's a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I don't need that."

This is what really kills me about DLC. Such poor value for the money, which is especially apparent when you realize it's a twentieth or even a fiftieth of the content for 1/4th or 1/8th of the price of a retail game.

It's a great scheme, though, and I bet DLC sales and profit margins are enough that execs don't second-guess the exploitation.

[YoshiRider123]

The difference between Nintendo and Capcom is that Nintendo didn't purposely hold stuff back. This DLC was made after the game was released, and they should get revenue for it.

Or so they tell you. =_=

You have no evidence to believe otherwise. If you're going to propose this, you better back up your claim.

Here's another idea. How about they take all the great ideas they have and instead of trickling them out over time, they keep them until they can make a full-fledged sequel? That's how it used to be...

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.

Oh, right. They wouldn't be able to charge you $5 per character. That's what, 1/8th the cost of a new game? They don't want you to think in terms of "percentage of a new game's MSRP," though. They want you to think, "Oh, it's a cup of coffee at Starbucks. I don't need that."

This is what really kills me about DLC. Such poor value for the money, which is especially apparent when you realize it's a twentieth or even a fiftieth of the content for 1/4th or 1/8th of the price of a retail game.

It's a great scheme, though, and I bet DLC sales and profit margins are enough that execs don't second-guess the exploitation.

Comparing the price of DLC to a full game in order to determine value is wrong.

Cool, Nintendo be doing good DLC then.

The only good DLC is free DLC which is available forever.

People play classic games all the time. Sometimes they even use the original hardware. Nintendo systems tend to last a long time, so what are the chances that say, in 2030, Nintendo is still selling this DLC because you want to play the classic Fire Emblem: Awakening? If it's less than 100%, then it's bad.

Should you be punished by not having a complete copy of the game just because of what year it is? DLC may be optional but it is still a part of the game.

Price in no way affects the duration of availability, and just because something may be free doesn't mean it's actually any good.

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.

[Broken_Cartridge]

I saw @Fred Duck's reply, and I was about to respond to it...but I think @YoshiRider123 covered the topic pretty well. I will expand on the reply a little bit.

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.

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. You're either basing your opinion of Nintendo DLC from what other companies have done, or off of your own deluded feelings. Either way it makes your points invalid.

[AmicableWalrus]

Comparing the price of DLC to a full game in order to determine value is wrong.

How else can one objectively evaluate something's value if not by comparing the content offered and price of said content to similar products on the market?

One could limit comparison to other DLC exclusively, but that's disingenuous. It sets a false standard of value and ignores legitimate alternative options such as full retail games, VC games, XBL Arcade games, and so on.

I suppose one could argue that extended time for a game you already own and enjoyment level can factor into value, but that wanders into subjective territory. Subjective reasons will come into play when a purchase is being made, but generally it could be said that DLC will not get you as much "bang for your buck" when these subjective reasons don't come into play or are at an equal amount between the various options.

[Fred Duck]

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.

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.

Comparing the price of DLC to a full game in order to determine value is wrong.

Er, okay. What is the right way?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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!

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.

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.

Either way it makes your points invalid.

All of them?

[Broken_Cartridge]

(I'll just skip to the parts that involve me)

-snip-

(Note: I apologize, I'm not going to address your reply paragraph by paragraph but I hope that this will answer a lot of questions or concerns. I'm just doing it this way so that I don't sound too redundant)

First thing I'd like to touch on quickly is that you're acting as if Nintendo hasn't put a lot of time and effort into the game. Just because they didn't show Fire Emblem back when they showed Animal Crossing and Paper Mario does not mean that the game was not in development before them. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if Animal Crossing had DLC.

Now before assuming that Nintendo is not giving away free dlc like other companies did via Spotpass, you should look into it...because they are. Seriously. There have been plenty of free stuff given away (including both characters and missions) via spotpass for the game (not to mention that the first paid dlc was free for people who bought the game when it first came out).

What I meant by "nothing to do with the game" (and I'll purposely leave out the whatsoever. ) was that it has nothing to do with the main game. If your argument is for the sake of content then I would tell you to look into how much there is to do in this game (but for the sake of not being spoiled you can refrain if you would like). There are a lot of hidden characters and whatnot to do in the game itself (and not to mention the free extra sidequests and characters you can obtain via Spotpass).

Like I said before, the paid DLC is only there to expand on the already very expansive game that is present, and like I said in this post there is a lot of hidden items and characters to look for in multiple play throughs.

I also have more evidence that the DLC was made after the game was done then you have supporting that it wasn't. Nintendo has said so themselves. This is their company outlook towards DLC as a whole. If they are making DLC before the game is released then why even bring that up. Just talk up the DLC and there is no need for lying, and I'm more willing to believe them on how they make DLC rather then what people "think" they do.

Now something to understand about the game making process is that there are many phases to it, and that once it gets to a stage where the game is "done" there is a period of time that the game has to go through processes in order to make it on the market. During this period of time is when I believe Nintendo started making DLC, and I believe that there are two other companies that follow this principle [Bethesda and Gearbox(there was one time that they made a DLC before the game was done, but admitted to it)]...but that's a different debate that I don't want to get into... With that being my point, that's the reason why you saw Marth DLC come out near launch (and that's the reason why it was free for early adopters)

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound harsh about it making your points invalid. I just personally believe that the complaints against the DLC are invalid....because you can enjoy a fully fleshed out and realized game and never buy the DLC. It's completely optional.

If you would like to read a FAQ regarding the DLC and Spotpass in Fire Emblem go here. I would limit that site to the faq on DLC and Spotpass only, because it does have details about the game and they are entirely spoilerrific, but feel free to click the "back" at the top of the page and navigate to Spotpass and/or DLC to read up on what has been available for both.

[YoshiRider123]

Comparing the price of DLC to a full game in order to determine value is wrong.

How else can one objectively evaluate something's value if not by comparing the content offered and price of said content to similar products on the market?

One could limit comparison to other DLC exclusively, but that's disingenuous. It sets a false standard of value and ignores legitimate alternative options such as full retail games, VC games, XBL Arcade games, and so on.

I suppose one could argue that extended time for a game you already own and enjoyment level can factor into value, but that wanders into subjective territory. Subjective reasons will come into play when a purchase is being made, but generally it could be said that DLC will not get you as much "bang for your buck" when these subjective reasons don't come into play or are at an equal amount between the various options.

Comparisons aren't necessary in order to take something you bought, use it, and ask yourself, "was this worth my money?"

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.

I never said I did have evidence, likewise. However, unlike your side of the argument, I actually have a basis to support mine. It's been said multiple times by the development team and even Iwata that DLC wouldn't be content that was cut from the game. As a result, it is impossible to discern that this isn't the case unless you have anything contradictory to provide in order to assert a statement that's so bold as to imply the possibility.

Also, just so we're clear, I've no interest in pursuing the argument of whether DLC should or should not get revenue. Otherwise, I would've actually talked about it.

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.

Anthologies aren't mutually exclusive with having to bring back every single thing from its source.

And you're not paying attention to what I'm telling you. The DLC was specifically created for this game. Ergo, the DLC's purpose is to further extend value of this particular game.

Comparing the price of DLC to a full game in order to determine value is wrong.

Er, okay. What is the right way?

I've been entertaining the thought that you would honestly just assess it up front and not making any comparisons whatsoever. It's not an alien idea to anybody.

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.

Never said otherwise.

What you're saying about not being able to get your money back from DLC is true, although I'd like to point out that it's not relevant to what I've been saying.

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.

I think I may have mislead you into thinking differently than what I was intending. The DLC scenario containing Lyn as a reward's availability is dependent on having the game, yes, but it doesn't reflect that, because you need the game to get the DLC, the DLC is a portion of the actual game.

It's a supplement, obviously, I believe we can both agree on that, but I was saying that the DLC not being available unless you had the game isn't an indication that it originated from the game itself.

[AmicableWalrus]

Comparing the price of DLC to a full game in order to determine value is wrong.

How else can one objectively evaluate something's value if not by comparing the content offered and price of said content to similar products on the market?

One could limit comparison to other DLC exclusively, but that's disingenuous. It sets a false standard of value and ignores legitimate alternative options such as full retail games, VC games, XBL Arcade games, and so on.

I suppose one could argue that extended time for a game you already own and enjoyment level can factor into value, but that wanders into subjective territory. Subjective reasons will come into play when a purchase is being made, but generally it could be said that DLC will not get you as much "bang for your buck" when these subjective reasons don't come into play or are at an equal amount between the various options.

Comparisons aren't necessary in order to take something you bought, use it, and ask yourself, "was this worth my money?"

You can buy something, use it, enjoy it, but that by itself doesn't necessarily make it a good value when you could buy something just as enjoyable that has more content per dollar.

[YoshiRider123]

How else can one objectively evaluate something's value if not by comparing the content offered and price of said content to similar products on the market?

One could limit comparison to other DLC exclusively, but that's disingenuous. It sets a false standard of value and ignores legitimate alternative options such as full retail games, VC games, XBL Arcade games, and so on.

I suppose one could argue that extended time for a game you already own and enjoyment level can factor into value, but that wanders into subjective territory. Subjective reasons will come into play when a purchase is being made, but generally it could be said that DLC will not get you as much "bang for your buck" when these subjective reasons don't come into play or are at an equal amount between the various options.

Comparisons aren't necessary in order to take something you bought, use it, and ask yourself, "was this worth my money?"

You can buy something, use it, enjoy it, but that by itself doesn't necessarily make it a good value when you could buy something just as enjoyable that has more content per dollar.

Ah, but would that not go into subjective territory if we're going to talk about sentimentality from enjoyment? I mean, if it's about objective assessment, then that's irrelevant, don't you think?

To be honest, I haven't seen anything qualifying comparisons as a way to tell if a value is good, but only rather if it's better or not than another.

[Fred Duck]

First thing I'd like to touch on quickly is that you're acting as if Nintendo hasn't put a lot of time and effort into the game.

Actually, I said that they could have taken more time if they had wanted to include these characters on the cart.

Now before assuming that Nintendo is not giving away free dlc like other companies did via Spotpass, you should look into it...because they are. Seriously. There have been plenty of free stuff given away (including both characters and missions) via spotpass for the game (not to mention that the first paid dlc was free for people who bought the game when it first came out).

I have less of an issue with free DLC, but unless it's available forever, they're still artificially punishing people based on what the date is.

Like I said before, the paid DLC is only there to expand on the already very expansive game that is present, and like I said in this post there is a lot of hidden items and characters to look for in multiple play throughs.

If it's already a very expansive game, then what's wrong with saving up these ideas for another game, as used to commonly be done in the past? What is the argument for expanding an already very expansive game? To make it even more very expansive, no matter how marginally?

I also have more evidence that the DLC was made after the game was done then you have supporting that it wasn't. Nintendo has said so themselves. This is their company outlook towards DLC as a whole. If they are making DLC before the game is released then why even bring that up. Just talk up the DLC and there is no need for lying, and I'm more willing to believe them on how they make DLC rather then what people "think" they do.

I spent an hour looking for this. Where has a Nintendo or Intelligent Systems representative said, "This DLC was made after the game was done?" Please show me.

Now something to understand about the game making process is that there are many phases to it, and that once it gets to a stage where the game is "done" there is a period of time that the game has to go through processes in order to make it on the market.

I defined that point of "done" as when the game code is sent off to the factories. Does that sound reasonable? We can't extend it until "the time when the final patch is released to the public" unless you want to paint consumers as paying beta testers!

During this period of time is when I believe Nintendo started making DLC, and I believe that there are two other companies that follow this principle [Bethesda and Gearbox(there was one time that they made a DLC before the game was done, but admitted to it)]...

Based on belief.
As for "one time that they made a DLC before the game was done, but admitted to it," you realise that can mean "they made a DLC before the game was done, but admitted to it one time." Admitting it once sets up the expectation that they will be upfront every time, but that doesn't have to be the case. It's good PR to admit once for something minor ("Look how honest they are!"), but to continuously do so would be PR suicide.

but that's a different debate that I don't want to get into... With that being my point, that's the reason why you saw Marth DLC come out near launch (and that's the reason why it was free for early adopters)

The reason for the Marth DLC is the same for any preorder bonus: to encourage sales in the first week(s) and make the game look good on the sales charts.

Since this is about a Japanese game, let's look at this situation:
You are Japanese. Because of school or work, you have to leave Japan for several months. You like video games but are not combing websites for news all the time. You go home in July and see Fire Emblem on the shelf. You remember that liking a previous Fire Emblem and based on nostalgia and the clerk's recommendation, you purchase it along with a system. Is it fair that you don't get the Marth DLC free, just because didn't know about it until it was no longer free? You're paying the same amount of money. The amount of time that DLC was available for free was also an arbitrary length of time. You're being punished based on factors beyond your control. If DLC is free forever, this is not a problem.

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to sound harsh about it making your points invalid. I just personally believe that the complaints against the DLC are invalid....

You personally believe that all complaints against DLC are invalid? You do understand that DLC was created for the benefit of the publisher and not the consumer, right? Do you also support DRM, region-locking, and online passes? What about the arbitrary expiration of Club Nintendo coins/points/stars?

because you can enjoy a fully fleshed out and realized game and never buy the DLC. It's completely optional.

If the game is fully fleshed out and realized, perhaps.

I cut off the end of this and will post it later.

[YoshiRider123]

@Fred Duck
About the DLC development, the information of the fact that its production started essentially when the game itself was finished originated from the Iwata Asks interview. Since it's in Japanese, we have a variety of articles that provide translations of what's been said. This is one of them.

And I would like to reiterate a point that I previously made that you're still ignoring for whatever reason. "Free DLC that will be available forever"? Did you overlook that I've told you that price has absolutely no bearing on availability? Priced or not, anything that's not tangibly sold is as finite as anything else on the service.

[Broken_Cartridge]

Actually, I said that they could have taken more time if they had wanted to include these characters on the cart.

My only point is that we don't know how long it has been in development for, and a game can only be in development for so long before it is either canned or released

I have less of an issue with free DLC, but unless it's available forever, they're still artificially punishing people based on what the date is.

I know you have no issue with free dlc, but you skimmed around that statement I made. There is a ton of stuff given away for free (and kept free) via spotpass to players.

If it's already a very expansive game, then what's wrong with saving up these ideas for another game, as used to commonly be done in the past? What is the argument for expanding an already very expansive game? To make it even more very expansive, no matter how marginally?

It's an already expansive game, but the ideas that they have for said DLC are only applicable to this game. If they tried it in a different game it would not make any sense whatsoever, but regardless who's to say that the stuff that they make via DLC is not giving them ideas for another game? The point of expanding an already expansive game is because, regardless of how expansive a game is, there will be a point where you finish it, and you will have the option to do more in the game if you pay for DLC. Which, again, they are giving away more free DLC via spotpass then they are for the paid DLC.

I spent an hour looking for this. Where has a Nintendo or Intelligent Systems representative said, "This DLC was made after the game was done?" Please show me.

There have been a lot of different things that Nintendo has said regarding DLC, and also consider that my statement is about Nintendo as a company and their views on DLC.

"[We're] unwilling to sell a piece of a game upfront and ... force a consumer to buy more later. That's what [the developers] don't want to do, and I completely agree. I think the consumer wants to get, for their money, a complete experience, and then we have opportunities to provide more on top of that." - Reggie Fils Aime

When talking about the DLC for the upcoming NSMB2 Reggie said something along the lines of "We don't know what will be in the DLC because we haven't even made it yet."

" The important point for us to remember is how to maintain the situation where a wide variety of our consumers can readily appreciate our offers. In terms of that priority, we cannot, and should not, ask our consumers to embrace the situation where they are required to make excessive payments. Doing such things might be good for short-term profit, but it will not serve our mid-term and long-term business developments. " - Saturu Iwata

Now I know that this doesn't exactly prove my point about them waiting to make dlc (could not find the statement that I was looking for regarding it)*see next paragraph*, but it does show that their priorities are for first and foremost making a full game, making it so that players are not forced to buy DLC, and having said DLC extend gameplay by adding new content in the game that would not be in the game otherwise.

**YoshiRider found what I was initially thinking of. Follow the link in that post in order to see statements that show that DLC being made after the game was done.

I defined that point of "done" as when the game code is sent off to the factories. Does that sound reasonable? We can't extend it until "the time when the final patch is released to the public" unless you want to paint consumers as paying beta testers!

No, because that's not the way it works.

Based on belief.
As for "one time that they made a DLC before the game was done, but admitted to it," you realise that can mean "they made a DLC before the game was done, but admitted to it one time." Admitting it once sets up the expectation that they will be upfront every time, but that doesn't have to be the case. It's good PR to admit once for something minor ("Look how honest they are!"), but to continuously do so would be PR suicide.

You're blatantly ignoring my statement about how I didn't want to get into a debate on the other two companies by debating what that other company did. Thank you for that./s I didn't get into the details regarding said companies because they aren't what this is all about. Gearbox made all of the DLC for Borderlands after the game was released except for one. They told everyone that they began work on the first one before the game was green lit. Regardless, let's not get into that, because Gearbox is not Nintendo.

The reason for the Marth DLC is the same for any preorder bonus: to encourage sales in the first week(s) and make the game look good on the sales charts.

Since this is about a Japanese game, let's look at this situation:
You are Japanese. Because of school or work, you have to leave Japan for several months. You like video games but are not combing websites for news all the time. You go home in July and see Fire Emblem on the shelf. You remember that liking a previous Fire Emblem and based on nostalgia and the clerk's recommendation, you purchase it along with a system. Is it fair that you don't get the Marth DLC free, just because didn't know about it until it was no longer free? You're paying the same amount of money. The amount of time that DLC was available for free was also an arbitrary length of time. You're being punished based on factors beyond your control. If DLC is free forever, this is not a problem.

Marth DLC was made free for early adopters. This is something that both of us have touched on. Right now you're just arguing for the sake of arguing. "Let's look at this situation" from a Japanese standpoint by making up a completely fictitious situation! The DLC was free to promote early sales. To make gamers who bought the game upfront get extra value on their game. Whether or not someone can buy it during that period of time or not isn't really for this debate. Like I said, you're just arguing for the sake of arguing, but nonetheless the person who buys it after will have access to all of the free Spotpass DLC that was given out.

You personally believe that all complaints against DLC are invalid? You do understand that DLC was created for the benefit of the publisher and not the consumer, right? Do you also support DRM, region-locking, and online passes? What about the arbitrary expiration of Club Nintendo coins/points/stars?

If that's the way you read it, then you aren't understanding me completely. My statement was not towards DLC as a whole. We're talking about Fire Emblem. My statement was regarding that all complaints against the Fire Emblem DLC are invalid. There are plenty of companies that do DLC wrong, but this is not about them...it's about Nintendo. Of course Nintendo is making DLC in order to make more money, it's the way the business works. My whole point is that their approach to DLC is not bad at all, and they have not been holding back content from a game in order to put it in DLC.



Regardless, I'm done arguing it. You have an opinion, I have an opinion, and I'd like to think that we both respect the way each other thinks. We've both stated what can be said about both sides of the argument as extensively as possible so I don't think I'll press forward with this anymore. (I may change my mind)

But at the end of the day, if you don't like the DLC there is a simple solution...Don't buy it. You always have the choice, and especially with Nintendo games you will have a full game regardless.

[Fred Duck]

Comparisons aren't necessary in order to take something you bought, use it, and ask yourself, "was this worth my money?"

Before money existed, people bartered. If both parties didn't think it was a fair trade, the trade did not happen. In order to know the value of anything, you have to weigh the value of what you're getting with the value of what you're giving. If you have no frame of reference, you cannot make a proper decision. Comparisons have been vital to transactions since before we had money!

Asking "Was this worth my money?" is a comparison!

Let's try an example where you can't make a comparison.

Hey, I'll sell you a springbok for one Walloon.

Sound good?

I never said I did have evidence, likewise. However, unlike your side of the argument, I actually have a basis to support mine. It's been said multiple times by the development team and even Iwata that DLC wouldn't be content that was cut from the game. As a result, it is impossible to discern that this isn't the case unless you have anything contradictory to provide in order to assert a statement that's so bold as to imply the possibility.

I still haven't found where anyone ever said that. Can you show me?

Also, just so we're clear, I've no interest in pursuing the argument of whether DLC should or should not get revenue. Otherwise, I would've actually talked about it.

Just covering my bases.

Anthologies aren't mutually exclusive with having to bring back every single thing from its source.

Okay, so some characters aren't on the cart. Too bad. We don't need to bring back every single thing from its source, so they're simply not in the game period. (Hello, sequel, here we come!)

And you're not paying attention to what I'm telling you. The DLC was specifically created for this game. Ergo, the DLC's purpose is to further extend value of this particular game.

The DLC was specifically created for this game, and is only sold through this game and can only be used with this game. Ergo, the DLC is part of this particular game, some of which is arbitrarily being sold.

I've been entertaining the thought that you would honestly just assess it up front and not making any comparisons whatsoever. It's not an alien idea to anybody.

I'll trade you TEN pennies for ONE dollar. You get ten items instead of one. Ten being more than one (oops, that's a comparison!), you're clearly getting the better deal. But remember, you can't compare the value of the items.

I actually think what you're proposing is an alien idea to everybody. If your dog is playing with their favourite toy and you try to take it away empty-handed, see how agreeable they are with that idea. Even if your intent is to replace it with a more awesome toy, unless they can see the new toy, compare them, and accept it, they're not going to be willing to make that trade with you.

The only good DLC is free DLC which is available forever.

People play classic games all the time. Sometimes they even use the original hardware. Nintendo systems tend to last a long time, so what are the chances that say, in 2030, Nintendo is still selling this DLC because you want to play the classic Fire Emblem: Awakening? If it's less than 100%, then it's bad.

Should you be punished by not having a complete copy of the game just because of what year it is? DLC may be optional but it is still a part of the game.

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.

Never said otherwise.

I know, but for some reason, you brought up price relating to duration and price relating to quality.

What you're saying about not being able to get your money back from DLC is true, although I'd like to point out that it's not relevant to what I've been saying.

It is to what I'm saying. Not exactly a benefit of DLC, is it? (Ah, goodbye First Sale Doctrine!)

I think I may have mislead you into thinking differently than what I was intending. The DLC scenario containing Lyn as a reward's availability is dependent on having the game, yes, but it doesn't reflect that, because you need the game to get the DLC, the DLC is a portion of the actual game.

If it's not a part of the actual game, then it should be available for sale and use separately.

I can buy accessories for my printer. If I no longer have my printer, I can still do SOMETHING with these accessories (Yay, paperweights! Or I could sell them...but I need paperweights.) but you cannot do anything at all with this Lyn DLC without the game. You can't even purchase it without the game. DLC is part of the game.

It's a supplement, obviously, I believe we can both agree on that, but I was saying that the DLC not being available unless you had the game isn't an indication that it originated from the game itself.

Final Fantasy XIII-2 is a supplement to Final Fantasy XIII but can be used without having ever seen Final Fantasy XIII. They are separate games.

Lyn DLC is a supplement to Fire Emblem: Awakening but can only be used in conjunction with Fire Emblem: Awakening.

The origin of the content is not something we consumers can know about.

[YoshiRider123]

Comparisons aren't necessary in order to take something you bought, use it, and ask yourself, "was this worth my money?"

Before money existed, people bartered. If both parties didn't think it was a fair trade, the trade did not happen. In order to know the value of anything, you have to weigh the value of what you're getting with the value of what you're giving. If you have no frame of reference, you cannot make a proper decision. Comparisons have been vital to transactions since before we had money!

Asking "Was this worth my money?" is a comparison!

Let's try an example where you can't make a comparison.

Hey, I'll sell you a springbok for one Walloon.

Sound good?

No, but that's not what I even meant, either. I was referring to external comparisons not being a necessity to assess the value of a purchase or trade.

I never said I did have evidence, likewise. However, unlike your side of the argument, I actually have a basis to support mine. It's been said multiple times by the development team and even Iwata that DLC wouldn't be content that was cut from the game. As a result, it is impossible to discern that this isn't the case unless you have anything contradictory to provide in order to assert a statement that's so bold as to imply the possibility.

I still haven't found where anyone ever said that. Can you show me?

Already did. I can understand if you wrote this particular response prior to my last post, but I've gone over it to the level of your inquiry, so there's no need for you to continue in asking from this point on.

Anthologies aren't mutually exclusive with having to bring back every single thing from its source.

Okay, so some characters aren't on the cart. Too bad. We don't need to bring back every single thing from its source, so they're simply not in the game period. (Hello, sequel, here we come!)

Because of the endless possibilities that Intelligent Systems can do with the DLC for this game, you have to realize that, by following your logic of "saving for the sequel", these games would never be released. The principle of having this one complete and realized game and providing optional bonuses over time so that a forced sequel wouldn't be necessary is the only sensible one for this situation.

And you're not paying attention to what I'm telling you. The DLC was specifically created for this game. Ergo, the DLC's purpose is to further extend value of this particular game.

The DLC was specifically created for this game, and is only sold through this game and can only be used with this game. Ergo, the DLC is part of this particular game, some of which is arbitrarily being sold.

Again, you're meshing together two different concepts. When I'm saying that the DLC isn't a part of the game, I've always meant that it's not content that was cut from the game in response to your opposing insinuation.

I've been entertaining the thought that you would honestly just assess it up front and not making any comparisons whatsoever. It's not an alien idea to anybody.

I'll trade you TEN pennies for ONE dollar. You get ten items instead of one. Ten being more than one (oops, that's a comparison!), you're clearly getting the better deal. But remember, you can't compare the value of the items.

I actually think what you're proposing is an alien idea to everybody. If your dog is playing with their favourite toy and you try to take it away empty-handed, see how agreeable they are with that idea. Even if your intent is to replace it with a more awesome toy, unless they can see the new toy, compare them, and accept it, they're not going to be willing to make that trade with you.

As I said before, you're misunderstanding me.

Never said otherwise.

I know, but for some reason, you brought up price relating to duration and price relating to quality.

That's because you said the only good DLC is free DLC which is available forever, which is not right.

What you're saying about not being able to get your money back from DLC is true, although I'd like to point out that it's not relevant to what I've been saying.

It is to what I'm saying. Not exactly a benefit of DLC, is it? (Ah, goodbye First Sale Doctrine!)

Uh huh, and? I've already told you that I wasn't arguing against that, so I don't see why you feel the need to tell me this as if I needed enlightenment in that department.

I think I may have mislead you into thinking differently than what I was intending. The DLC scenario containing Lyn as a reward's availability is dependent on having the game, yes, but it doesn't reflect that, because you need the game to get the DLC, the DLC is a portion of the actual game.

If it's not a part of the actual game, then it should be available for sale and use separately.

I can buy accessories for my printer. If I no longer have my printer, I can still do SOMETHING with these accessories (Yay, paperweights! Or I could sell them...but I need paperweights.) but you cannot do anything at all with this Lyn DLC without the game. You can't even purchase it without the game. DLC is part of the game.

Again, you're confusing what I'm saying with a different idea.

It's a supplement, obviously, I believe we can both agree on that, but I was saying that the DLC not being available unless you had the game isn't an indication that it originated from the game itself.

Final Fantasy XIII-2 is a supplement to Final Fantasy XIII but can be used without having ever seen Final Fantasy XIII. They are separate games.

Lyn DLC is a supplement to Fire Emblem: Awakening but can only be used in conjunction with Fire Emblem: Awakening.

The origin of the content is not something we consumers can know about.

I'm sorry, but this is just wrong. The difference between XIII-2 to XIII and Awakening's DLC to Awakening is that the latter was created so that you could find even more ways to continue enjoying the same game after release if you wanted them, whereas XIII-2 is a full-fledged sequel that doesn't serve that purpose at all and only expands on the game's universe in a completely different game for one bulky price. You're reading way too much into my use of the word "supplement".

And once more, we know that the DLC for Awakening was made post-development.

[AmicableWalrus]

Ah, but would that not go into subjective territory if we're going to talk about sentimentality from enjoyment? I mean, if it's about objective assessment, then that's irrelevant, don't you think?

To be honest, I haven't seen anything qualifying comparisons as a way to tell if a value is good, but only rather if it's better or not than another.

Which is exactly what I was saying. Ignoring subjective reasons or placing them at an equal point in order to look at the numbers.

Let me put it this way. You could get 10 skittles for $1, or you could get 20 m&m's for $1. Maybe you're so partial to skittles and/or dislike m&m's so much that it's worth only getting 10 skittles for your dollar. If you don't care either way, though, maybe love both of them, wouldn't getting more be better? Isn't it a little silly to pay the same amount for less candy?

This isn't a perfect analogy, but it illustrates what I've been trying to say about value for your money.

[YoshiRider123]

Ah, but would that not go into subjective territory if we're going to talk about sentimentality from enjoyment? I mean, if it's about objective assessment, then that's irrelevant, don't you think?

To be honest, I haven't seen anything qualifying comparisons as a way to tell if a value is good, but only rather if it's better or not than another.

Which is exactly what I was saying. Ignoring subjective reasons or placing them at an equal point in order to look at the numbers.

Let me put it this way. You could get 10 skittles for $1, or you could get 20 m&m's for $1. Maybe you're so partial to skittles and/or dislike m&m's so much that it's worth only getting 10 skittles for your dollar. If you don't care either way, though, maybe love both of them, wouldn't getting more be better? Isn't it a little silly to pay the same amount for less candy?

This isn't a perfect analogy, but it illustrates what I've been trying to say about value for your money.

I see where you're getting at, but I don't know... It's not that I don't agree with it, but the way I see it, all that really demonstrates is how you can see something as more worthwhile than another, but not necessarily if a particular value is worth having at all or not.

Going back to the original topic, yeah, let's suppose one DLC scenario is, at most, about $5. The game itself is (expectantly) $40. Obviously, that one DLC isn't an eighth of the experience of the full game if we're going to try to judge it objectively. We're good on that, right?

The thing is, when you see how it takes the developer the amount of time and effort to make that DLC being available possible, I just don't get how that measly price is unreasonable. It's $5. Sure, some other digital offerings and other stuff can be much more extravagant and cheaper, or free, if not, but I still have to disagree that it's those comparisons that undermine what's being sold here. After understanding what this DLC entirely entails, I honestly have no problem paying $5 for it.

[AmicableWalrus]

I see where you're getting at, but I don't know... It's not that I don't agree with it, but the way I see it, all that really demonstrates is how you can see something as more worthwhile than another, but not necessarily if a particular value is worth having at all or not.

Going back to the original topic, yeah, let's suppose one DLC scenario is, at most, about $5. The game itself is (expectantly) $40. Obviously, that one DLC isn't an eighth of the experience of the full game if we're going to try to judge it objectively. We're good on that, right?

The thing is, when you see how it takes the developer the amount of time and effort to make that DLC being available possible, I just don't get how that measly price is unreasonable. It's $5. Sure, some other digital offerings and other stuff can be much more extravagant and cheaper, or free, if not, but I still have to disagree that it's those comparisons that undermine what's being sold here. After understanding what this DLC entirely entails, I honestly have no problem paying $5 for it.

Fair enough. It's not something worth arguing to great extent about.

Back on topic, I wonder how NoA will handle the this, in terms of release schedule and actual releases. Will we be getting DLC based on the non-localized games? Maybe their potential popularity will test the waters for a localized digital release of some of the older games.

[Fred Duck]

Ah ha! Now I understand what you're trying to say! You think I believe all DLC to be pieces of the game cut off specifically to be sold later for a ridiculous profit!

Nope!

It happens in a lot of cases, but that's not the main point.


Here is why I am insisting that the only good DLC is DLC that is free and available forever:

#1 Free:
Looking specifically at Fire Emblem: Awakening, the cartridge lists for ¥4800.

DLC costs:
Marth ¥300
Roy ¥250
Leaf ¥350
Micaiah ¥300
Gold and Silver ¥300
Arum ¥400
Elincia ¥350
Mamii no Rakuen ¥300
Ephraim ¥350
Mugen no Jinki ¥300
Celice ¥400
Eirika ¥400
Cellica ¥350
Lyn ¥400

Total for currently available DLC: ¥4750. You have purchased the entire game again.
Fire Emblem: Awakening is quite a long game. Will these 14 DLC add up to the amount of entertainment you got from the content on the cart? (As you just said in your last reply, no.)

Who can justify ¥4750 worth of DLC content versus the value of ¥4800 worth of cart content?

The arguments are that "you don't have to buy it all" or that "they don't expect you to buy it all." However, they're certainly not going to dissuade you from buying it all, are they? No one's going to make for-pay DLC they don't believe will sell at least a certain amount. The accountants look at the ledger and want to put big positive numbers there. Short term gains.

This is just trying to milk quick cash out of the fan base. Paying for this stuff simply encourages companies to make more and more DLC instead of new games.

If the DLC is free, then it is the developer/publisher rewarding players for purchasing their title. It makes the player feel good about the company for getting free stuff. The player feels more attached to the game, its world, and its characters. This makes the title more valuable to both the players and the developers. Additionally, players will be looking forward to future games in the series or by the developer. They'll talk up the game with their friends and their friends will buy it, spurring further sales.

Being free proves it's not a monetization scheme and lets developers focus on making other proper games instead of just throwing scraps at the players for years.

Everybody wins. Players are not used. Games are resold less. New titles are developed. Everyone is happy!

#2 Forever:

Now, here is the underlying reason why I do not like DLC:

DLC is part of a game. It has zero value without the game it belongs to.

Unless the DLC is available forever, there will come a point in time when a "complete" version of the game will no longer be available.

Some people think that video games are just games, and therefore not important. That's not correct. They are a part of our culture and history. If this sounds overblown, just do a search for "history of video games" or look at the Smithsonian exhibit.

Now try looking for "video game preservation."

We have enough difficulty preserving self-contained video games! DLC is the arbitrary fragmentation of video games for short term profits. How easy is it going to be to preserve these things in 10 years? 20 years?



My views support consumer rights, creativity, new game development, happy players, increased game sales, and preservation.

What does a pro-DLC stance support?

[YoshiRider123]

Ah ha! Now I understand what you're trying to say! You think I believe all DLC to be pieces of the game cut off specifically to be sold later for a ridiculous profit!

To be precise, you were insinuating that it could have been the case for the DLC for Fire Emblem: Awakening. Don't tell me that you forgot about that.

Who can justify ¥4750 worth of DLC content versus the value of ¥4800 worth of cart content?

A 3DS costs $170. According to you, a 3DS is worth between four to five 3DS games because that's what money and math say. Since the 3DS already has its own content and features, what's the point of buying any 3DS games then, eh? If I followed your word, buying six 3DS games must be a total rip-off because they'd cost more than a single 3DS that already has its own games and such, especially since 3DS games are useless unless I've already bought a 3DS.

See, this is what I was saying. You don't compare these things this way in order to justify price or value. It's not right.

This is just trying to milk quick cash out of the fan base. Paying for this stuff simply encourages companies to make more and more DLC instead of new games.

Snap out of it and look at what you're spewing out. You need a reality check if you seriously think that the fact that this game has DLC is holding back on development of new games in the series. Believe it or not, I have reason to believe that there is in fact a new game already being developed for the Wii U right now.

If the DLC is free, then it is the developer/publisher rewarding players for purchasing their title. It makes the player feel good about the company for getting free stuff. The player feels more attached to the game, its world, and its characters. This makes the title more valuable to both the players and the developers. Additionally, players will be looking forward to future games in the series or by the developer. They'll talk up the game with their friends and their friends will buy it, spurring further sales.

Uh, a priced DLC can easily accomplish all of that. Now you're just getting your bias in your way of arguing.

Unless the DLC is available forever, there will come a point in time when a "complete" version of the game will no longer be available.

You really don't get it, do you? The game is complete. The DLC doesn't account for the content of the game itself. It's just bonus stuff that's there.

We have enough difficulty preserving self-contained video games! DLC is the arbitrary fragmentation of video games for short term profits. How easy is it going to be to preserve these things in 10 years? 20 years?

Very.

[Fred Duck]

@Broken_Cartridge

Sorry I wasn't more clear about it, but my previous post was also for you to consider. Any thoughts?

[YoshiRider123]

Back on topic, I wonder how NoA will handle the this, in terms of release schedule and actual releases. Will we be getting DLC based on the non-localized games? Maybe their potential popularity will test the waters for a localized digital release of some of the older games.

It's essentially impossible for the DLC scenarios that deal with Japan-only characters to not be released in the American and European versions of the game, since they're too involved within those characters. Heck, even Marth's DLC has Japan-only characters in it.

As far as it goes for order, for the most part, they can be released in any order with some exceptions. The Spirit Talisman series of DLC are connected and go in sequential order. However they're going to wind up doing it, it's a guarantee that they won't release Marth, Roy, and Micaiah in a different order than that.

I personally don't think NoA and such are cool enough to release the earlier games digitally to their respective markets even with the recognition incentive, so I wouldn't hold my breath for that to happen.