By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - A New Content Model for Nintendo

Soundwave on 29 July 2014
phaedruss said:
Soundwave said:

I think this approach makes sense for IP like Star Fox and F-Zero where they can make a decent looking engine for the games once, sell that digitally for say a low price of $29.99, and and then release new content on a yearly/bi-yearly basis.


Yearly or bi-yearly would be far too little for this to work. it would have to be bi-monthly at least. I'm talking new tracks, modes, characters, vehicles, etc. It would make sense for any IP as well.


I think that would require too much manpower for too limited of an audience. It would also feel like Nintendo is withholding content in a way by selling an incomplete game. 

I'd still want something that is a complete game, but then can have Expansion Paks that are legitimate additions, rather than nickle and diming for things like every character, track, etc. I think that leaves a bad taste in the consumer's mouth. This is basically like what Super Luigi U did for NSMBU. 

Seeing as how the last console F-Zero was 11 years ago too, bi-yearly would be fine with me, lol. I'd gladly buy F-Zero GX even again if Nintendo re-used the exact same engine but just added a new wave of courses to it. 



Around the Network
phaedruss on 29 July 2014
Soundwave said:
 


I think that would require too much manpower for too limited of an audience. It would also feel like Nintendo is withholding content in a way by selling an incomplete game. 

I'd still want something that is a complete game, but then can have Expansion Paks that are legitimate additions, rather than nickle and diming for things like every character, track, etc. I think that leaves a bad taste in the consumer's mouth. This is basically like what Super Luigi U did for NSMBU. 

Seeing as how the last console F-Zero was 11 years ago too, bi-yearly would be fine with me, lol. I'd gladly buy F-Zero GX even again if Nintendo re-used the exact same engine but just added a new wave of courses to it. 

Thus the subscription model. For the smaller DLC like tracks and such you would get free, for the bigger DLC you'd get a discount. Having DLC doesn't automatically mean that they withheld content on purpose. All games could be bigger and have more content with an infinite amount of time and resources put into it but that doesn't exist in the real world. What this would do is provide constant streams of content for your Nintendo games. Bi-yearly would not work at all for this.



Soundwave on 29 July 2014
phaedruss said:
Soundwave said:
 


I think that would require too much manpower for too limited of an audience. It would also feel like Nintendo is withholding content in a way by selling an incomplete game. 

I'd still want something that is a complete game, but then can have Expansion Paks that are legitimate additions, rather than nickle and diming for things like every character, track, etc. I think that leaves a bad taste in the consumer's mouth. This is basically like what Super Luigi U did for NSMBU. 

Seeing as how the last console F-Zero was 11 years ago too, bi-yearly would be fine with me, lol. I'd gladly buy F-Zero GX even again if Nintendo re-used the exact same engine but just added a new wave of courses to it. 

Thus the subscription model. For the smaller DLC like tracks and such you would get free, for the bigger DLC you'd get a discount. Having DLC doesn't automatically mean that they withheld content on purpose. All games could be bigger and have more content with an infinite amount of time and resources put into it but that doesn't exist in the real world. What this would do is provide constant streams of content for your Nintendo games. Bi-yearly would not work at all for this.

I'd be fine with yearly updates too. NSLU came out like 8 months after NSMBU's release? That would be fine with me. 

I think any set up though where you have to pay for every individual track and character one by one just wouldn't work. It creates an impression (rightly or wrongly) from the consumer that you are bending them over to make money off every little thing. 

It creates a resentment that as a game creator IMO isn't worth it. 

I don't really need "constant" content for a game like F-Zero either, it just would be nice to not have to wait 13 years between games. It's actually kind of exhausting if a game you like has constant content because then as a fan you feel like you're missing out on something by not playing, even if you kind of would like to take a break from the game, lol. 



phaedruss on 29 July 2014
Soundwave said:

I'd be fine with yearly updates too. NSLU came out like 8 months after NSMBU's release? That would be fine with me. 

I think any set up though where you have to pay for every individual track and character one by one just wouldn't work. It creates an impression (rightly or wrongly) from the consumer that you are bending them over to make money off every little thing. 

It creates a resentment that as a game creator IMO isn't worth it. 

I don't really need "constant" content for a game like F-Zero either, it just would be nice to not have to wait 13 years between games. It's actually kind of exhausting if a game you like has constant content because then as a fan you feel like you're missing out on something by not playing, even if you kind of would like to take a break from the game, lol. 


Again, you might not need constant updates for the games you love and new content, but some people do and that's the only way a subscription service would work. If it's only going to be yearly or bi-yearly you might as well just make a new game. This was one way that I thought of for Nintendo to increase their output as you don't need nearly as many people to make new tracks and the like as you do to make a brand new game. Not to mention a constant stream of revenue, etc.