By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Mummelmann on 28 May 2015
Edit Thread
sundin13 said:
Mummelmann said:
I remember when users in here used to give developers a hard time for releasing "unfinished games". Bob Dylan was right; the times they are'a changin'.


Theres a big difference between releasing a game that is broken at launch or sold to you in pieces and what Splatoon is doing. I'd say that Splatoon's approach is pretty unique for a console game.

As someone posted a while ago, a quote from Jim Sterling's review:

"It’s an interesting approach, to say the least. For what it’s promising, Nintendo is coming closer to the idea of “games as a service” than most big budget publishers, who usually use that term to avoid saying they’ve created a glorified DLC hub. There are no microtransactions on the table and the upcoming content is all free, so it inspires a lot more confidence than many other so-called “AAA” games attempting to pull similar moves."

It sort of reminds me of when Obama got the Nobel's Peace Prize; on the grounds that we assumed he would promote peace based on his promises upon taking office and running his campaign.

I still think it's interesting to note how people respond to this, especially since online multiplayer games are a lot more dependent on content and variation to draw players, it would certainly make sense for any reviewer to say that one might want to hold off on buying the game at the very least, getting positive press that might help sales based on future promise is a bit strange from my perspective; you don't hand out medals to athletes before they win either, regardless of whether or not they are favorites for victory.

I say they should rather adjust the scores later; there are instance of games getting their scores adjusted after fixing major (or several minor) issues. If a game has a drawback; point it out, if that drawback is fixed in the near future; point it out when it's fixed. It would be dishonest to recommend people puchase products day one based on conditions that are not yet met.

I honestly don't understand why people are having such a hard time accepting these deductions, I'm pretty sure that any other publisher attempting the same stunt would get their fill, this is not "interesting" or unique to me; it's a clear cut case of immediate lack of content, the fact that they've stated that it will be added later for free does not change the terms "immediate" or "lack".
The argument "it will be there" does not change the product as it is right now, I don't buy games to play them three months from now; I buy games to play them today.

Again, I am struck by the feeling that if this were anyone besides Nintendo; the tone in this thread would be significantly different, free content or no. I know that many will argue that (for sure) but that is my view based on many, many years as a member in here and it's not about to change.