By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Teeqoz on 23 January 2016
Edit Thread
Einsam_Delphin said:

Teeqoz said:


I'm asking about something that's relevant to how Splatoon was released. Do you really think that it's completely irrelevant what you think about this concept when applied to other games, even though this thread "is about Splatoon"? How restrictive are you gonna be about what relates to the topic of this thread? The talk will hardly be infinite. In fact I think one paragraph would more than suffice to explain if you would be okay with the next Mario Kart, the next Smash Bros and the next Splatoon releasing this way. Certainly way less than what you've typed to dodge the question.

However if you think this is completely irrelevant to the topic and you won't bother to write a simple answer to my question, then I'll just leave this thread. Sorry for having a different opinion than you.

 

The way another game releases has no effect whatsoever on how Splatoon released, can't make it anymore simple than that. Don't forget you've still been dodging the majority of my earlier post while I already said why your question can't be answered. Sorry for trying to keep thread discussion on target, but like I also said, you're free to make your own thread.

 

It has no effect on how Splatoon was released, and I've never claimed that either. What I'm saying is that it's relevant what you think about this release method for other potential games. And it's relevant to this threads topic, so why clutter up the forums when we can discuss something that's perfectly related to this thread, in this thread.

Like I asked you in a previous post, would you answer the question if I replied to the rest of your post? You never answered that question though, so I wouldn't know, but since you seem to care about that part, here you go:

Einsam_Delphin said:
Teeqoz said:


Like I wrote, the Splatooon Wii U bundle was the only Wii U sku available. And I still don't agree with the business practice of releasing something before it's done.

Saying you can buy the game later is an excuse. It's like defending Destiny's lack of content at launch because you could wait for The Taken King Legendary Edition and get all the content for the same price. Not saying this is as bad as that, because for Splatoon the content was free, but it still isn't something I agree with. Would you be okay with the next Splatoon launching in the same way? The next Mario Kart? Heck, the next 3D Mario? The next Smash Bros?

 

Well that's unfortunate, but come on that's not the fault of the updates and that still didn't mean you had to play it immediately. That may sound silly but I do have games I bought months ago but haven't played yet, namely cause they were on sale. Oh and technically Nintendo did advertise it as a complete game from the get go with the updates being treated as bonuses so you could always look at it that way. :L

Buying games later has been the smarter thing to do anyway thanks to price drops and deals, but in Splatoon's case it's fair for everyone regardless of when t

 

Yes, it's not the fault of the updates. It's an effect of them. Allow me to draw a comparison here (or would I be going off-topic and be talking about irrelevant stuff by mentioning anything else than Splatoon?): If a game needs a day-one patch to work, and a person gets that game, but the person doesn't have internet to download it, or he has a data cap, or slow download speeds, anything prohibiting hom from downloading the patch, it's not the game's fault, right? However it is an effect of another undesirable business practice. Similarly to this.

That technicality doesn't really matter much. None of us are that gullible to believe that one 4th of what we have now was actually the complete game, and that the rest was just free extra stuff they gave to us because they are nice. Splatoon wasn't a complete game at launch. It was a polished one though, and I commend that, but I don't buy the "technically Nintendo did advertize it as a complete game". Allow me to make another comparison (unless that to will be too irrelevant for you): Technically Activision advertized Destiny as a complete game at launch. And before you go out of hand and say "Well you had to pay for Destiny's DLC", yes, you did, and that wasn't the point of my comparison. It's just that however the game company advertises the game doesn't really make the business practice better.

Yes, buying games has been the smarter thing to do in any case, but that doesn't change my stance on a undesirable business practice.

 

Now will you answer my question?