| Wyrdness said: My guess on the five DLC characters: - XBC2 character: It's clear Sakurai wants a character from this game in Ultimate even though they haven't started any work on the DLC I'm pretty sure someone from the game will be in Ultimate. - Virtua Fighter Character: Akira made it into ultimate as the representative for the series that was the first 3D fighter but only as an AT I can see someone from the series being picked out as a main character. - Fire Emblem Three Houses Main Character: Really you don't think this will happen? - Jin (Tekken): SEGA got Akira into the game I'm sure Namco could do the same with their iconic series as well. - Dante (DMC): A bit hopeful tbh but it makes sense to go along with Bayonetta. Not so bold prediction: The will be another character pass after this one. Ultra Hopeful: Some SNK representation. |
That's actually a pretty bold prediction in my opinion - it seems pretty obvious that Sakurai is overseeing the next 5 characters and I think after that he'd want a break from Smash. Even if they make more without his supervision (or if he just takes a more backseat role), remember that this Smash DLC of 5 characters will probably last an entire year, maybe even more. That's about how long the support for games like Splatoon have been (I believe they said they weren't adding anything new after this year).
Given the fact that Smash Ultimate already has a Rex costume in it I actually think the chances for a Xenoblade 2 character have gotten a lot smaller, because usually it tends to be that smaller franchises get a main character in the game rather than a side one. But hey - I wouldn't be surprised if they just didn't use the whole "if it's a spirit/trophy or costume it's not going to be in the game", given the fact that Sakurai wrote like what ... a huge blog post about how much he loved Xenoblade 2, or something like that? Personally I'd prefer someone like Nia because we have so many anime sword users already.
I agree with you on Fire Emblem although I would also not be surprised if the whole "there's too many FE characters" mantra made it so that no more were added.
I expect at least 3 of the 5 characters to be third party because I think that gives the game a lot more attention after release, those tend to be the DLCs that people pay a shit ton of money for. So to me most likely - 2 nintendo characters, 3 3rd party characters.
| Runa216 said: Nintendo finally seems to be (reluctantly) joining the modern age and aren't spamming us with a new smash game every year so this works for me. |
Uhhh ..... what?
1999: Super Smash Brothers
2001: Super Smash Brothers Melee
2008: Super Smash Brothers Brawl
2014: Super Smash Brothers for Wii U/3DS
2018: Super Smash Brothers Ultimate
A new smash game every year? Nintendo was making arbitrarily long waits for sequels to series before the gaming industry even made the 3-6 year development time a standard, lol. Most of their main franchises were carefully filtered so that they only had one game per console, or in the case of Smash, even just one game per generation.
Not only that, but Nintendo has been doing paid DLC since 2014 and Games as a Service since 2015. I don't get how they're reluctantly joining the gaming industry now, they did that like 3-4 years ago.
Also I have no idea why Nintendo fans are so obsessed with making any Nintendo franchise with multiplayer into a long running service. I remember before Mario Kart 8 Deluxe was officially announced and all we had to go on was the Switch reveal trailer, people were saying Nintendo was going to make the 8 an infinity sign on the cover and give the game paid DLC for the rest of Switch's life, making it a "platform". People also said that Splatoon 2 would be Splatoon Refresh and that it would just be a port that got content over the Switch's entire life, yet support is already dying down. While I do think there's an argument to be made that sales of games increase when they become a service, I actually think that's a hard argument to make for Nintendo games in particular, which have always had good legs. It's not a coincidence that Games as a Service has become more necessity for yearly franchises which tend to drop player populations fast for the next game (COD) or that games that feature no remarkable praise (like Ghost Recon) are GAAS. GAAS is an industry wide tactic not because it's necessary for amazing multiplayer games to live past a few months, it's necessary to milk more money out of consumers and to keep consumers coming back to games that are mediocre. That's why something like Mario Kart Wii is still selling tens of thousands of new copies, or why something like Halo 3 was one of the most popular multiplayer games for three years straight. Smash's life is already guaranteed by the fact that it's the only Smash game that will ever be on Switch.
Will they get more money out of more Smash DLC? Absolutely - and I think particularly if they add a lot of 3rd party DLC, you might see a couple of people who weren't previously interested buy the game. But I don't think that making DLC throughout the entire life of Switch is actually going to do anything other than make Nintendo slightly more profit from DLC, and maybe make casual fans play the game for like 5 days after a new DLC releases only to turn it off again for another 3 months.
Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 01 November 2018
