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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Nintendo and Smash's Latest DLC: Is Sakurai and Nintendo Going Too Far?

 

Is the DLC too expensive?

Yes 217 66.56%
 
No 109 33.44%
 
Total:326
Cloudman on 15 June 2015
Marcusius said:

This look so much like ...... *micro transactions*... Another game that I wont buy... At this rate I feel to drop video games for good.

Except they are all things you get to keep and use. No short term, quick helping goods here. The game itself is solid, and these are just extras. You can still enjoy the game alone, but if that is how you feel, then I won`t stop you.



 

              

Dance my pretties!

The Official Art Thread      -      The Official Manga Thread      -      The Official Starbound Thread

Around the Network
burninmylight on 15 June 2015
noname2200 said:
burninmylight said:

You honestly believe that as  long as Nintendo asks politely, it can play with other publisher's toys without any give-back? Maybe Ryu didn't come with a price tag. I'm not going to pretend to know. But I am 99.99 percent certain that Capcom is getting some of that DLC cut.

I've no doubt that Capcom's getting a cut. I also don't think they necessarily had to cut a check to Capcom before putting in once of Capcom's characters into one of their more popular games, since the two companies seem to have an unusual relationship at the moment.

You seem to think it's a foregone conclusion that Nintendo felt it wise or necessary to pay Capcom outright to rent Ryu for Smash. You may be right, since like you I won't pretend to have inside info. I just don't think, in light of circumstances, that that's necssarily true. That's all.

What's the point of owning and copyrighting intellectual property if you're going to let others use it with reckless abandon?

Also, you seemed to have missed this part:

"Maybe Ryu didn't come with a price tag. I'm not going to pretend to know. But I am 99.99 percent certain that Capcom is getting some of that DLC cut."



noname2200 on 15 June 2015
burninmylight said:
noname2200 said:
burninmylight said:

You honestly believe that as  long as Nintendo asks politely, it can play with other publisher's toys without any give-back? Maybe Ryu didn't come with a price tag. I'm not going to pretend to know. But I am 99.99 percent certain that Capcom is getting some of that DLC cut.

I've no doubt that Capcom's getting a cut. I also don't think they necessarily had to cut a check to Capcom before putting in once of Capcom's characters into one of their more popular games, since the two companies seem to have an unusual relationship at the moment.

You seem to think it's a foregone conclusion that Nintendo felt it wise or necessary to pay Capcom outright to rent Ryu for Smash. You may be right, since like you I won't pretend to have inside info. I just don't think, in light of circumstances, that that's necssarily true. That's all.

What's the point of owning and copyrighting intellectual property if you're going to let others use it with reckless abandon?

Also, you seemed to have missed this part:

"Maybe Ryu didn't come with a price tag. I'm not going to pretend to know. But I am 99.99 percent certain that Capcom is getting some of that DLC cut."

"Reckless abandon." Okay.

And I did not miss the emphasized part, just like I did not miss the patronizing skepticism in the first sentence. I simply interpreted the contradiction between the two as the latter being the honest expression, with the former a polite attempt to lessen the impact. Be that as it may, I've said my peace on the subject; please feel free to continue if you have not, or we may jointly drop the subject.



burninmylight on 16 June 2015
noname2200 said:
burninmylight said:
noname2200 said:
burninmylight said:

You honestly believe that as  long as Nintendo asks politely, it can play with other publisher's toys without any give-back? Maybe Ryu didn't come with a price tag. I'm not going to pretend to know. But I am 99.99 percent certain that Capcom is getting some of that DLC cut.

I've no doubt that Capcom's getting a cut. I also don't think they necessarily had to cut a check to Capcom before putting in once of Capcom's characters into one of their more popular games, since the two companies seem to have an unusual relationship at the moment.

You seem to think it's a foregone conclusion that Nintendo felt it wise or necessary to pay Capcom outright to rent Ryu for Smash. You may be right, since like you I won't pretend to have inside info. I just don't think, in light of circumstances, that that's necssarily true. That's all.

What's the point of owning and copyrighting intellectual property if you're going to let others use it with reckless abandon?

Also, you seemed to have missed this part:

"Maybe Ryu didn't come with a price tag. I'm not going to pretend to know. But I am 99.99 percent certain that Capcom is getting some of that DLC cut."

"Reckless abandon." Okay.

And I did not miss the emphasized part, just like I did not miss the patronizing skepticism in the first sentence. I simply interpreted the contradiction between the two as the latter being the honest expression, with the former a polite attempt to lessen the impact. Be that as it may, I've said my peace on the subject; please feel free to continue if you have not, or we may jointly drop the subject.

I don't entirely understand what you're trying to say here, so I'll just leave it at this: I'm sorry if I come across as patronizing and disenguine, because any attempts I make to be polite and civil are genuine. So is my opinion. It wasn't my intention to get into an argument, only to drop my two cents on the topic at hand. I appreciate your maturity in acting like an adult and attempting to cool down the situation before things got out of hand (and I only use the word "attempting" because it wasn't going to go there in the first place, but you did the right thing for just in case). I know my choice of words sometimes get harsh, so I apologize if it sounded like I was starting to boil under the skin. I need to get better about not sounding so aggressive.



noname2200 on 16 June 2015
burninmylight said:

I don't entirely understand what you're trying to say here, so I'll just leave it at this: I'm sorry if I come across as patronizing and disenguine, because any attempts I make to be polite and civil are genuine. So is my opinion. It wasn't my intention to get into an argument, only to drop my two cents on the topic at hand. I appreciate your maturity in acting like an adult and attempting to cool down the situation before things got out of hand (and I only use the word "attempting" because it wasn't going to go there in the first place, but you did the right thing for just in case). I know my choice of words sometimes get harsh, so I apologize if it sounded like I was starting to boil under the skin. I need to get better about not sounding so aggressive.

And I in turn apologize as well: it sounds like I misread you, and was oversensitive. We're good!