Nintendo did it right. Free DLC/patches and it kept Splatoon from going away I need to pick it up soon.

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.

I'll put you an easy example. I have the Resident Evil 5 Gold Version for my 360, which is supposedly the "GOTY" version of the game, with all the DLC included. But here's a funny catch, since the DVD can't hold all the data, Capcom just put a downloadable code inside it which grants you everything (the extra content) digitally. Stored in the HDD. To make it work, you have to download a very, very insignificant patch that enables the content itself (which there's no problem, Capcom gave it to everyone even if they didn't have any extra content).

I had some problems with my 360 years later, so I had to erase the corrupted cache data, which in exchanges (since it cannot discriminate which data is correct and which one isn't), erases all patches present in the console.

So, there's this party with friend in a nice house of one of them, but it doesn't have internet access. I bring my 360 with me to play some games. We've all beaten Resident Evil 5, but I say "Ey, I have the DLC! Let's play through that!". I put the disc on the console, I boot it up and...nothing. Blam, we can't play the extra content because the content can't be found. It's nonexistent according to the console. I check the memory and the content is there. What's going on? Oh, of course. That 1mb patch is nowhere to be seen.

So I can't play the extra content. Content I paid, content that is actually taking space in my digital storage. Because the stupid patch isn't on the disc. And since we don't have internet connection there, it cannot be solved.

So screw digital updates of a game. Put everything in the disc from the get go.

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 seems your issue is more about DLC in general than Splatoon specifically, and tbh I'd say your one rare and easily avoidable instance really doesn't outweigh the benefits of DLC. Certainly a far different case from Splatoon, a heavily online centric game that'd be useless without an internet connection regardless of how much content you have.

I find the method of gradually releasing more content overtime to be a nice one personally. It gave me new things to look forward to, and whenever new things came out, it got me interested in trying them out, and it just kept me invested in the series longer. Right when I thought I completed everything, something new comes out, and I have more to do. It's like the game refuses to let me finish it and move on. It keeps me tied to the game, or at least gives me reason to keep playing.

Sure, the game may have come out a lil sparse, but that changed quickly, and overall, it let me get adjusted to everything at a nice pace. So I liked what they did here. I wouldn't mind if they did more of this for Splatoon, but make sure there is a bit more at launch.

OP, Those kind of reasons also were said and used against some other games but I guess when it's Nintendo, it's okay. ;S

Those other games had the extra content released as pay dlcs or/and they had the multiplayer broken at release. Splatoon didnt. The game was completely polished on day 1 and the extra content was released since the very first week the game was out until now for no extra cost at all. Huge difference.

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:

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?

Battlefront didn't and Splatoon amiibos are sadly still considered a paywall so nope.

The scope and graphical output of Splatoon isn't that big compared to other games like Destiny and Battlefront so yes I find Nintendo fans calling Splatoon being the holy grail of how to make DLCs very pretentious and hypocritical when they could've delayed the game and finish it without locking content.

It doesn't matter if it is free. It's just hypocritical to use delays and dlcs in favor of Nintendo games yet don't give the same excuse to other games when they are games with different visions and budget. Then we have gamers calling devs lazy and greedy as if they're in charge of game development. Really feel bad for those devs who get those criticisms while some just escape it because reasons.

The fact the game doesn't even have voice chat really hurts Splatoon too but it's okay and forgotten because it's Nintendo. Honestly if an MP game this year didn't come with that, fans are gonna flip.

I got pretty bored of Splatoon after about a month or so and never got around to checking it out, so no, I'd say it wound up being a poor choice imo.