Nintendo Stands Tall Against DLC

Nintendo may be behind on the whole “DLC” concept but for a good reason. Reggie Fils-Aime has just stated why their games don’t provide DLC in their interview with AOL Games Blog.

“When we sell a game, we want the consumer to feel that they’ve had a complete experience. We’re unwilling to sell a piece of a game upfront and, if you will, force a consumer to buy more later. That’s what [Nintendo representatives] don’t want to do, and I completely agree. I think the consumer wants to get, for their money, a complete experience, and then we have opportunities to provide more on top of that.”

Whether you’re a fan of paying for additional content for your games or not is entirely your opinion. However, Nintendo’s philosophy is the same philosophy I’ve come to believe this generation. With games carrying a pretty hefty price tag to only then be told that you’re not getting a full experience is a little messed up. Most companies nowadays expect the player to shell out another 10-50 dollars on more content and it is getting a bit carried away. It’s understandable to have a little bit of DLC for certain games, depending on the scenario. However, there are numerous companies that love to store all the content on disc but demand you pay extra for an “unlock” key. Nintendo seems to be one of the very few that understands the consumer in this field.

Agree or disagree with Nintendo’s policy? Sound off in the comments below!

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS
  • Pingback: Nintendo stands against DLC | Steam Unpowered()

  • http://www.Reddit.com Artmeister

    Source!?

  • http://gravatar.com/jwnrb Jonathan

    I have no objections to DLC per se (free or not, like promotion codes on PS3), though getting additional characters in MK was cool, it probably wasn’t worth it, but for games like MK where you gain extra characters, or other games where you can get weapons earlier on, or weapons with larger sized magazines, but, I think when it gives you in game advantage (regardless if you are playing alone or multiple player (online or together with friends)), those options for upgrades shouldn’t be DLC for cost only. There should be a way, within the game, to get upgraded. Like in Zelda, you can buy better weapons, or higher capacity bomb bags by spending a lot of Rupees. If it is just to gain a new character in MK, I don’t care if it costs money, long as it is reasonable. Though I think unlocking characters from the Krypt would be better, if one wanted not to wait, then pay for it.

    • william

      You’re saying this with old games having all characters unlocked if you were good at the game. Why pay for extra skins over slightly changed moves?

    • jt1

      So basically you’re the group that has said its okay for companies to withhold anything they feel like unless one pays to get it?

      I get that there’s companies plan as they go, but the ones who already plan to withhold things from the get go are crooks

      • http://gravatar.com/jjmblue7 jjmblue7

        I think he’s saying they should include all content in the game, but allow you to pay to obtain items early that you would likely get near the the game or as a reward for a very difficult challenge (which some players, especially ones who don’t play many games, may not be able to complete). So players who don’t want to pay for it can wait and obtain it normally, and players who “want it right now!!!!” can pay. Now I can understand having DLC that wasn’t planned to originally be in the game, but was legitimately implemented later, like if a fighter game released new characters based on consumer feedback.

  • Orion Sune

    I agree completely. Having DLC with unlock keys and online profiles also prevents consumers from trading their games in after they have finished with them or at least de-values the trade in.

  • http://surpriseaholic.wordpress.com lucysurprise

    I completely agree—it’s refreshing not to have any “required” DLC from Nintendo

  • http://twitter.com/kitsunekit kitsunekit (@kitsunekit)

    No DLC Huh? Then explain why I can’t access some regions in my Pokemon game without jumping through unnecessary hoops like going to movie premieres, game stops and/or accessing the internet during specific windows of time? And if I buy the game late: I might as well throw out access to ~12% of the new Pokemon released in the latest generation since I can only get them through events you will stop running the moment the next generation is out.

    Just because its free doesn’t mean its not DLC.

    • http://twitter.com/AlanBlacks Rob Sussman (@AlanBlacks)

      Theres a difference between “Promotional Content” and “Downloadable Content”.

      • http://www.facebook.com/nickyjameslss Nicky James

        burn.

      • http://www.blendabout.com/home Alex_!1

        not much though, it’s still not included in the original disc. I remember when you had cartridges with all the content you needed.

      • Shawn

    • James

      There is a difference between a Nintendo game and a game released for a Nintendo console. Pokemon is on a Nintendo console, but it is not a game released by Nintendo.

      • BanalityDUFF

        lol, wut!

        google ‘pokemon’ and realise that everything you just said is false. Pokemon is a behemoth of the Nintendo family, right up there with Mario and Zelda.

      • Suffie

        Pokemon is developed by Game Freak who is basically a third party developer that Nintendo has a strong amount of interest in and holds a majority stock of. That doesn’t mean they completely own them in every regard. Regardless, Pokemon’s been around forever and they’ve been doing this for years before DLC. Not only that, but they do give out event pokemon from earlier generations from time to time depending on the event.

    • william

      Event Pokemon have been around since BEFORE DLC even started getting put out for consoles. Get an action replay if it’s really that important to you OR EV train and trade for the event one on the GTS.

      • http://twitter.com/kitsunekit kitsunekit (@kitsunekit)

        Its not about event pokemon. Its also about event-only locations in your game. There are set locations, events and story in the game only accessible to people who can unlock this special content by having the game at a specific time or getting it from a specific place at a specific time.

        And yes, Pokemon is made by a 3rd party developer. GameFreak is seen by most people as a 2nd party developer–but there is no legal definition for “second party”. So they are really “Third Party” with an unofficial and unwritten contract to work only with and for nintendo.

    • http://gravatar.com/jjmblue7 jjmblue7

      This is obviously talking about *paid* DLC. If it’s free, you have no right to complain. They aren’t twisting your arm and forcing you to get the DLC or risk failure, rathert the worst-case scenario is slightly more difficult play. This is especially true in the “Pokemon” games, where there are more than plenty of viable pokemon available in the game without DLC. “How dare you offer something free at a time that inconveniences me?!”

  • reddit

    Yes!

  • Wa-Z

    Sound like the moment, in which Nintendo will start doing it anyway. You can still present a complete game. But there is nothing bad, giving out some extra content after few weeks. And of course they had to design/code it, so you have to pay for it, if you want it.

    I am not against DLC, which provides extra content. But if you can’t finish the story, without buying the next level, this is just bad.

  • http://www.ebolaworld.com Sam

    I kind of agree with this, but I sure would’ve loved to been able to buy new tracks for Mario Kart Wii.

  • Morten

    Im playing xbox360 and the fact that i have to pay for some extra downloadable content is fine by me.. if you take a game like Forza Motorsport 4, it’s a huge game to begin with.. they don’t force you to buy the extra stuff they realese once every month, so it’s totally up to yourself if you want it or not..

    • Shawn

      See, DLC is cool if it’s a stream of constant updates. I play WoW and I dont mind the subscription fee because they add new dungeons and zones every now and then. I think the thing that gets on people’s nerves is the fact that developers purposefully lock away content to squeeze another 10 bucks out of you. Sure you aren’t FORCED to purchase it but you feel like you’re missing out unless you do. The video game industry is a 15 billion dollar a year cash cow, it’s greed pure and simple.

      • andrew c

        Its not greed, its business sense. I hate what they’re doing but as long as people buy it, they’re not the ones at fault, its a consumer-based industry and when the consumer is willing to pay for DLC, they will keep making it and probably ramping the price up

      • Josh

        Andrew C — You are wrong. It’s not the consumer-based industry’s fault, because we are not the ones that control it.

        These companies have the end-all say when it comes to what they charge, because people WANT those games. They actively choose to exploit that.

        It’s a matter of principle, you can call it ‘business sense’ but reality is it’s exploitation. People will purchase the content, whether it’s released with the game or not. If these companies feel it’s a Business Sense to charge more, then at least have the decency to be upfront about it and charge more for the game in the first place. Holding back content is not the way to do it.

      • Contraculto

        This.

  • Simon

    I wish they made more games I was interested in playing because this is a company stance I could support.

  • http://gravatar.com/malminos malminos

    I think thats the idea…

  • Josh

    Nintendo hits the spot on this take.

    There is nothing more frustrating than picking up a brand-new game, only to find out you’re getting about 75% of the content. No worries! For an additional fee beyond the average game purchase of $59.99; you can spend another $10 – $60 to see the ENTIRE game.

    This is absurd, either charge more for the game on release, or include all of the content.

    This is NOT to say that adding additional content later is bad. I am all for adding more content later on. DLC is fine when used within reason; but that is not what I’m referring to.

    This specifically targets those companies that create a game, and hold back a certain amount of prime content at release, only to make another quick buck. It’s greedy; Customers and Gamers don’t deserve this nonsense.

  • http://www.selectstudio.tv/ Alan

    I totally agree with their approach. The DLC disease is spreading, and it’s nice to see someone like Nintendo fighting it.

  • dimmerster

    Well personally I agree with the point about it depending on the scenario. FYI in the COD series they make the DLCs with the game, then release them later to earn extra revenue (much like an accountant will take profits from one year and put them on the books in hte next one to make things look better).

    This is a case where it is bad but in a game like Skyrim where you are buying essentailly a new, smaller game with it the I agree.

    My third point to make is that now you can buy games in parts. Fable 2 (being essentially a game of three thirds, three main parts to it) was sold on XBL store in its three sections for a portion of the price.

  • Pingback: Nintendo Stands Tall Against DLC - ggFTW()

  • Sopt

    So where are the Goldeneye007 Cheats then…

  • http://www.facebook.com/Usagihime Kelly Lee T

    I support Nintendo on this 100%. Who has the money nowadays? One of the big reasons I don’t like playing online games, MMO’s and such-if I buy something once, the only reason I should pay any more towards that game is if I sell/buy again or buy a version on another system, like FFIV’s complete collection on the PSP. Such a rip-off to never have a ‘complete’ game for a lot of the newer stuff coming out, give me my old school PS1/PS2 RPG’s if that’s how it’s going to be.

  • http://ynext.wordpress.com yNext Generation

    Hi, Excellent post, I like the way of your writing, Thanks a lot for the information.

  • Pingback: Numerator Games » Blog Archive » Nintendo Standing Tall Against DLC()

  • charlie

    i totally love Nintendo’s view on this; i hate little more than buying a £40 Xbox 360 game, only to find out that the best bits cost WAY more in DLC (*COUGH*BurnoutSeries*COUGH*)

  • Cal

    I love Nintendo but this statement is full of s***. If they care so much about consumers’ wallets they wouldnt make a video game system that had all these other gimmicky accessories that you have to buy to play other games. Downloadable content is just an option, it’s not extortion as they’re making it seem. Seems pretty low to be talking s*** about other companies when they’re famous for making available expensive accessories that are only good for a handful of games which you also have to buy.

    • http://argus9.wordpress.com argus9

      I wouldn’t necessarily see it that way. Sure, there are some peripherals that Nintendo has made in the past that didn’t really go anywhere (Game Boy Camera / Printer anyone?), but there are some that have become integral in the console’s experience. Take the Wii Motion Plus add-on. It’s really changing the way the console is going by allowing for 1-to-1 movement matching. If you play Zelda: Skyward Sword, you’ll notice that Link will actually swing his sword in the exact same way that you move your WiiMote.

      Sure, we could argue that Nintendo may have made these devices as a gimmick for a quick revenue boost, but there really isn’t any conclusive evidence to support that. It’s all determined by the consumer. It’s more likely Nintendo came out with these innovative peripherals to try to expand the experience, and after seeing what works, continue on with it. Nintendo didn’t become the company it is today by throwing a bunch of gimmicks at us.

  • Shane

    There is a big problem with how this article is stated. First of all its about DLC. Downloadable content by definition is not required to play the game but increases the value of the game experience after release. Expansions are a type of DLC that is designed as a second game that takes place in the same world. Also there is something called patches or updates. These are needed to fix bugs and keep games running smoothly or balanced. Most games that ship do have the full experience. the difference in that the developers have decided that after the game has been finalized for launch that they have an idea and that it might be fun to add on.. that is what makes up the DLC. It is not that the developer wanted to short change you. Its they had a late idea or an idea they didn’t know how to originally fit into the story or one of the game modes.
    Second most DLC is not a “you have to buy to complete the original story.” Now there are exceptions to this and i think its completely wrong.
    Third if nintendo has a problem with forcing people to buy a update for 15 bucks then they should give us controllers that work with legend of zelda skyward sword without forcing the consumer to buy a wii motion plus controller ($39.99). Thats basically the same premise.

  • Pingback: New Super Mario Bros. 2 With Paid DLC; Nintendo Contradicting Themselves? — Gamers XTREME()

Email
Print