How should reviewers handle Splatoon's online being gradually rolled out?

Dr. Black Jack said:
Like, what single bit of difference would that do? You're getting the same amount of content either way.
Click to expand...

It makes the initial valve of the title better.

Most sales for games are in the first month and for a game to come out with as little mutiplayer content as it does will hurt.

Asking people to hey just wait and you will get your content may not get them to stay.
 
Ray Down said:
Why launch a 60 dollar game with a mutiplayer focus when it has so little.

Just release it when it has more then, heck August might be a better month.
Click to expand...

The target audience for the game is out of school come May/June. Best time to launch a new game and try to get them hooked for the summer. At least that makes some sense to me when I think of it like that.
 
Answer is simple:

Review it, rate it, but write at the End that the Game is being Updated with much Content, so People won't get the wrong Idea.

Done.
 
impact said:
Yea but it's Nintendo so they get a pass

Weren't people bitching when Battlefront was confirmed to be shipping with TWELVE maps? Oh yea... EA
Click to expand...

Different people. I, for one, wasn't bitching at Battlefront or EA for telling me exactly what they were selling. (Battlefront 3 also has no single player component, at all.)
 
Dr. Black Jack said:
Like, what single bit of difference would that do? You're getting the same amount of content either way.
Click to expand...

Selling a portion of a product at full retail price and promising the rest of it months later is incredibly anti-consumer. No company, least of which Nintendo, should engage in such a practice.
 
Zornack said:
Selling half a product at full retail price and promising the rest of it months later is incredibly anti-consumer. No company, least of which Nintendo, should engage in such a practice.
Click to expand...

They aren't selling half a product. Again, the game was advertised as this (everything it currently contains) for months with some vague hints on additional modes and maps post-release. If you don't think its worth the money is another issue and one that Nintendo will have to deal with, but that has nothing to do with "half of a game" any more than saying that no game is ever a full game anymore because it has post-launch releases.

Reviewers will judge accordingly based on what gets released, as they should.

There is no "half" here unless.
 
Hermii said:
After some googling I found out that the 28 levels source is a fourchan "leak" that also claimed the SP was 14 hours and had sunshine levels lol.
Click to expand...

The game has probably around 28 levels based on the total number of scrolls shown in the Direct.
 
Zornack said:
Selling a portion of a product at full retail price and promising the rest of it months later is incredibly anti-consumer. No company, least of which Nintendo, should engage in such a practice.
Click to expand...

Explain your logic

Seriously people keep coming into this topic and declaring "This practice is ____!" without backing it up at all. I've explained myself a great number of times in this thread now.
 
Vena said:
They aren't selling half a product. Again, the game was advertised as this (everything it currently contains) for months with some vague hints on additional modes and maps post-release. If you don't think its worth the money is another issue and one that Nintendo will have to deal with, but that has nothing to do with "half of a game" any more than saying that no game is ever a full game anymore because it has post-launch releases.

Reviewers will judge accordingly based on what gets released, as they should.

There is no "half" here unless.
Click to expand...

.
 
Zornack said:
Selling a portion of a product at full retail price and promising the rest of it months later is incredibly anti-consumer. No company, least of which Nintendo, should engage in such a practice.
Click to expand...

No, anti-consumer is to announce that all that was announced would be available at launch then reveal after people bought the game that most of the content was incomplete. First off, we have known the full product for months. It was revealed that more content would be added (and assuredly constantly updated) in this Direct. They have been nothing but transparent this entire time. How in the nine hells is this anti-consumer?
 
Vena said:
They aren't selling half a product. Again, the game was advertised as this (everything it currently contains) for months with some vague hints on additional modes and maps post-release. If you don't think its worth the money is another issue and one that Nintendo will have to deal with, but that has nothing to do with "half of a game" any more than saying that no game is ever a full game anymore because it has post-launch releases.

Reviewers will judge accordingly based on what gets released, as they should.

There is no "half" here unless.
Click to expand...

xaszatm said:
No, anti-consumer is to announce that all that was announced would be available at launch then reveal after people bought the game that most of the content was incomplete. First off, we have known the full product for months. It was revealed that more content would be added (and assuredly constantly updated) in this Direct. They have been nothing but transparent this entire time. How in the nine hells is this anti-consumer?
Click to expand...

That doesn't change the fact that they're selling a game for $60 that launches with 5 maps, 1 MP mode and a 3-5 hour campaign.

Advertising that you're selling an overpriced product with a lack of content doesn't make it consumer friendly.
 
Vena said:
The game is not half finished. The game is launching as has been advertised for months, and they've now added two additional modes down the line. Go read the EDGE interview on this from this months issue, that was written a month ago and had this exact same information in it. More modes were also promised in said EDGE article post-launch, with Turf and Splat on launch.

The game is launching as advertised. You seem to have no concept of what is an actual half-finished game, for that I suggest Steam Early Access.



Its the competitive mode, wouldn't make much sense for it to be unlocked with no one at or above level 10.
Click to expand...
Sure it does lol, people can still be competitive when they first start that save file. Assuming new players wouldn't want to play the competitive mode is what I mean by saying its condescendin g.
 
Hugstable said:
Disappointed is one thing



That's trying to tell us that we are contributing to some sort of problem just because we waant to get a game we might like
Click to expand...

This is my stance as well.

Being disappointed is one thing. I had expected more content than this at launch, and thus I am disappointed I will have to wait.

The outrage however is baffling me. Nintendo is being completely transparent with what's on offer here, and what's coming down the line. If they haven't convinced you buying the game now is a good deal, then don't. That's their loss. But there's nothing shady about this, there is very little in terms of problematic elements (the Amiibo-stuff is, but that's another topic). What am I supposed to be angry about?
 
Zornack said:
Selling a portion of a product at full retail price and promising the rest of it months later is incredibly anti-consumer. No company, least of which Nintendo, should engage in such a practice.
Click to expand...
Is there a list detailing the content that was announced months ago that for many was enough for a full retail price, versus today that it no longer is?

So far, I haven't seen less content than promised. So, maybe I missed it. Asked earlier but no replies. Would like to see all the content that was announced, then removed that makes it only a portion of originally promised.
 
Zornack said:
Selling a portion of a product at full retail price and promising the rest of it months later is incredibly anti-consumer. No company, least of which Nintendo, should engage in such a practice.
Click to expand...

It's not "anti consumer" because you're impatient. The content is FREE, as in no cost. This isn't a case of the game being bugged/unplayable/etc until it's patched, or Nintendo milking with promised features as paid DLC. They're telling you exactly what you'll get for $60 on day one...how is that "anti consumer"?
 
Zornack said:
That doesn't change the fact that they're selling a game for $60 that launches with 5 maps, 1 MP mode and a 3-5 hour campaign.

Advertising that you're selling an overpriced product with a lack of content doesn't make it consumer friendly.
Click to expand...

Alright, I see we're just making up numbers now. Carry on.

(PS: Anti-consumer would be when you sell something that (a.) isn't as advertised, or (b.) made to make the life miserable for the consumer unless they spend more. Like, for example, a N3DS without a charger.)

Beelzebufo said:
Sure it does lol, people can still be competitive when they first start that save file. Assuming new players wouldn't want to play the competitive mode is what I mean by saying its condescendin g.
Click to expand...

They would have no one to be competitive against and, all things considered, if there are that many competitive people, it would take a day at most for the mode to unlock globally.

They aren't assuming that people wouldn't want it, statistically when the game launches there would be next to none because no one would know how to play the game.
 
They should review what's on the disc, and make note of what the announced future will bring.

If Nintendo wants to play with the release formula of a traditional game, then they shouldn't have stuck with traditional pricing.
 
Zornack said:
That doesn't change the fact that they're selling a game for $60 that launches with 5 maps, 1 MP mode and a 3-5 hour campaign.

Advertising that you're selling an overpriced product with a lack of content doesn't make it consumer friendly.
Click to expand...

Can we please wait for the game to come out first before claiming just how long you think the single player and using it as an arguement the game is starved for content.
 
Gamer @ Heart said:
They should review what's on the disc, and make note of what the announced future will bring.

If Nintendo wants to play with the release formula of a traditional game, then they shouldn't have stuck with traditional pricing.
Click to expand...

I'm still wondering why its full priced in NA but not Europe.
 
Vena said:
Alright, I see we're just making up numbers now. Carry on.

(PS: Anti-consumer would be when you sell something that (a.) isn't as advertised, or (b.) made to make the life miserable for the consumer unless they spend more. Like, for example, a N3DS without a charger.)

They would have no one to be competitive against and, all things considered, if there are that many competitive people, it would take a day at most for the mode to unlock globally.

They aren't assuming that people wouldn't want it, statistically when the game launches there would be next to none because no one would know how to play the game.
Click to expand...
That's still a completely arbitrary restriction lol, it's ridiculous. There's no reason for that mode to be locked. You might as well lock online in general until enough players have completed the tutorial haha. It's just ridiculous, I wonder if they're worried about server loads and that's what they're using as an excuse? Or it's not done?
 
Zombie James said:
Or they could finish the game and release it in August.
Click to expand...

Why? There are a lot of people who will enjoy the game with the launch multiplayer content and the single player. There are other multiplayer games that had less content at launch.

People who can only enjoy the game with 10 maps instead of 5 could simply wait until august. No one is forced to buy it right now.

Besides the content updates are all free, so who cares.
 
You are essentially paying for a $60 season pass with promise of exciting content in the future. Mind you, this content cannot be reviewed from critics nor can people read hands on impressions of this type of content from consumers who purchased the game on day one. I don't want to pay full price for something ahead of time if I don't know it's going to be halfway decent.

I'm glad you have faith that developers and publishers will deliver worthwhile content post launch, but I've been burned countless times by disappointing content from high profile developers (Halo 4's additional maps were utter trash)... all because I decided I would pay for content I didn't know what it exactly was or the quality of it upfront. It's not even necessarily about the worry that Nintendo is going to mismanage this content post-release, it's that other developers will see that Splatoon was still successful in spite of releasing in a half finished state and deciding to do the same in the future.

It's anti-consumer and it's bullshit.
 
Beelzebufo said:
That's still a completely arbitrary restriction lol, it's ridiculous. There's no reason for that mode to be locked. You might as well lock online in general until enough players have completed the tutorial haha. It's just ridiculous, I wonder if they're worried about server loads and that's what they're using as an excuse? Or it's not done?
Click to expand...

I see some precedent with Splat Zones having a user quota. Due to the Level 10 restriction there's no accounting for when there will be enough players to sustain a regular battle to jump into, and previews have already mentioned that they leveled their squids up fairly quickly.

The whole "locked" thing is really being thought into too much honestly. Chances are when the game hits Japan there'll have already been a plethora of people to have reached Level 10. It's probably not even going to take more than a weekend. People get accustomed to Turf War by that time and then they're gold to jump in.

Chances are, the Review copies already have this mode unlocked for them.
 
Zornack said:
That doesn't change the fact that they're selling a game for $60 that launches with 5 maps, 1 MP mode and a 3-5 hour campaign.

Advertising that you're selling an overpriced product with a lack of content doesn't make it consumer friendly.
Click to expand...

I'm just going to ignore the part you're making up.

No, this is not what they're selling at launch. The complete package comes with the launch product. If you buy the game at launch, you're buying August's content. You will have August's content no matter what, it is part of the transaction.

You can't just cut out the content you're receiving just because it isn't there at launch. If you don't like what's there at launch then don't buy it yet.
 
GuessMyUserName said:
I'm just going to ignore the part you're making up.

No, this is not what they're selling at launch. The complete package comes with the launch product. If you buy the game at launch, you're buying August's content. You will have August's content no matter what, it is part of the transaction.

You can't just cut out the content you're receiving just because it isn't there at launch. If you don't like what's there at launch then don't buy it yet.
Click to expand...

Can I play it when I buy it? No? Then it's not part of the launch product.
 
Ray Down said:
The base game will comes with more content then the free stuff though...
Click to expand...

Hard to imagine when Battlefront 3 has no single-player content at all. I'm actually hard pressed to understand how you could even remotely make such a claim? (Or why you would be comparing DLC to a full game?)

Vire said:
You are essentially paying for a $60 season pass with promise of exciting content in the future. Mind you, this content cannot be reviewed from critics nor can people read hands on impressions of this type of content from consumers who purchased the game on day one. I don't want to pay full price for something ahead of time if I don't know it's going to be halfway decent
Click to expand...

You should be paying 60$ for the content on the disc, if you do not think that is worth it (as you are an informed consumer because the product is being advertised to you openly) then you do not buy it.

Vire said:
It's anti-consumer and it's bullshit.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what this means, it would seem.
 
As always, they should review what's there. If the online sucks the game should be docked for it. You can't review a game based on promises of what's to come. Too bad for Nintendo I guess, but don't deliver an unfinished game then.
 
Vena said:
Hard to imagine when Battlefront 3 has no single-player content at all. I'm actually hard pressed to understand how you could even remotely make such a claim?



You should be paying 60$ for the content on the disc, if you do not think that is worth it (as you are an informed consumer because the product is being advertised to you openly) then you do not buy it.



You have no idea what this means, it would seem.
Click to expand...

False
 
Vire said:
You are essentially paying for a $60 season pass with promise of exciting content in the future. Mind you, this content cannot be reviewed from critics nor can people read hands on impressions of this type of content from consumers who purchased the game on day one. I don't want to pay full price for something ahead of time if I don't know it's going to be halfway decent.

I'm glad you have faith that developers and publishers will deliver worthwhile content post launch, but I've been burned countless times by disappointing content from high profile developers (Halo 4's additional maps were utter trash)... all because I decided I would pay for content I didn't know what it exactly was or the quality of it upfront. It's not even necessarily about the worry that Nintendo is going to mismanage this content post-release, it's that other developers will see that Splatoon was still successful in spite of releasing in a half finished state and deciding to do the same in the future.

It's anti-consumer and it's bullshit.
Click to expand...

holy shit this post

"Free Splatoon title updates are going to ruin video games! You'll see! YOU'LL ALL SEE!"
 
GuessMyUserName said:
I'm just going to ignore the part you're making up.

No, this is not what they're selling at launch. The complete package comes with the launch product. If you buy the game at launch, you're buying August's content. You will have August's content no matter what, it is part of the transaction.

You can't just cut out the content you're receiving just because it isn't there at launch. If you don't like what's there at launch then don't buy it yet.
Click to expand...
It isn't part of the transaction because it isn't part of the game at launch, it will be free dlc in August but the game deserves to be judged on the launch content and not anything coming after.

Nintendo is dropping the ball with the content in this game and I don't understand how you can defend it. It's great they are releasing content coming up for a couple months but doesn't excuse launch.

Dr. Black Jack said:
holy shit this post

"Free Splatoon title updates are going to ruin video games! You'll see! YOU'LL ALL SEE!"
Click to expand...
That's not what he is saying, what he is saying is Nintendo is delivering a game that is lacking content in May and Yes they promise more dlc coming in the next couple months but that doesn't excuse the launch product and it's ridiculous that you are defending them doing this.

Any other Publisher / Developer would be torn apart by doing this but Nintendo gets a pass for some reason.
 
Lothars said:
It isn't part of the transaction because it isn't part of the game at launch, it will be free dlc in August but the game deserves to be judged on the launch content and not anything coming after.

Nintendo is dropping the ball with the content in this game and I don't understand how you can defend it. It's great they are releasing content coming up for a couple months but doesn't excuse launch.
Click to expand...


Vire said:
You are essentially paying for a $60 season pass with promise of exciting content in the future. Mind you, this content cannot be reviewed from critics nor can people read hands on impressions of this type of content from consumers who purchased the game on day one. I don't want to pay full price for something ahead of time if I don't know it's going to be halfway decent.

I'm glad you have faith that developers and publishers will deliver worthwhile content post launch, but I've been burned countless times by disappointing content from high profile developers (Halo 4's additional maps were utter trash)... all because I decided I would pay for content I didn't know what it exactly was or the quality of it upfront. It's not even necessarily about the worry that Nintendo is going to mismanage this content post-release, it's that other developers will see that Splatoon was still successful in spite of releasing in a half finished state and deciding to do the same in the future.

It's anti-consumer and it's bullshit.
Click to expand...


Ignores Mario Kart 8, Hyrule warriors, etc...

which is all Nintendo doing it right.


Let's wait til the real game is out and reviewed before judging what it doesn't have to be considered a full price game that gave full warning that free updates would make the Online components more comparable to other online multiplayer game features
 
Vire said:
You are essentially paying for a $60 season pass with promise of exciting content in the future. Mind you, this content cannot be reviewed from critics nor can people read hands on impressions of this type of content from consumers who purchased the game on day one. I don't want to pay full price for something ahead of time if I don't know it's going to be halfway decent.

I'm glad you have faith that developers and publishers will deliver worthwhile content post launch, but I've been burned countless times by disappointing content from high profile developers (Halo 4's additional maps were utter trash)... all because I decided I would pay for content I didn't know what it exactly was or the quality of it upfront. It's not even necessarily about the worry that Nintendo is going to mismanage this content post-release, it's that other developers will see that Splatoon was still successful in spite of releasing in a half finished state and deciding to do the same in the future.

It's anti-consumer and it's bullshit.
Click to expand...

Just don't buy the game then
 
GuessMyUserName said:
People want to play the game now.

No matter what by the time of August it's the exact same scenario, the only difference being that many people enjoy the game sooner this way.
Click to expand...

Well then just release all games now because people want to play it now. Some of the arguments here are getting absurd.
 
RoadHazard said:
As always, they should review what's there. If the online sucks the game should be docked for it. You can't review a game based on promises of what's to come. Too bad for Nintendo I guess, but don't deliver an unfinished game then.
Click to expand...

What I'm getting here is that they shouldn't have announced the free updates until after launch because so many people are equating "free updates" to "anti-consumer locked content". If the updates were announced in August, this thread wouldn't even exist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I adore roguelikes but i hate how some of them handle difficulty
4
89
Brakum replied
For how long should the current-gen last?
2 3 4
166
713
PeteBull replied
we're being priced out of our hobby.
7 8 9 10 11
532
21K
Baemono replied
Switch 2 is a magnificent little beast. Can it handle GTA6?
2 3 4
170
732
Hyet replied
Was the playstation portal reception initially poor then gradually became popular?
8
554
Loomy replied
Top Bottom