Like, what single bit of difference would that do? You're getting the same amount of content either way.
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
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.
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
Like, what single bit of difference would that do? You're getting the same amount of content either way.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.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.
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
Wrong threadYea 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
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?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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Release an unfinished game, get a shit score.
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.
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.
12 maps and paid DLC v 5 maps and free DLCYea 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
review what's available at launch and be done with it
no updated review scores or any of those shenanigans
So what magical pricing scheme would you have preferred?
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?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.
Or they could finish the game and release it in August.
12 maps and paid DLC v 5 maps and free DLC
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?
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.
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.
40 bucks like Captain Toad maybe.
The base game will comes with more content then the free stuff though...
You are essentially paying for a $60 season pass with promise of exciting content in the future. Mind you, this content cannot be reviewed from critics nor can people read hands on impressions of this type of content from consumers who purchased the game on day one. I don't want to pay full price for something ahead of time if I don't know it's going to be halfway decent
It's anti-consumer and it's bullshit.
Can I play it when I buy it? No? Then it's not part of the launch product.
Hard to imagine when Battlefront 3 has no single-player content at all. I'm actually hard pressed to understand how you could even remotely make such a claim?
You should be paying 60$ 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.
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.
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.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.
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.holy shit this post
"Free Splatoon title updates are going to ruin video games! You'll see! YOU'LL ALL SEE!"
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.
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.
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.
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.
I didn't say it's part of the launch product, it's part of the $60.
It's impossible to pay $60 and only receive "a game of 5 maps". This purchase does not exist.
False
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.