Super Mario Maker: Not all tools available from the start, unlock over 9 days

Programmer: Isn't this pointless and a waste of time?

Nintendo: Nah. Nintendo fans like getting talked down to and we can give them access to things sloooooowly. After all it's obviously too overwhelming for them to get all the content at once. They might get too confused. We have to show the dumb masses how to do this stuff.

It's a Brave New World~~
 
Mael said:
This justifies EA, ATVI, Take2 and the others so why not Nintendo?
There's not special.
Nintendo is chasing the hardcore with the WiiU, expect the customers to be treated the same way the competitors' customers are treated.
Click to expand...

Well, being honest, at least EA, Take2 and others are competent about it.

And last time I checked, people still complain about it, and not always work (Hello Evolve!)
 
wild wild rice said:
Eh, my statement wasn't really meant to anything more than slightly silly.

You play games, stuff unlocks. Seems the same with Mario Maker even if it's of a different genre. How have "maker" games in the past handled this? I never got past the tutorial of LBP and haven't played any others.
Click to expand...

You play games, stuff unlocks. You play Super Mario Maker, stuff unlocks that you can't use until the next day and the progression system is locked until the next day as well.

What a horribly stupid idea.
 
TheBaronOfNA said:
Well, being honest, at least EA, Take2 and others are competent about it.

And last time I checked, people still complain about it, and not always work (Hello Evolve!)
Click to expand...

Looking at GTAO, I wouldn't say they're competent about it.
People complain but it sell better than ever so something tells me that they're onto something.
 
Unlocks in games are generally stupid. Why do you have to spend an incredible amount of time unlocking all the weapons and costume items in Smash Bros.? Nobody knows. Give us the content we paid for, please.
 
Forkball said:
This is perhaps one of the dumbest things ever implemented into a game. There is no reason for this at all. Do they think people will be overwhelmed? Instead of locking them per day, how about just require a certain number of maps made before parts unlock? Like create one stage for the first row, two stages to unlock the second row etc.

2016 NINTENDO PREVIEW:

Pokemon: One gym will be unlocked each day.
Zelda: One dungeon will be unlocked each day.
Fire Emblem: You can only start with swords, axes are unlocked on day two, then lances on day three etc.
Metroid: One power up will be unlocked each day.
Mario Kart: One track will be unlocked each day.
Kirby: You can only swallow one thing per day.
Click to expand...

Please. Nintendo's currently requiring you buy a completely different game and wait for a fucking event to happen before you get all the Pokemon in XY. A gym unlocked a day is the least amount of fuckery they could throw into the franchise at this point.
 
freethoughtbubble said:
Of course it serves a purpose: it encourages players to learn to make stages gradually, beginning with the basic building blocks (literally) and upping the complexity in a controlled manner. I consider myself to be an intelligent, independent, well-adjusted adult, and I have no real problem with this approach. I'm not a level-designer by trade, after all. I appreciate the structure. Not everyone has to, but to say this is arbitrary or lacks any sort of redeeming quality is a bit unfair.

The way I see it, this approach seeks to accomplish a couple of things, some of which have been mentioned already:

1. It encourages players to experiment with all of the tools rather than sticking to a relative few. Most of us have likely experienced this phenomenon before: give people a universe of options and many will simply stick to what's safe and familiar.

2. It encourages players to learn the basics of creating a level before descending into Kaizo inspired madness. This could lead to higher quality over all, although this remains to be seen of course.

3. Relatedly, it ensures that there will be a range of different level types and difficulties -- from simple to complex, and from easy to hard. This is a very good thing for new players. It ensures that these players will always have a healthy amount of levels that they can play through and enjoy as they become better at the game, while experienced players will still have all the diabolical levels they can stomach.

I think it's actually a pretty smart way to go about things. The alternatives seem either easily exploitable or contrived. A level requirement will encourage slapdash designs in the rush to unlock content. A system that measures "skill" sounds good on paper, but how do you quantify that exactly? Some have said that it should be based on hours actually played, but that has its own problems. Not everyone has the time to play a game for even an hour a day. For these people unlocking everything could take even longer than 9 days, depending on how the unlocks are structured. Tutorials are boring even in bombastic action games -- what makes people think that they would be more palatable or effective here? A complicated tutorial would be a turn-off for many gamers and reviewers, and a simple one would defeat the purpose entirely.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this, you explained my own thoughts much more clearly.

Even as someone who is personally annoyed by this (I don't like waiting!), I think it's understandable. Just, well, annoying.
 
The Pokemon thing doesn't even work and that's all GameFreak if they did that. Competitive players would also like drop them and Pokemon would lose millions of sales from their competitive players who do this for scholarships and prizes.
 
Tinfoilhatsron said:
Programmer: Isn't this pointless and a waste of time?

Nintendo: Nah. Nintendo fans like getting talked down to and we can give them access to things sloooooowly. After all it's obviously too overwhelming for them to get all the content at once. They might get too confused. We have to show the dumb masses how to do this stuff.

It's a Brave New World~~
Click to expand...
Judging by this thread, they may be on to something
 
Lol @ the people saying they've cancelled their pre order because of this. I do enjoy a good overreaction.

I don't see how people can get so mad when everything in that new trailer looks fucking outstanding. I can't wait to hear you all shout GAF or something every time I hit a question mark.
 
TheBaronOfNA said:
I think you just contradicted yourself right there.
Click to expand...
Not really, publishers throw shit at the wall , people complain but still buy.
I'd say they don't need to be competent about throwing shit at the wall.

CorvoSol said:
Please. Nintendo's currently requiring you buy a completely different game and wait for a fucking event to happen before you get all the Pokemon in XY. A gym unlocked a day is the least amount of fuckery they could throw into the franchise at this point.
Click to expand...

Pokemon is like that since forever, heck in XY if you want megastones you can only get them between 20h and 21h.
This is nothing in comparison.
Remember when to get a special even pokemon you needed to go to a theatre see a shitty pkmn film?
 
I still predict people making a lot of Kaizo Mario like stages in this game because Kaizo Mario or as everyone here is calling it, "Asshole Mario," power ups are not really ever used outside of the mushroom to pass through things with your invincibility frames.


EDIT: But that also speaks volumes to the creativity of just using basic objects and the game's mechanics to do that.

I seriously think everyone is underestimating their own creativity and other people's creativity.
 
I have been debating whether to get Mario Maker or not now. I am kinda annoyed by the unlocking mechanism but my question is the price.

Is it really worth 70 bucks Canadian for a game that really is just a mario level maker with not much of a story?

Money isn't a concern but I'm just not sure if I want to pay 70 bucks for a level editor with not much story and a good probably that this will get old quick.
 
freethoughtbubble said:
I've been reading this thread with abject fascination. I get why some are frustrated by the idea of being made to wait for content. Some feel patronized. Others simply don't want to wait. But what I can't understand is the people saying that this is arbitrary or serves no purpose.

Of course it serves a purpose: it encourages players to learn to make stages gradually, beginning with the basic building blocks (literally) and upping the complexity in a controlled manner. I consider myself to be an intelligent, independent, well-adjusted adult, and I have no real problem with this approach. I'm not a level-designer by trade, after all. I appreciate the structure. Not everyone has to, but to say this is arbitrary or lacks any sort of redeeming quality is a bit unfair.

The way I see it, this approach seeks to accomplish a couple of things, some of which have been mentioned already:

1. It encourages players to experiment with all of the tools rather than sticking to a relative few. Most of us have likely experienced this phenomenon before: give people a universe of options and many will simply stick to what's safe and familiar.

2. It encourages players to learn the basics of creating a level before descending into Kaizo inspired madness. This could lead to higher quality over all, although this remains to be seen of course.

3. Relatedly, it ensures that there will be a range of different level types and difficulties -- from simple to complex, and from easy to hard. This is a very good thing for new players. It ensures that these players will always have a healthy amount of levels that they can play through and enjoy as they become better at the game, while experienced players will still have all the diabolical levels they can stomach.

I think it's actually a pretty smart way to go about things. The alternatives seem either easily exploitable or contrived. A level requirement will encourage slapdash designs in the rush to unlock content. A system that measures "skill" sounds good on paper, but how do you quantify that exactly? Some have said that it should be based on hours actually played, but that has its own problems. Not everyone has the time to play a game for even an hour a day. For these people unlocking everything could take even longer than 9 days, depending on how the unlocks are structured. Tutorials are boring even in bombastic action games -- what makes people think that they would be more palatable or effective here? A complicated tutorial would be a turn-off for many gamers and reviewers, and a simple one would defeat the purpose entirely.
Click to expand...

Thank you for bringing some sanity to this forum.
 
Mael said:
Not really, publishers throw shit at the wall , people complain but still buy.
I'd say they don't need to be competent about throwing shit at the wall.
Click to expand...

Then again, GTO still makes money and Evolve is dead in the water... But hey, they are not into something because they are successful in making people want to unlock and buy shit... Welp.
 
Forkball said:
2016 NINTENDO PREVIEW:

Pokemon: One gym will be unlocked each day but can be sped up through the use of premium currency.
Zelda: One dungeon will be unlocked each day.
Fire Emblem: You can only start with swords, axes are unlocked on day two, then lances on day three etc.
Mario Kart: One track will be unlocked each day.
Kirby: You can only swallow one thing per day.
Click to expand...

I fixed your list for you.
 
JeTmAn81 said:
Unlocks in games are generally stupid. Why do you have to spend an incredible amount of time unlocking all the weapons and costume items in Smash Bros.? Nobody knows. Give us the content we paid for, please.
Click to expand...

See there's two trains of thought.

Some people like unlocking things so they get stuff for playing. Others want everything right away.

Is one side wrong and the other right? I'm not sure. The trouble with putting in an option to auto unlock everything is you're making the side who like unlocking things feel bad and giving them an iherent disadvantage forcing them to use it.
 
freethoughtbubble said:
I've been reading this thread with abject fascination. I get why some are frustrated by the idea of being made to wait for content. Some feel patronized. Others simply don't want to wait. But what I can't understand is the people saying that this is arbitrary or serves no purpose.

Of course it serves a purpose: it encourages players to learn to make stages gradually, beginning with the basic building blocks (literally) and upping the complexity in a controlled manner. I consider myself to be an intelligent, independent, well-adjusted adult, and I have no real problem with this approach. I'm not a level-designer by trade, after all. I appreciate the structure. Not everyone has to, but to say this is arbitrary or lacks any sort of redeeming quality is a bit unfair.

The way I see it, this approach seeks to accomplish a couple of things, some of which have been mentioned already:

[Freethoughtbubble continues to hit the nail on the head]
Click to expand...

Honestly I think this is actually a clever move on Nintendo's part. Makes way more sense than half of the stuff they have done with Splatoon.

But just to show I'm not some kind of Nintendo Apologist who would praise anything they do, the lack of YouTube support so gamers can "discover the levels themselves" is dumb.
 
StayDead said:
See there's two trains of thought.

Some people like unlocking things so they get stuff for playing. Others want everything right away.

Is one side wrong and the other right? I'm not sure. The trouble with putting in an option to auto unlock everything is you're making the side who like unlocking things feel bad and giving them an iherent disadvantage forcing them to use it.
Click to expand...

The problem is not the unlocking but that the unlocking doesn't make sense, it's done by a timer and is arbitrary to the eyes of many.
 
davidbruy said:
I have been debating whether to get Mario Maker or not now. I am kinda annoyed by the unlocking mechanism but my question is the price.

Is it really worth 70 bucks Canadian for a game that really is just a mario level maker with not much of a story?

Money isn't a concern but I'm just not sure if I want to pay 70 bucks for a level editor with not much story and a good probably that this will get old quick.
Click to expand...
You have a LBP avatar so I guess the level editor interest you in some manner.
There's still 60 premade level to finish and the community aspect to it.
If the level editor isn't interesting to you, it's really a collection of levels more than anything and there's already a packload of content on the disc.
I'd say if you don't like Mario platformers in general, avoid.
If you like playing Mario levels you should totally get this.

TheBaronOfNA said:
Then again, GTO still makes money and Evolve is dead in the water... But hey, they are not into something because they are successful in making people want to unlock and buy shit... Welp.
Click to expand...

Actually considering how the industry works unlock method doesn't really factor in how a game succeed or not more than other factor.
The method used here wouldn't kill most games, it's not going to sink this one and they won't pull that shit on their lesser project either.
 
freethoughtbubble said:
I've been reading this thread with abject fascination. I get why some are frustrated by the idea of being made to wait for content. Some feel patronized. Others simply don't want to wait. But what I can't understand is the people saying that this is arbitrary or serves no purpose.

Of course it serves a purpose: it encourages players to learn to make stages gradually, beginning with the basic building blocks (literally) and upping the complexity in a controlled manner. I consider myself to be an intelligent, independent, well-adjusted adult, and I have no real problem with this approach. I'm not a level-designer by trade, after all. I appreciate the structure. Not everyone has to, but to say this is arbitrary or lacks any sort of redeeming quality is a bit unfair.

The way I see it, this approach seeks to accomplish a couple of things, some of which have been mentioned already:

1. It encourages players to experiment with all of the tools rather than sticking to a relative few. Most of us have likely experienced this phenomenon before: give people a universe of options and many will simply stick to what's safe and familiar.

2. It encourages players to learn the basics of creating a level before descending into Kaizo inspired madness. This could lead to higher quality over all, although this remains to be seen of course.

3. Relatedly, it ensures that there will be a range of different level types and difficulties -- from simple to complex, and from easy to hard. This is a very good thing for new players. It ensures that these players will always have a healthy amount of levels that they can play through and enjoy as they become better at the game, while experienced players will still have all the diabolical levels they can stomach.

I think it's actually a pretty smart way to go about things. The alternatives seem either easily exploitable or contrived. A level requirement will encourage slapdash designs in the rush to unlock content. A system that measures "skill" sounds good on paper, but how do you quantify that exactly? Some have said that it should be based on hours actually played, but that has its own problems. Not everyone has the time to play a game for even an hour a day. For these people unlocking everything could take even longer than 9 days, depending on how the unlocks are structured. Tutorials are boring even in bombastic action games -- what makes people think that they would be more palatable or effective here? A complicated tutorial would be a turn-off for many gamers and reviewers, and a simple one would defeat the purpose entirely.
Click to expand...

I definitely get WHY they're doing it, and I'm not upset about it, though it's not my preference. It's clear why they're doing it this way.

I like your post for its sanity, though.
 
Why do Nintendo think this is a good thing? It was shitty when Splatoon held maps and weapons back and had people look at it as a lack of content and now Nintendo are holding back staple Mario bits because... reasons? Why do they care if people wait a week+ to play? Why do they want to wait a week + for real levels there? This isn't like a subscription MMO or a game with multiplayer and DLC they want to sell, there is no reason to hold things back. To they think this will stop people from trading in? Does that even matter?
 
freethoughtbubble said:
I've been reading this thread with abject fascination. I get why some are frustrated by the idea of being made to wait for content. Some feel patronized. Others simply don't want to wait. But what I can't understand is the people saying that this is arbitrary or serves no purpose.

Of course it serves a purpose: it encourages players to learn to make stages gradually, beginning with the basic building blocks (literally) and upping the complexity in a controlled manner. I consider myself to be an intelligent, independent, well-adjusted adult, and I have no real problem with this approach. I'm not a level-designer by trade, after all. I appreciate the structure. Not everyone has to, but to say this is arbitrary or lacks any sort of redeeming quality is a bit unfair.

The way I see it, this approach seeks to accomplish a couple of things, some of which have been mentioned already:

1. It encourages players to experiment with all of the tools rather than sticking to a relative few. Most of us have likely experienced this phenomenon before: give people a universe of options and many will simply stick to what's safe and familiar.

2. It encourages players to learn the basics of creating a level before descending into Kaizo inspired madness. This could lead to higher quality over all, although this remains to be seen of course.

3. Relatedly, it ensures that there will be a range of different level types and difficulties -- from simple to complex, and from easy to hard. This is a very good thing for new players. It ensures that these players will always have a healthy amount of levels that they can play through and enjoy as they become better at the game, while experienced players will still have all the diabolical levels they can stomach.

I think it's actually a pretty smart way to go about things. The alternatives seem either easily exploitable or contrived. A level requirement will encourage slapdash designs in the rush to unlock content. A system that measures "skill" sounds good on paper, but how do you quantify that exactly? Some have said that it should be based on hours actually played, but that has its own problems. Not everyone has the time to play a game for even an hour a day. For these people unlocking everything could take even longer than 9 days, depending on how the unlocks are structured. Tutorials are boring even in bombastic action games -- what makes people think that they would be more palatable or effective here? A complicated tutorial would be a turn-off for many gamers and reviewers, and a simple one would defeat the purpose entirely.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Tybolt said:
No slopes or vines into the clouds? I'm outta here.

i_m_outta_here_by_ask_reala-d6ejjqt.gif
Click to expand...

You can technically make a "sub-stage" in the clouds just placing Jugem's Clouds above the main stage and a vine to get up there, but it's still in the main level with the same music and the same no-scroll or auto-scroll. In order to make a different sub-level (like an underground, water and such) in a level, you need a working pipe (like the one in SMB 1-1).
 
I think some people here just don't like to be told what to do, it's not that this or the way Splatoon rolled out content is a big deal in and of itself, it's the principle behind it. Oh no I'm an adult don't treat me like a child!! That is a messed up mentality. Nintendo is an authority on game design, they're pros at designing learning curves. They can tell me what to play, when to play and how to play it, I have no problem with that.
 
Mael said:
Actually considering how the industry works unlock method doesn't really factor in how a game succeed or not more than other factor.
The method used here wouldn't kill most games, it's not going to sink this one and they won't pull that shit on their lesser project either.
Click to expand...

Then you admit is a totally useless and arbitrary mechanic?

Because I don't think is going to bomb because this, just that is annoying and other companies are able to do better regarding implementation of F2P models, both in sales and gameplay perspective.
 
TheBaronOfNA said:
The problem is not the unlocking but that the unlocking doesn't make sense, it's done by a timer and is arbitrary to the eyes of many.
Click to expand...

Many seem to only find it a minor annoyance and not calling it the worst thing in existence like I see here. It's arbitrary for sure, but how much are really upset about this to warrant the reaction I'm seeing? I'm seeing no one up in arms over Twitter right now, very, very few in YouTube comments, and I doubt there's much problems on Reddit either. I'm mostly seeing this on GAF right now.
 
I'm waiting for Zelda that releases with no items or dungeons and they are slowly rolled out over 7 years to simulate the time Link spent asleep in OOT.
 
Nanashrew said:
Many seem to only find it a minor annoyance and not calling it the worst thing in existence like I see here. It's arbitrary for sure, but how much are really upset about this to warrant the reaction I'm seeing? I'm seeing no one up in arms over Twitter right now, very, very few in YouTube comments, and I doubt there's much problems on Reddit either. I'm mostly seeing this on GAF right now.
Click to expand...

Well, is good that didn't say it was the worst stuff in existence...

You know, the defensive passive aggressive behavior just made more people annoyed as is still a annoyance and worth complaining about it.
 
freethoughtbubble said:
I've been reading this thread with abject fascination. I get why some are frustrated by the idea of being made to wait for content. Some feel patronized. Others simply don't want to wait. But what I can't understand is the people saying that this is arbitrary or serves no purpose.

Of course it serves a purpose: it encourages players to learn to make stages gradually, beginning with the basic building blocks (literally) and upping the complexity in a controlled manner. I consider myself to be an intelligent, independent, well-adjusted adult, and I have no real problem with this approach. I'm not a level-designer by trade, after all. I appreciate the structure. Not everyone has to, but to say this is arbitrary or lacks any sort of redeeming quality is a bit unfair.

The way I see it, this approach seeks to accomplish a couple of things, some of which have been mentioned already:

1. It encourages players to experiment with all of the tools rather than sticking to a relative few. Most of us have likely experienced this phenomenon before: give people a universe of options and many will simply stick to what's safe and familiar.

2. It encourages players to learn the basics of creating a level before descending into Kaizo inspired madness. This could lead to higher quality over all, although this remains to be seen of course.

3. Relatedly, it ensures that there will be a range of different level types and difficulties -- from simple to complex, and from easy to hard. This is a very good thing for new players. It ensures that these players will always have a healthy amount of levels that they can play through and enjoy as they become better at the game, while experienced players will still have all the diabolical levels they can stomach.

I think it's actually a pretty smart way to go about things. The alternatives seem either easily exploitable or contrived. A level requirement will encourage slapdash designs in the rush to unlock content. A system that measures "skill" sounds good on paper, but how do you quantify that exactly? Some have said that it should be based on hours actually played, but that has its own problems. Not everyone has the time to play a game for even an hour a day. For these people unlocking everything could take even longer than 9 days, depending on how the unlocks are structured. Tutorials are boring even in bombastic action games -- what makes people think that they would be more palatable or effective here? A complicated tutorial would be a turn-off for many gamers and reviewers, and a simple one would defeat the purpose entirely.
Click to expand...

Thank you, this post can't get quoted enough.
 
LQX said:
This shit is becoming way too common with Nintendo games. Nintendo is the last company I expected to start shipping incomplete games.
Click to expand...
Spltoon had everything on disc already, just unlocking stuff little by little.
It is by no way "incomplete".
 
TheBaronOfNA said:
Then you admit is a totally useless and arbitrary mechanic?

Because I don't think is going to bomb because this, just that is annoying and other companies are able to do better regarding implementation of F2P models, both in sales and gameplay perspective.
Click to expand...

Actually if I had more time I would totally be against this but otherwise I agree with freethoughtbubble.
I don't think it is ideal but I think the general idea behind it is sound.
I would prefer if there was even more stuffs and actual slopes but I'm liking what I'm looking at.
 
TheBaronOfNA said:
Well, is good that didn't say it was the worst stuff in existence...

You know, the defensive passive aggressive behavior just made more people annoyed as is still a annoyance and worth complaining about it.
Click to expand...

Maybe not you, but others have. I find it dumb too, but I can't be too bothered by it since it rolls out every day.
 
My question is do you have to check in each day for it all to roll out? The screen in the video suggests that's the case. You have to spend time building before the timer on the next set starts.
 
freethoughtbubble said:
I've been reading this thread with abject fascination. I get why some are frustrated by the idea of being made to wait for content. Some feel patronized. Others simply don't want to wait. But what I can't understand is the people saying that this is arbitrary or serves no purpose.

Of course it serves a purpose: it encourages players to learn to make stages gradually, beginning with the basic building blocks (literally) and upping the complexity in a controlled manner. I consider myself to be an intelligent, independent, well-adjusted adult, and I have no real problem with this approach. I'm not a level-designer by trade, after all. I appreciate the structure. Not everyone has to, but to say this is arbitrary or lacks any sort of redeeming quality is a bit unfair.

The way I see it, this approach seeks to accomplish a couple of things, some of which have been mentioned already:

1. It encourages players to experiment with all of the tools rather than sticking to a relative few. Most of us have likely experienced this phenomenon before: give people a universe of options and many will simply stick to what's safe and familiar.

2. It encourages players to learn the basics of creating a level before descending into Kaizo inspired madness. This could lead to higher quality over all, although this remains to be seen of course.

3. Relatedly, it ensures that there will be a range of different level types and difficulties -- from simple to complex, and from easy to hard. This is a very good thing for new players. It ensures that these players will always have a healthy amount of levels that they can play through and enjoy as they become better at the game, while experienced players will still have all the diabolical levels they can stomach.

I think it's actually a pretty smart way to go about things. The alternatives seem either easily exploitable or contrived. A level requirement will encourage slapdash designs in the rush to unlock content. A system that measures "skill" sounds good on paper, but how do you quantify that exactly? Some have said that it should be based on hours actually played, but that has its own problems. Not everyone has the time to play a game for even an hour a day. For these people unlocking everything could take even longer than 9 days, depending on how the unlocks are structured. Tutorials are boring even in bombastic action games -- what makes people think that they would be more palatable or effective here? A complicated tutorial would be a turn-off for many gamers and reviewers, and a simple one would defeat the purpose entirely.
Click to expand...

Thank you! You brought out a lot of what I was feeling and articulated it into words. That's awesome.
 
After Nintendo makes a game that's very unlike them, they had to go and do this and remind us that they're Nintendo.

What a stupid move. No day 1 from me now.
 
Nanashrew said:
My goal is to try to make challenging but fair levels that anyone can get into. I've never designed a game or even attempted level design before, but that is my goal with Mario Maker. I'm hoping that I have retained some knowledge from my years playing platformers, and I'm hoping to gain new knowledge in practice. I want to make stuff that everyone can enjoy.
Click to expand...

This guy gets it.
 
Kouriozan said:
Spltoon had everything on disc already, just unlocking stuff little by little.
It is by no way "incomplete".
Click to expand...

But they are going for "the feel of incomplete". Other companies actually don't finish their games on time and release actual DLC for other features in a day one patch or not long after launch. Nintendo finishes their games, put all the stuff on disc and then lock that stuff away because everyone else is doing it but they don't understand people want the stuff from the start. People slammed Splatoon for lack of content at launch and it took weeks for it to have what it should have shipped with even though it did ship with that stuff, just Nintendo locked it away because everyone does it.

SeanR1221 said:
After Nintendo makes a game that's very unlike them, they had to go and do this and remind us that they're Nintendo.

What a stupid move. No day 1 from me now.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter if you buy day 1 or day 999. You still have to wait 9 days playing at least 5 minutes every day to get all the content regardless of when you buy. It's not like they are unlocking it on a server and giving people a download key, it's a mechanic in the game. It's not a "play x amount and unlock a silly skin and stamp" it's "play x amount every day to get vital Mario items".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Super Mario 3D All-Stars DELUXE PC Trailer
Trailer Platform Indie 
45
602
kevboard replied
  • Poll
Blast from the past Super Mario 64 vs Super Mario 64 DS
2
53
3K
kremiso replied
Tencent's new AI tool will reduce art production from days to minutes
2
74
1K
Radical_3d replied
Super Mario Galaxy 1+2 has visual upgrades vs 3D All-Stars version (screenshots/video)
2 3 4
197
3K
GriffinCorp replied
Super Mario Galaxy 2 is kind of disappointing
2
79
432
Rran replied
Top Bottom