Not cut. It's coming in May. Hasemo lives in Japan and understands Japanese and people should really read his post on the dates.
EDIT: nvm, saw you're edit. But still :T I want everyone to see his post.
Xenoblade Chronicles X: website update (April 28): Paid DLC info, online and more
- Thread starter L~A
- Start date
Not cut. It's coming in May. Hasemo lives in Japan and understands Japanese and people should really read his post on the dates.
EDIT: nvm, saw you're edit. But still :T I want everyone to see his post.
The DLC is coming in August?
Only if the game releases in the 29th month of the year
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
WrenchNinja
Member
DoA5 being bad with DLC doesn't really make FEA good with DLC. I kept up with it out of foolishness and love for the series. That doesn't really make the content they offered (repeated and simplistic maps, cheap banter from npcs that don't really add anything, characters without any supports and are inferior to the main game's cast, character art cutaways with the scramble packs pandering to the worst parts of the fan base) actually good or substantial. What they offered is pretty overpriced. Like the only half decent pack is probably Future Past.
But hey whatever, if you thought it was okay, you are entitled to feel that way. While related to the thread as far as Nintendo's approach to DLC, I would say they have been at least better since Fire Emblem: Awakening.
test_account
XP-39C²
I dont think that the space is any hurdle. If it was just that, they could have offered the DLC for free, or used two discs instead. Its just a business decision.
I wonder why they will delay it for 10 days. Its basically the same thing as "day 1". The content is most likely already created and finished. Maybe to keep people from trading the game in.
NeonZ
Member
That's the kind of thing that should be DLC though, since it avoids the impression that they're cutting characters from the main game.
The Scramble packs add ton of dialogue though. It's not like they only exist for those fanservice pictures. Of course, I guess it's only valuable if you actually enjoy the game's writing and supports, and considering your tone I'm not sure you did. Aside from Future Past though, you've also got the pack 3 challenge maps with unique obstacles, and then Apotheosis in order to have a battlefield for a completely maxed party.
Now, like you say there, the first four packs were rather cheap in several ways, like the recycled maps and cheap characters, but they were basically bundles - you had the stage, character, unique conversations with each npc ally in the map (and also with each enemy if facing them with a specific character, although those are really short), and sometimes new skills and even two classes. Some of them also are better for leveling up higher level characters than the proper exp map.
Hours Left
Member
I think that's totally valid. DLC really is in the eye of the beholder. If someone think it's worth it, I can't really begrudge people for buying it even though I'd always advocate for fair pricing. (I've bought some DLC for DoA5 too, so I can't say I haven't contributed there.)
As I whole I feel Nintendo does a good job in offering value with their DLC, and I personally think this will probably follow that trend. I could be wrong. I guess we'll see.
Only if the game releases in the 29th month of the year
Then you should type it as 04.29 and 05.08 and not 29.04 and then 05.08 for May.
Exactly.
test_account
XP-39C²
They could. GTA 5 on Xbox 360 uses two discs, and that works fine. They could also have offered the DLC for free if it was just a space issue.
efyu_lemonardo
May I have a cookie?
yeah, I read it as 5th of august. Is that not the case in the original japanese?
This is fairly standard DLC for a RPG in today's market. I don't the value is better or worse than the average Bioware or Bethesda game. What I do find rather disappointing is that the DLC is standard near-launch "more of the same" DLC. Very similar to what Atlus does these days on almost all their releases. The DLC quests look to be more of the same sort of stuff you will already find the game, instead of any sort of particularly unique story expansion content. Of course there are "rewards" for completing the quests in terms of unlockables, but again, it is more of the same stuff you already have in the game - extra generic party members, extra skills, extra mechs. For a huge RPG which already has tons of this sort of stuff, it makes the DLC unappealing to me. I would much rather prefer more ambitious DLC in terms of mini-expansions or stand alone stories a few months after the game is out. Stuff like the New Vegas DLC is what I want to see more of for RPGs.
Oh snap, you're right. Fixed the original post. Now I feel stupid.
It's 8th of May, not the 5th of August.
pinkurocket
Member
I can't properly gauge the value of the DLC with the info as we know it, but it seems pretty interesting considering extra characters can change your strategy. Now, if the DLC comes out a week after the game's release, it's still pretty much day 1 DLC. Unlike MK8 where it does seem like they have spent the time after release to provide you with a bunch of new content. I'm not a fan of DLC generally, but we'll see. The base game seems sizeable enough that it doesn't feel like parts of the game are locked behind a paywall anyway, which is often the biggest issue with DLC.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
Eolz
Member
Mr. Nice_Guy
Member
It always takes me a second to realize people are talking about Mario Kart, even though I play it regularly.
This looks interesting, but I agree. This game has LOADS of content, and I'm not sure I'll need this. I'll probably get it at some point, but probably not right away.
Plenty but we in the US are very backwards compared to the rest of the world.
Anyway, I need to sleep. Catch you all later and I hope to see any of you streaming or just more streams in general to watch!
I don't agree with the arguments against the DLC price. From all reports the basic game is chock full of content. If the argument is that the DLC is too flimsy for the price then you're NOT saying that they've hidden essential content behind a DLC paywall. So the resolution is really simple. If you don't believe the DLC is worth the price don't buy it. That's always the customer's prerogative. If enough people think so the vendor may have to rethink their pricing strategy.
My opinion is that it would be unfair to price DLC proportionally to the fraction of the main content that the DLC represents. It essentially punishes generous initial releases by forcing them to be exceptionally generous with DLC pricing as well. Whereas a very barebones release that tacks on a lot of what could have been main content as DLC will be able to produce meaty DLC packs and charge a lot just because they held back content. Furthermore, it would make the DLC more compelling because the content might be almost essential to full enjoyment of the game. They'd be rewarded for doing what I (we?) don't like.
For example, if you're saying that Smash 4's character DLC is too expensive based on an estimated cost per character of the initial roster then you're begging for them to cut the intial roster and still charge (the basically fixed) $50-60 US for the game. Now the DLC gets to be priced higher relative to value and you'll probably buy more of it because you got less with the main package. Yay?
I'm fine with a model in which DLC is relatively expensive but not essential. That way the devs make good money off fans who're happy with the game and gladly paid for more (even at a premium). People who're not so inclined won't be missing much. They still got good value when they paid their $60 for the game.
My opinion is that it would be unfair to price DLC proportionally to the fraction of the main content that the DLC represents. It essentially punishes generous initial releases by forcing them to be exceptionally generous with DLC pricing as well. Whereas a very barebones release that tacks on a lot of what could have been main content as DLC will be able to produce meaty DLC packs and charge a lot just because they held back content. Furthermore, it would make the DLC more compelling because the content might be almost essential to full enjoyment of the game. They'd be rewarded for doing what I (we?) don't like.
For example, if you're saying that Smash 4's character DLC is too expensive based on an estimated cost per character of the initial roster then you're begging for them to cut the intial roster and still charge (the basically fixed) $50-60 US for the game. Now the DLC gets to be priced higher relative to value and you'll probably buy more of it because you got less with the main package. Yay?
I'm fine with a model in which DLC is relatively expensive but not essential. That way the devs make good money off fans who're happy with the game and gladly paid for more (even at a premium). People who're not so inclined won't be missing much. They still got good value when they paid their $60 for the game.
Jim_Cacher
Member
The screen shot at the right-hand side states the size of the DLC is 448KB.
Originally I think the DLC is worth it, but obviously it is already placed inside the disc. I don't like this direction Nintendo is heading.
Edit: Thx for the clarification by Ridley327 and L~A. The DLC may be distributed through update, so the DLC size is small.
The screen shot at the right-hand side states the size of the DLC is 448KB.
Originally I think the DLC is worth it, but obviously it is already placed inside the disc. I don't like this direction Nintendo is heading.
It's not playable yet, so I think it points to it being more of a season pass key. Since this is a game with a big online component, I think it's more likely that the actual content itself will be distributed via patching so that it doesn't break compatibility with players that haven't purchased the content.
The screen shot at the right-hand side states the size of the DLC is 448KB.
Originally I think the DLC is worth it, but obviously it is already placed inside the disc. I don't like this direction Nintendo is heading.
Yeah, it seems possible that it's "Day 1" DLC at that size. I can understand people not liking that. I still can't be angry based on how huge the game is.
(I have a bigger problem with Amiibo which are relatively expensive, can be hard to get, and routinely result in content being locked behind Amiibo-walls.)
Actually, that's most likely the case. Hyrule Warriors and Super Smash Bros. did just that (the actual DLC was a few ko, all the data was in the update).
StreetsAhead
Member
That's true, although, I dunno if they're really going to patch the game so soon.
That being said, the game might have been content complete for a while now (they did start pre-loading in like February or something, didn't they?). I guess, if it is patched in so 'soon' after the release, they could have worked on it after the base game was done. Maybe.
The way they've described the DLC doesn't sound like it was super resource intensive beyond the VA, so I can buy that it was worked on between February and April.
I'd also be really surprised if any online game doesn't receive a patch within a week of release. These days, it's more common that they already have a patch by the time you put the disc in your console!
Does it really matter though? DLC is rarely made after a game is completed these days. They're mostly created in parallel with development. It still takes resources to dedicate to any sort of content though, so that's how publishers justify charging for it. Even if it's 5-10 people over the course of a month or two, that still costs money and has to be budgeted.
It seems pointless to debate about what is "on disc" DLC these days, since business models have evolved past that. The real question should always be "is this DLC worthwhile to me". That should be the most important factor in deciding whether to buy it or not. When it was made is mostly irrelevant to the consumer.
Otakumegane
Member
At most I'm buying one DLC.
I wish it would be extra online quests for superbosses honestly though.
I wish it would be extra online quests for superbosses honestly though.
Based upon several hours of watching streams, the developers could have culled some of the dead space in the world and filled it with more actual content.
The same feeling I have with Skyrim. Kinda just showing off how big the world can be but leaving huge parts of it as a path from A to B.
I still cannot wait to jump into the world whenever it appears in the EU!
StreetsAhead
Member
Oh, you're absolutely right. But there is a crowd that will holler and shout (something something Nintendo is/should be/used to be above this etc etc) about DLC, no matter what. I mean, in actual terms, content like this is probably 'either it exists as DLC or it doesn't exist' so getting angry about when it was possibly created is a little silly, or so it feels.
TheMoon
Member
Import |OT| is live: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=161907073
Well it looks like easily skippable stuff, nothing of real significance like the FE DLC, so the fact that it's close to release doesn't really bother me.
I don't get the Nintendo should be above this comments. Nintendo is just like every other company, they're trying to make money, of course they're going to jump on the DLC train.
I don't get the Nintendo should be above this comments. Nintendo is just like every other company, they're trying to make money, of course they're going to jump on the DLC train.
HawthorneKitty
Sgt. 2nd Class in the Creep Battalion, Waifu Wars
I'll buy it all.
RPGCrazied
Member
Are those DLC characters or something? Do they come with quests or what?
TheMoon
Member
Read the posts on the first page, the info was translated there.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=161891314&postcount=5
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=161891338&postcount=7
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=161892055&postcount=29
The first New Vegas DLC was atrocious IMO.
This looks very much like some fan service DLC, you won't miss out on anything if you skip it and if you but it it'll give you another reason to keep messing around in the open world. I do agree an expansion would be nice, give us another 200km area to play in with some original bosses.
This. It is extremely disappointing that this is now the status quo.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
Im liking it
So... $20 of cut content, then?
Nintendo is becoming as bad as any other company when it comes to this DLC nonsense.
They are simply remaining true to form, and playing catch up.
Give it half a year, and, hardware aside, there will be zero discernible difference from Sony and MS.
Similar threads
- Locked