{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/12/2017 8:25:11 PM
22
[quote]Good games like we had on NES, Sega, PS1 etc. were only complete games without DLC because the Internet had not yet become a viable media for the average consumer.[/quote]
somehow nintendo still manages to create good and complete games without dlc. the only games that had much dlcs were smash bros (sadly overpriced imo), hyrule warriors (they give you a shitton of content for barely anything. adventure maps, new characters, outfits, weapons etc.) and mario kart 8 (giving you new drivers and cups, more or less the size of almost half of the game for only like 18 bucks.) and yet they still shipped complete. i think its called: caring for the consumers and having set standards. the internet isnt the problem. its the people who are ok with getting below standard stuff.
personally im not on anyones side; both are childish nonsense to me. the kids who think not preodering will change something and the ones who think theyre adults because they think wasting money is cool.
but oh well, your money. gonna wait until the beta is out. nothing is going to change anyways. i just hope this time the game is at least a litte bit "next gen".
English
-
Nintendo has amiibo the biggest dlc range ever.
-
true. but unlike the destiny dlcs you dont need amiibos to continue the game or access a large part of the game. those are mostly just figures. still: devs can sell a complete game, even with the internet.
-
Edited by Gatomori: 4/12/2017 8:58:57 PM[quote]somehow nintendo still manages to create good and complete games without dlc[/quote] Nintendo is sinking so -blam!-ing hard, but you probably know what you're talking about. Especially since you pointed out that its most successful franchises do use DLCs.
-
the switch is doing pretty well so far. only the wii u was a failure. and nope, i only pointed out like 3 games. there are more successful ones (pokemon, mario etc.) that dont have dlcs at all.
-
Edited by Gatomori: 4/12/2017 8:53:38 PMFrom the top of my head, I can only name 1 game for the Switch, which is that Zelda game featured on every Switch advertisement. Do you think this is going to last any more than Nintendo's other dead consoles? Not to mention that the Switch is a portable/home console hybrid, so on the portable side, it has no competition. And the Pokemon and Mario franchises didn't get popular on the home consoles, they got popular in the portables, which didn't even get to have DLCs because they focus on "young gamers" and have kind of withered already. Edit: Nintendo is still sinking thou
-
so far every line up for consoles has been weak. wii, wii u, switch, ps 4, xbox one... thats true. but youre one that misses the point of what i said too, not sure why. op said thanks to the internet its not possible to sell a complete game. i said it is possible. also mario got popular on the home console because it first started there and most mario games are on the console. only pokemon is dominant on handheld. and thats a plus since the switch is both. but my point still stands; they dont have dlcs because unlike bungie they sell their games complete. that was the whole point of my comment, not whos plastic box sold more or which games are more childish.
-
[url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_video_game_console_launch_games#Seventh_generation]No, it's not? Are you trying to convince yourself or something?[/url] And I'm not missing your point, you're the one who's using that as an excuse for not having a response for all the replies. "You're not getting my point" is literally all you have. Yes, doing what Nintendo is doing is possible, but it's unviable. A dead company can't make games. What you want is not a game company, you want a charity for you. Not to mention that, being a dying company, it doesn't get as much attention, and so it isn't affected by the "internet" as much as nowaday's popular games. What games are thriving and what games are meant for the paying audience definitely have a say on this, if you got OP's point.
-
yeah.. it competes so well against microsoft and sony.
-
theres no need to compete. they sell finished games, thats the whole point.
-
There won't be a point if the company doesn't survive. It's like saying that everyone can have a Porsche if you buy them for everyone. Eventually you'll run out of money, so no more cars and no more points
-
... i dont think i can come through to you guys. you can sell a complete game and still do dlcs, thats perfectly normal. but at least finish it first. why is that so hard to understand?
-
Because you're using a dying company as the example, and that clearly shows that its "complete games" aren't cutting it. What can't you understand?
-
it doesnt matter if the company is dying, which they arent. op said devs cant make complete games because theres the internet. but some devs still can make a complete game. doesnt matter if its nintendo, sony or any other dev for that matter. i cant understand how you guys can keep such low standards.
-
[quote]i cant understand how you guys can keep such low standards.[/quote] You're using a dying company as an example, and we have low standards? It completely matters. A game company can't make complete games if it's dead, because it can't make games at all.
-
lol and they make far less money than microsoft or sony.. nintendo may have started it but, they certainly are not as successful as they were.. but, they make great childrens games.. if thats your thing.
-
why do you miss the point? op said devs cant make complete games anymore because now we have the internet. but nintendo still keeps selling complete games. as for childrens games... im sry but cod and other shooters have gotten much more childish, especially since only childs play it, lol.
-
yeah, I can create a video game that is static too.. doesn't mean i'm going to profit or be a huge draw.. people moved away from nintendo for a reason.. they stayed in the past.. They chose to stay making actual childrens games to be a niche market.. I know big words. maybe I should have kept this response to 160 characters or less.. put acronyms everywhere etc.. then you would have understood bettter
-
Don't you think Nintendo would have liked to release those games a few years earlier without having to pay people to play them and all that kind of thing don't you think they would have enjoyed being able to do a Beta release
-
not rly. they actually like to keep their games secret so everyone can enjoy them spoiler free. shigeru miyamoto himself said its better to delay a game then rush it. the only beta / multiplayer beta they released was splatoon. and there it made sense because its multiplayer focused. dont rly know how a beta would work with a zelda, mario or metroid.
-
Companies in general are making more momey, but less satisfaction from the consumer. And I guess that's progress to some.
-
yeah, sadly.
-
What's really sad is it seems the majority see this as progress. And anyone who says there's a better way is basically labeled a commie, stupid, jealous, or lazy. I honestly think there's a group of people who run this country behind closed doors, who used techniques to, in a way, brainwash people, so they don't see what's going on. Why would a rich man want everyone to be rich? Then he's not rich. Not everyone is allowed to be successful, because then success is nothing but normal.
