Quote:
Originally Posted by serenade_beta
I can see it now, 5 years from now, Fire Emblem will have enough DLC to buy another game... Falling down the same track as Tales.
Iwata! Go and slap some sense to them before this happens!
|
Nintendo handles the sales and marketing of those games though, so they're ultimately responsible. IS, in particular, is a first party development studio.
Quote:
|
Acha... I hope Nintendo stays on the track of no paid DLC though
|
No such policy exists. If you're referring to Reggie Fils-Aime's recent comment, it's PR speak that certain sites (i.e. Eurogamer and plenty of Nintendo oriented blogs) were quick to distort and misinterpret.
We're interested in it to the extent that it makes sense to the consumer.
A diplomatic way of saying that they're interested in DLC so long that it doesn't anger the customer.
And it's interesting: I've had this conversation with a number of our key developers, and their mentality is, "Reggie, when we sell a game, we want the consumer to feel that they've had a complete experience. Now, in addition, if we want to make other things available, great, and we'll look at that. But what we're unwilling to sell a piece of a game upfront and, if you will, force a consumer to buy more later. That's what they don't want to do, and I completely agree. I think the consumer wants to get, for their money, a complete experience
That's good.
However, most AAA and indie developers currently say that same thing - that their games are complete experiences with optional content available to those who want more. Nintendo isn't a special case.
and then we have opportunities to provide more on top of that.
aka DLC.
In terms of how it will work, it's up to the developer whether they want to make it to buy new levels, new items--all of that is up to their imagination. Essentially, what we're doing is creating the framework for those transactions to happen.
He's shifting "responsibility" for DLC from Nintendo's business side to the creative side, which is yet another PR maneuver. Instead of admitting that they have an impetus to make more money, they're saying that they're helping developers further their own aspirations (via DLC).
All I'm saying is--your question was--will Nintendo participate in this additional digital content? And the answer is yes, but the way that we'll do it is that whatever we sell initially, we will feel that that is a complete experience. And if that's all the consumer wants to do, that they'd be satisfied.
Nowhere does he say "Nintendo isn't interested in paid DLC!"