Nintendo selling cut content from Fantasy Life as DLC

[Steena]

Please show me a NA or European Nintendo press release that reveals the western Fantasy Life is "Based on Fantasy Life Link". It's not true -- its a complete fabrication by the shitty blog that reported it. Western gamers are getting the same deal as the Japanese for Fantasy Life.

But it would make no sense if it was like you said.

The Link edition has got online and the DLC from the previous edition included.

Would they port the first edition, and re-implement the online infrastracture, or would they port the Link edition, and take out the DLC access for every user? One is an infrastructure that has many implications, the other is a game location gated by a portal.

Besides, why would they port the first edition when they refused to do that when the game came out in japan? Why would they port the first edition only now that the updated version is out? It makes much more sense that the version that is being ported is the Link version, it looks like much less work for achieving the same result (excluding a DLC versus implementing online).

 

[Snailface]

http://www.siliconera.com/all/2014-08-29-fantasy-life-expansion-pack-content-confirmed-west#1

Sure.

Proves my point. The article assumes that because the western release received online multiplayer that was missing from the original Japanese release, that we were essentially getting Link. That was editorialization on their part and not based on fact.

The fact is, Nintendo added content to the original, they didn't cut it. Again, please show me a press release or advertisment from Nintendo showing Nintendo/Level 5 was basing the western Fantasy Life on the JPN Link version. You can't because it doesn't exist. This detail was made up by american bloggers.

 

[Sterling]

By the way, here's an unedited press release of the NA and Europe version of Fantasy Life.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/press...hCOMING_TO_NINTENDO_3DS_ON_26th_SEPTEMBER.php

EDIT: Overview trailer:



Treehouse Live @ E3:

 

[machomuu]

Proves my point. The article assumes that because the western release received online multiplayer that was missing from the original Japanese release, that we were essentially getting Link. That was editorialization on their part and not based on fact.

The fact is, Nintendo added content to the original, they didn't cut it. Again, please show me a press release or advertisment from Nintendo showing Nintendo/Level 5 was basing the western Fantasy Life on the JPN Link version. You can't because it doesn't exist. This detail was made up by american bloggers.

You could probably find out. There's a good bit of footage out there thanks to trailers and the Treehouse.

 

[TemplarGR]

Please show me a NA or European Nintendo press release that reveals the western Fantasy Life is "Based on Fantasy Life Link". It's not true -- its a complete fabrication by the shitty blog that reported it. Western gamers are getting the same deal as the Japanese for Fantasy Life.

Your attempt at defending Nintendo's nickel and diming is beyond pathetic...

The whole purpose and justification of so called "dlc", is that this is content made after the release of the main game and released to extend the satisfaction the original game provides. If the content is available before the main release of a game, then it is unacceptable and a money grap. Simple as that.

When there is an already superior version with the dlc preinstalled, and especially when the localization is based on this and not the original release, to cut that part in order to sell it for more later is pure robbery.

It should have cost them nothing to just port the extended version as a whole.

Your argument of "hey the japanese paid for the dlc, we should definitely pay for it too, it is the right thing to do" does not hold any water and it is sickening... Plus it could be easily countered simply by the fact that the japanese got the original game earlier, so it is not justified for us to pay more for less game so much time later...

And since when a gamer and a customer supports paying more for cut content?

 

[Snailface]

Your attempt at defending Nintendo's nickel and diming is beyond pathetic...

The whole purpose and justification of so called "dlc", is that this is content made after the release of the main game and released to extend the satisfaction the original game provides. If the content is available before the main release of a game, then it is unacceptable and a money grap. Simple as that.

When there is an already superior version with the dlc preinstalled, and especially when the localization is based on this and not the original release, to cut that part in order to sell it for more later is pure robbery.

It should have cost them nothing to just port the extended version as a whole.

Your argument of "hey the japanese paid for the dlc, we should definitely pay for it too, it is the right thing to do" does not hold any water and it is sickening... Plus it could be easily countered simply by the fact that the japanese got the original game earlier, so it is not justified for us to pay more for less game so much time later...

And since when a gamer and a customer supports paying more for cut content?

I'm not defending the day 1 dlc crap (i agree with you), I'm just trying to correct the factual inaccuracy that people are saying Nintendo is trying to sell Fantasy Life Link and pulling the DLC out and charging for it. That's incorrect and is a lie. I never defended day 1 dlc, stop putting words in my mouth.

I can't believe you put quotation marks around something i didn't say. good god, lol. You should be a game blogger.

 

[NEO117]

Oh my...

Now... Where's that Wii U modchip?

 

[Foxi4]

it's level 5's doing not nintendo.

These matters are up to the publisher, not the developer, and Nintendo happens to co-publish this title.

Inb4 $30/mo Nintendo Gold online subscription required for online play

I would gladly pay for Nintendo Gold as soon as they get their shit together and create an online infrastructure on-par with Xbox Live Gold and PSPlus, including Instant Game Collection/Games for Gold, voice chat in and outside of games, games tied to accounts, game sharing, proper friend invites based on a Gamertag/PSN ID, Parties etc. - until then their service is crap and not worth a dime.

 

[Nightwish]

Welcome to the 21st century, where you don't own anything and good luck accessing it in 5 years (when the shoddy hardware dies - not applicable to all, yet).

 

[MarioFanatic64]

This is why people didn't want Nintendo to enter the world of DLC.

It was only a matter of time when they'd stop adding new content to already complete games and start by deliberately withholding content for DLC.

 

[TripleSMoon]

I would gladly pay for Nintendo Gold as soon as they get their shit together and create an online infrastructure on-par with Xbox Live Gold and PSPlus, including Instant Game Collection/Games for Gold, voice chat in and outside of games, games tied to accounts, game sharing, proper friend invites based on a Gamertag/PSN ID, Parties etc. - until then their service is crap and not worth a dime.

I know I'm really going to piss some people off by saying this, but I really don't think that an instant game collection/games for gold type model would work on the Wii U, simply because it has such a meager number of decent titles. Seriously, at the rate the Wii U is going, even just one free game a month is going to run through the Wii U's catalog of decent games rather quickly.

Unless, of course, it goes really heavy on digital-only games, which the Wii U has a rather healthy number of. But it wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive as PS+'s constant retail offerings.

 

[Foxi4]

I know I'm really going to piss some people off by saying this, but I really don't think that an instant game collection/games for gold type model would work on the Wii U, simply because it has such a meager number of decent titles. Seriously, at the rate the Wii U is going, even just one free game a month is going to run through the Wii U's catalog of decent games rather quickly.

Unless, of course, it goes really heavy on digital-only games, which the Wii U has a rather healthy number of. But it wouldn't be anywhere near as impressive as PS+'s constant retail offerings.

Oh, I was just saying "in general", abstracting from the current state of the libraries.

 

[TripleSMoon]

Oh, I was just saying "in general", abstracting from the current state of the libraries.

Yeah, I figured. I just felt that was relevant, at least for the current state of affairs.

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah, I figured. I just felt that was relevant, at least for the current state of affairs.

There's always Indies and misc. crap, it's a good way to promote content that normally doesn't sell. That, and then there's the 3DS. Still not a lot of must-have titles, but it'd be a treat nonetheless.

 

[KingBlank]

Whats next, Subscriptions for playing online!?

 

[Kippykip]

Nintendo becoming EA

 

[anhminh]

A good DLC is added content that was develop after the game finished.
To just cut out something that already made and sell it is outright rip-off.
But not every DLC is good so who care

 

[TecXero]

It's annoying but I don't consider myself loyal to any company, as companies just want money, so loyalty just means they can screw you over. The game looks mildly fun, but if it's going to support practice that I consider bad for the consumer side of things, then I won't bother even touching it. There are other games I can play that fit with what I consider consumer friendly.

 

[stomp_442]

Proves my point. The article assumes that because the western release received online multiplayer that was missing from the original Japanese release, that we were essentially getting Link. That was editorialization on their part and not based on fact.

The fact is, Nintendo added content to the original, they didn't cut it. Again, please show me a press release or advertisment from Nintendo showing Nintendo/Level 5 was basing the western Fantasy Life on the JPN Link version. You can't because it doesn't exist. This detail was made up by american bloggers.

Why does it have to be Americans that are at fault. I did a search of the website and came up with this:

190.93.247.99 Array, Costa Rica

 

[Snailface]

Why does it have to be Americans that are at fault. I did a search of the website and came up with this:

190.93.247.99 Array, Costa Rica

You got me there. Should have said, "This detail was made up by click-baiting non-journalists".