# Nintendo selling cut content from Fantasy Life as DLC



## GameWinner (Aug 30, 2014)

In a surprising move, Nintendo decided to cut content for the NA and EU releases and release that content as DLC.



> Yesterday we heard Nintendo are planning to release day one DLC for Fantasy Life which is called Origin Island. However, it’s been revealed that the DLC has been cut from the Japanese version of the game. The western release of Fantasy Life is based on the re-release called Fantasy Life Link which included the Origin Island content. Fantasy Life launches in the United States on October 24th.


 
Weird, the western release is based off of the latest version released in Japan, Fantasy Life Link, and yet we don't get all of the content included from that version.
What do you think about this?

 Source


----------



## Wekker (Aug 30, 2014)

DLC = new cash cow


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Aug 30, 2014)

inb4Nin10yearoldsRationalizeThis.

Looks like Nin10doh is going the shitty DLC way.


----------



## Gahars (Aug 30, 2014)

It's g-gonna be great, guys. Y-you'll see.


----------



## Flame (Aug 30, 2014)

"Please Understand Nintendo is doomed and needs all the money it can get."
#PleaseUnderstand


lately Nintendo are doing some really dumb stuff.


----------



## Black-Ice (Aug 30, 2014)

I'm still convinced Nintendo don't know how to conduct online services yet.


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Aug 30, 2014)

Flame said:


> "Please Understand Nintendo is doomed and needs all the money it can get."
> #PleaseUnderstand
> 
> 
> lately Nintendo are doing some really dumb stuff.


 

I think everyone used to think Nintendo was "fighting the evil new era of gaming" but really they were just goddamn slow and finally realized they can get away with stupid crap like this.


----------



## DinohScene (Aug 30, 2014)

I'm suprised Ninty took this long to abuse DLC.
Wow, welcome to the old gen Ninty.


----------



## Duo8 (Aug 30, 2014)

Apparently it's LV5's decision. Not Nintendo's.


----------



## machomuu (Aug 30, 2014)

*Level-5.  Not particularly sure how this has anything to do with Nintendo.

And the DLC abuse is nothing new.  Fire Emblem Awakening and both Theatrythms have been doing it for a while now.  Among others, and that's only on the 3DS.  The Wii U's the same deal.


----------



## p1ngpong (Aug 30, 2014)

This is totally fair in my opinion because I am a Nintendo fanboy and they can do no wrong.

takemyrupees.jpg


----------



## Ashtonx (Aug 30, 2014)

+1 for piracy ..


----------



## vayanui8 (Aug 30, 2014)

but guys its to make up for the shipping costs. They need more money because it costs more to export so they made the other content DLC.


----------



## machomuu (Aug 30, 2014)

vayanui8 said:


> but guys its to make up for the shipping costs. They need more money because it costs more to export so they made the other content DLC.


 
That's not the problem.  They could easily release the game exclusively on the eshop if that were such a big problem, and considering that Level-5 is also stationed in America, the costs of having retail copies here isn't a risk for them.


----------



## Mariko (Aug 30, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> I think everyone used to think Nintendo was "fighting the evil new era of gaming" but really they were just goddamn slow and finally realized they can get away with stupid crap like this.



They can get away with it, and they do, as this discussion clearly illustrates everyone has already forgotten the crap deal we got on One Piece Unlimited Cruise SP for the 3DS. The game was split into two separate releases, and while _we_ had to get SP2, Japan got the whole game on one cartridge. That's even worse than what's been done to Fantasy Life, since you had to buy two retail games.

People will buy anything. I remember the outrage when in the early days of Xbox 360 DLC someone has figured out that the content is already on the disc, but is being purposefully locked out, which meant that add-on content isn't being developed post release, but it's already there for extra profit on top of the retail price. It's 2014 and no one cares, because DLC is still selling, even when companies spit in consumers faces releasing games like SFxTK with half of the characters being locked out, but already visible in the selection screen.

Suckers are born every day, but those who would like to see a change need to start voting with their wallets. I see a lot of moaning, but I don't see a lot of change, so there must be more people buying than complaining.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Aug 30, 2014)

it's level 5's doing not nintendo.


----------



## SickPuppy (Aug 30, 2014)

Nintendo offering DLC? Some of those XBOX kids might get a Wii U now. Now Nintendo needs to learn to re-hatch the same game year after year with at least 3 or 4 DLC packs for each years release.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Aug 30, 2014)

Its weird to see cause the complete pack is being sold in retails in Japan.
Awesome job bringing half assed not updated stuff


----------



## Duo8 (Aug 30, 2014)

GamerzHell9137 said:


> Its weird to see cause the complete pack is being sold in retails in Japan.
> Awesome job bringing half assed not updated stuff


 
At least it's not $50.


----------



## GameWinner (Aug 30, 2014)

Bladexdsl said:


> it's level 5's doing not nintendo.


I'm pretty sure this is Nintendo's doing. Nintendo is publishing the game while Level-5 is developing.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Aug 30, 2014)

Duo8 said:


> At least it's not $50.


 

It is in Europe.


----------



## Terenigma (Aug 30, 2014)

To be honest, what did everyone expect? Im playing mario kart 8 right now and i see tons of people with coloured shy guys and yoshis and the only way to get that is to buy the bundle for £11 which isnt even out yet. Nintendo are just late to a party thats being going on for years, if you dont like it then dont buy it.


----------



## machomuu (Aug 30, 2014)

Mariko said:


> They can get away with it, and they do, as this discussion clearly illustrates everyone has already forgotten the crap deal we got on One Piece Unlimited Cruise SP for the 3DS. The game was split into two separate releases, and while _we_ had to get SP2, Japan got the whole game on one cartridge. That's even worse than what's been done to Fantasy Life, since you had to buy two retail games.


 
So it's worse that we get mostly two games for the price of one while Japan had to buy to separate purchases?  Because it seems like you're comparing two completely opposite cases.


----------



## TemplarGR (Aug 30, 2014)

This is not the first time Level 5 cuts content from an American/European release...

Inazuma Eleven 3 for the DS never got localized and instead we got it for the 3ds, only it was from the trilogy japanese release with 2/3 of content cut off and requesting a high price comparative to other 3ds games...

Clearly japanese CEOs must believe western customers are morons... Have fun all the way to bankruptcy folks... I have a Gateway...


----------



## Öhr (Aug 30, 2014)

bullshit. you heard it here first!

nintendo is performing and excruciatingly slow act of seppuku. And if they continue like that, I dont mind seeing them die like the little bitches they became since the release of the wii. Where are the good games? where are the good deals? where is the fun? what the fuck happened nintendo?


----------



## Bladexdsl (Aug 30, 2014)

Duo8 said:


> At least it's not $50.


no its $60...here


----------



## Youkai (Aug 30, 2014)

great Marketing strategy ...

first making a new 3ds model Rendering most of our still rather new 3d's unusable for "many?" new games and now cutting stuff out of games only to sell those parts separately -.-
if stuff like this gets more public this could hurt Nintendo very bad.

Which adult who would see something like this in TV would still buy their children any Nintendo Products ... even thought I sorta liked Nintendo many years it is sad that informations like this hardly ever get spread enough for the big masses to notice


----------



## Mariko (Aug 30, 2014)

machomuu said:


> So it's worse that we get mostly two games for the price of one while Japan had to buy to separate purchases?  Because it seems like you're comparing two completely opposite cases.



Am I missing something here? The Western Fantasy Life release is based on a game that has had built in content, but this content is being cut and sold as separate DLC for more profit on top of the retail price. I compared this to Japanese UC SP being cut into SP and SP2 for release outside of Japan. How is Fantasy Life "mostly two games", then?

It's like localizing a Game of the Year edition for the Japanese market, and cutting the extras to sell them separately, even though they were included in the GOTY. Still, with your point of view, it sounds that you're more pleased than annoyed by the state of things, which is exactly why this business model will thrive.


----------



## MushGuy (Aug 30, 2014)

GameWinner said:


> I'm pretty sure this is Nintendo's doing. Nintendo is publishing the game while Level-5 is developing.


Then it's still Level 5's doing.


----------



## TemplarGR (Aug 30, 2014)

Mariko said:


> Am I missing something here? The Western Fantasy Life release is based on a game that has had built in content, but this content is being cut and sold as separate DLC for more profit on top of the retail price. I compared this to Japanese UC SP being cut into SP and SP2 for release outside of Japan. How is Fantasy Life "mostly two games", then?
> 
> It's like localizing a Game of the Year edition for the Japanese market, and cutting the extras to sell them separately, even though they were included in the GOTY. Still, with your point of view, it sounds that you're more pleased than annoyed by the state of things, which is exactly why this business model will thrive.


 
Take into consideration the considerable number of shills Nintendo has set loose on the internet for PR. Not every "random user who defends nintendo's nickel and diming with his life" is a mere fanboy, many are paid to do this professionaly... Not to say this particular user is a shill, but i find it hard to believe for example that all those "nintendo loyal fans" who rushed to defend the "new 3ds" and criticize any discontent were just fanboys. I don't believe such a large part of the population to be simpletons, to defend losing money and getting worse deals like this...


----------



## machomuu (Aug 30, 2014)

Mariko said:


> Am I missing something here? The Western Fantasy Life release is based on a game that has had built in content, but this content is being cut and sold as separate DLC for more profit on top of the retail price. I compared this to Japanese UC SP being cut into SP and SP2 for release outside of Japan. How is Fantasy Life "mostly two games", then?
> 
> It's like localizing a Game of the Year edition for the Japanese market, and cutting the extras to sell them separately, even though they were included in the GOTY. Still, with your point of view, it sounds that you're more pleased than annoyed by the state of things, which is exactly why this business model will thrive.


 
Not at all. I don't like DLC, but Fantasy Life was released as two games in Japan, the original and Link. Expansion Pack or no, it's two full priced games. If you were to have bought Fantasy Life at launch, and then Link came out, you would have bought two games.

We're getting Link with Origin Island cut out. It's not really the same case as One Piece. Maybe not directly opposite, since in FL's case, one obselete's the other, but what we're getting is certainly better than having to buy the content at the price of a whole other game.

And it may sound like I'm okay with this, probably because I'm not pissing and moaning about it, but it does bother me. I don't feel the need to complain because this has yet to become an issue from Nintento specifically, and it easily could have been worse (such as a Dragon Quest Monsters type deal).





MushGuy said:


> Then it's still Level 5's doing.


That's not how it works.  Publishers have more control over how games are shipped and sold than the developers do, and as a result, this is more than likely on Nintendo.


----------



## GameWinner (Aug 30, 2014)

MushGuy said:


> Then it's still Level 5's doing.


Nintendo has say when it comes to DLC.


----------



## Tom Bombadildo (Aug 30, 2014)

MushGuy said:


> Then it's still Level 5's doing.


 
Woah woah woah here, so what you're saying is it's all the devs fault, and publishers aren't responsible for DLC?

GUYS. OMG. GUYS. WE WERE WRONG ABOUT EA. _THEY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH DLC_. OMG. GUYS EA IS THE BEST COMPANY BECAUSE IT'S TOTALLY THE DEVS WHO DECIDE!!


----------



## MushGuy (Aug 30, 2014)

Oh, OK, I get it. But still I don't understand their decision, considering what they offered for Mario Kart 8.


----------



## Verack (Aug 30, 2014)

So first Nintendo makes the "New 3DS" and gives it exclusives to lure people into buying a second 3DS. Now, we have Nintendo doing full blown content cuts that another region got for free, and we have to pay extra to get the same game.

Brilliant.


----------



## Huntereb (Aug 30, 2014)

Nintendo isn't dying! Right? Right?!


----------



## machomuu (Aug 30, 2014)

MushGuy said:


> Oh, OK, I get it. But still I don't understand their decision, considering what they offered for Mario Kart 8.


 
Because one's a Mercedes Benz and the other is actual content.


----------



## Goofy Time (Aug 30, 2014)

Correct me if I am wrong here, but this content was _also _sold separately in Japan. I do not remember if it was through a patch and DLC or a physical re-release.

This isn't "cut content" but repeating the approach Level-5 did for Japan as all of this stuff was part of the expansion to the original game. One can argue maybe that shouldn't have happened with the US/EU releases considering the release of the game and expansion in Japan were half a year apart, but the point is in Japan there were two releases; Fantasy Life and its expansion Fantasy Life Link. Nintendo is releasing Fantasy Life here but also allowing users to buy the Link expansion day one. I thought the day one DLC was additional Link features, with multiplayer being retrofitted into the base game (multiplayer was added by purchasing the Link expansion, but this may be different for the international release).

Normally Nintendo bails on giving us the extra stuff if Dragon Quest Monsters Joker 2 is any indication....


----------



## machomuu (Aug 30, 2014)

Goofy Time said:


> Correct me if I am wrong here, but this content was _also _sold separately in Japan. I do not remember if it was through a patch and DLC or a physical re-release.
> 
> This isn't "cut content" but repeating the approach Level-5 did for Japan as all of this stuff was part of the expansion to the original game. One can argue maybe that shouldn't have happened with the US/EU releases considering the release of the game and expansion in Japan were half a year apart, but the point is in Japan there were two releases; Fantasy Life and its expansion Fantasy Life Link. Nintendo is releasing Fantasy Life here but also allowing users to buy the Link expansion day one.
> 
> Normally Nintendo bails on giving us the extra stuff if Dragon Quest Monsters Joker 2 is any indication....


 
Well the reason people are mad about this is that we were told that we were getting Fantasy Life Link, which we are, just without Origin Island (at least, that's what it seems, they aren't being too clear on the matter).  The main point of Link, apart from various additions, was online play, which we get with the base game.  There are other additions, but I'm not sure if they come with OI or the base game.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Aug 30, 2014)

Didn't the same thing happen with Fire Emblem Awakening? I remember hearing a similar story.

Either way, this is a low move. Come on, Nintendo, I expect more of you.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 30, 2014)

So, this Dlc was Dlc in the first place? Other than that, this game has everything from Japan version and this may not even be Nintendo decision?


----------



## GameWinner (Aug 30, 2014)

KingVamp said:


> So, this Dlc was Dlc in the first place? Other than that, this game has everything from Japan version and this may not even be Nintendo decision?


The content was included with Fantasy Life Link, the title the western version is based off of. Nintendo decided to remove that content that was already in the original Japanese version, Origin Island, and release it as DLC.


----------



## KingVamp (Aug 30, 2014)

We get everything from Fantasy Life which was a full game and online. They left off Origin Island which was extra to begin with and kept it as dlc. 

The problem I'm having is, that they are making it seem like we aren't getting a full game when all they are doing is keeping dlc as dlc.

Seems like a exaggeration.  Neogaf has a better title.


----------



## GameWinner (Aug 30, 2014)

Online content and Origin Island were added in the Link expansion version. We, in the west, are getting everything included in the Link version minus Origin Island, content Nintendo is cutting. 
When Nintendo published Bravely Default in the west they included everything from the For The Sequel expansion but for some reason they are cutting content to sell as DLC in this game.


----------



## Gahars (Aug 30, 2014)

KingVamp said:


> We get everything from Fantasy Life which was a full game and online.


 
That'd be great if they were porting over Fantasy Life. They're not, they're porting over Fantasy Life Link, removing content and charging customers for it. That's bad.

Guys, you can like Nintendo without thanking them for fucking you over. It's okay, really, you're not going to hurt their feelings. They're a big company, they can take the criticism.


----------



## Taleweaver (Aug 30, 2014)

I'm mostly sad by the low quality of the news source. Not only do we have people debating who is responsible for the situation, but going by machomuu's post, it's not even really cutting something out either. If the original game and link were different, getting the original and a part of link (basically everything but that island) shouldn't be a bad deal. Instead, however, with the wording of the source, it suggests that the West gets screwed in favor of Japan.

...and I don't know why I'm posting this. I normally can't be bothered in the slightest on these sorts of games. I don't want to miss out on some nice, juicy scandal...but can't really say if that is what is going on here.


----------



## CompassNorth (Aug 30, 2014)

SCUMTENDO 2 DAYS IN A ROW.


----------



## BrightNeko (Aug 30, 2014)

http://www.siliconera.com/2014/08/29/fantasy-life-expansion-pack-content-confirmed-west/
Origin island is DLC, it was DLC for the original game. Just because the version we are getting is based on link does not mean we are getting all of link's features. That is why nintendo and level 5 both have been saying "based". This is not a case of removal this is probably a case of a game of this size being in translation well before its +DLC edition was ever put out.

That said is this OK? It really seems more like a gray thing to me than an out right "Oh they didn't give us they special thing!" doesn't help we don't know which party decided the move. An this game is kind of a risk for nintendo in the first place.


----------



## machomuu (Aug 30, 2014)

Gahars said:


> That'd be great if they were porting over Fantasy Life. They're not, they're porting over Fantasy Life Link, removing content and charging customers for it. That's bad.
> 
> Guys, you can like Nintendo without thanking them for fucking you over. It's okay, really, you're not going to hurt their feelings. They're a big company, they can take the criticism.


Though the more I look up of this, the more I find that this really wouldn't have been trouble at all had they just announced that we were getting Fantasy Life with online instead of Fantasy Life Link.

Sure, it'd still be pretty scummy, but I doubt people would be as pissed if they knew that they were getting the original version with online than if they were getting a game with content intentionally cut out.  Especially considering that this makes it difficult to tell whether the other Link additions are included in the game or with Origin Island.


----------



## Hells Malice (Aug 30, 2014)

It's kinda funny how long it takes Nintendo to figure out things that have been around in the industry for years, and then openly with absolutely no discretion, exploit that thing.

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


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Aug 30, 2014)

Well its not their first time to do this.

*cough*Mario Gold 3DS*cough* ;O;


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 30, 2014)

GamerzHell9137 said:


> Well its not their first time to do this.
> 
> *cough*Mario Gold 3DS*cough* ;O;


 

For NA at least, the cost of the base game was $10 less.


----------



## GamerzHell9137 (Aug 30, 2014)

DiscostewSM said:


> For NA at least, the cost of the base game was $10 less.


 

Atm the game costs 28 pounds on Amazon and the season pack costs 11 pounds which is 39 pounds in the end and that's 65 $
Most of the times 3DS games cost 30 pounds and the less popular are 25ish.

Don't like the " cut the content before release and set as DLC " thing.


----------



## Steena (Aug 30, 2014)

DiscostewSM said:


> For NA at least, the cost of the base game was $10 less.


$10 less for the base game, $15 of DLC, some of which was ready on day-one. All the DLC plan was entirely laid out months before release in details, which makes you think some of that too, if not all, was already done. After all, it's just fucking maps for a golf game, no way those would need months of development, it was just finished content, given delayed/episodic release.

It's a good move, isn't it? Make people believe your game is cheaper, take out the content, add competitive "DLC" pricing ("50% of the content for just $15??? you'd be STUPID not go get it!!!") to make the overall package more costy.

At the end of the day: mario golf comes attached with an additional $5 tax on it compared to the other 3DS titles. While people hail nintendo for making the game cheaper.


----------



## DiscostewSM (Aug 30, 2014)

Steena said:


> $10 less for the base game, $15 of DLC, some of which was ready on day-one. All the DLC plan was entirely laid out months before release in details, which makes you think some of that too, if not all, was already done. After all, it's just fucking maps for a golf game, no way those would need months of development, it was just finished content, given delayed/episodic release.
> 
> It's a good move, isn't it? Make people believe your game is cheaper, take out the content, add competitive "DLC" pricing ("50% of the content for just $15??? you'd be STUPID not go get it!!!") to make the overall package more costy.
> 
> ...


 

But it's something you're not forced to get. Did everyone who bought it for $30 *have* to get all the DLC? By getting enough packs to make the total cost $40, how does it pan out in content vs other games that come out at $40 with no DLC purchases?


----------



## Steena (Aug 30, 2014)

DiscostewSM said:


> But it's something you're not forced to get. Did everyone who bought it for $30 *have* to get all the DLC? By getting enough packs to make the total cost $40, how does it pan out in content vs other games that come out at $40 with no DLC purchases?


Pretty badly, as every mario golf. You can't really compare Mario Golf with, say, Pokemon, in terms of what was developed. Even if you consider the entire DLC to make the game cost $45, it's hard to think how could the development for Mario Golf 3DS (with DLC) would be comparable to Pokemon gen 6, where gamefreak had to model 7xx something 3d models from scratch, and make 4 animation sets for each of them (idle, physical move, special move, damage taken, possibly there some other unique animations here and there, too). Come up with extensive dialogue, balance progression throughout (breeding, all those fucking items, rebalance the whole singleplayer to fetus mode, down from easy mode), netcode, multiplayer rebalance (of course the pokemon quest is a joke in itself, but I'm saying that it's still something more compared to mario golf, and it still required people working behind it, spellcheck more stuff, make sure there is a continuity, etc)

But this is really another issue of its own. Games for the same system all have a similar price range, but they clearly have HUGE different effort put on them. This is very unfair for certain types of games. I never agreed with that.

As for the "you're not* FORCED* to get it" argument, let's not go there, these are videogames, you don't have to play any game to survive. Does that mean all games are equally shit and we call it a day? Of course content for a luxury commodity will get judged in terms of its worth in a spoiled first-world scenario, be it optional or not. In terms of the DLC pricing, yes, you kind of have to get it if you got the base game. It's immensely cost/effective. The issue is, some if not all of that DLC was already made. And this is exactly why the pricing was cost/effective. Because they could afford to make less profit on cut content, as any profit you make that way is extra profit.

Are there really people who enjoy MG who would get the new game but not the DLC? It may possibly be the best priced "DLC" I've ever seen.


----------



## Snailface (Aug 30, 2014)

GameWinner said:


> The content was included with Fantasy Life Link,* the title the western version is based off of.* Nintendo decided to remove that content that was already in the original Japanese version, Origin Island, and release it as DLC.


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.


----------



## GameWinner (Aug 30, 2014)

Snailface said:


> 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.


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

Sure.


----------



## MegaAce™ (Aug 30, 2014)

GameWinner said:


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


 

The link's dead somehow.


----------



## machomuu (Aug 30, 2014)

MegaAce™ said:


> The link's dead somehow.


 
Got it:

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

The link's actually already been posted two other times on this page.


----------



## Steena (Aug 30, 2014)

Snailface said:


> 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 (Aug 30, 2014)

GameWinner said:


> 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 (Aug 30, 2014)

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 (Aug 30, 2014)

Snailface said:


> 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 (Aug 30, 2014)

Snailface said:


> 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 (Aug 30, 2014)

TemplarGR said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (Aug 30, 2014)

Oh my...






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


----------



## Foxi4 (Aug 30, 2014)

Bladexdsl said:


> 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.


Hells Malice said:


> 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 (Aug 31, 2014)

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 (Aug 31, 2014)

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.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Aug 31, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> 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 (Aug 31, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> 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.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Aug 31, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> 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 (Aug 31, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> 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 (Aug 31, 2014)

Whats next, Subscriptions for playing online!?


----------



## Kippykip (Aug 31, 2014)

Nintendo becoming EA


----------



## anhminh (Aug 31, 2014)

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 (Aug 31, 2014)

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.


----------



## SickPuppy (Aug 31, 2014)

Snailface said:


> 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 (Aug 31, 2014)

SickPuppy said:


> 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".


----------



## rt141 (Aug 31, 2014)

The title can be horribly misleading. The game originally had an expansion that added online and other features, of course it costs the devs to make the expansion so they charged for it in Japan. It was released after the game and it added to the experience. The translated version gets -almost- all of this expansion already in the game.

I wonder what would have made people whine more, this or having Nintendo release all of Link separated. Also if we had gotten the whole expansion, wouldn't it have been unfair for Japanese players who paid for both?

I really see no problem here... the company had different production costs for both the game and Link. And we are getting most of Link with the game anyways. Why not changing the title to:

"NA and Europe getting most of Fantasy Life DLC expansion with their game"


----------



## natkoden (Sep 1, 2014)

What happened to you, Nintendo? You used to be cool.


----------



## Bladexdsl (Sep 1, 2014)

ninty stop hanging around that EA kid his a bad influence on you!


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (Sep 1, 2014)

Looks like no one actually read the article and only looked at the misleading title. It says the DLC was cut in the Japanese version and that the western release is based on the re-release which contains all of the origin island content.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 1, 2014)

rt141 said:


> The title can be horribly misleading. The game originally had an expansion that added online and other features, of course it costs the devs to make the expansion so they charged for it in Japan. It was released after the game and it added to the experience. The translated version gets -almost- all of this expansion already in the game. I wonder what would have made people whine more, this or having Nintendo release all of Link separated. Also if we had gotten the whole expansion, wouldn't it have been unfair for Japanese players who paid for both? I really see no problem here... the company had different production costs for both the game and Link. And we are getting most of Link with the game anyways. Why not changing the title to: "NA and Europe getting most of Fantasy Life DLC expansion with their game"


Don't whitewash this. The version that's being translated is the complete edition with all DLC, some of it is being cut out for the Western release and will be sold separately, those are the facts.


----------



## RchUncleSkeleton (Sep 1, 2014)

It's hard to tell what the truth is with all the different news sources interpretations. I guess we'll see when the game comes out. Day 1 dlc is crap, no matter who does it.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 1, 2014)

RchUncleSkeleton said:


> It's hard to tell what the truth is with all the different news sources interpretations. I guess we'll see when the game comes out. Day 1 dlc is crap, no matter who does it.


It really depends on the nature of the DLC. If it's add-ons to an otherwise complete A to Z package, like a new story, additional costumes and other more or less meaningful expansions, fine. If the game is clearly unfinished and the DLC is required to get the grand scheme of things _(which is rare)_, it's a big no-no.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Sep 1, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> If the game is clearly unfinished and the DLC is required to get the grand scheme of things _(which is rare)_, it's a big no-no.


Castlevania: Lords of Shadow?


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 1, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> Castlevania: Lords of Shadow?


I wouldn't know - I never played the game.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Sep 1, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> I wouldn't know - I never played the game.


I haven't finished it yet, but my understanding is that the ending is rather incomplete, and only really "completed" in two $10 DLC packs that expand the ending. Even worse, both the Mirror of Fate interquel and the true sequel rely very heavily on the player having played the first game's DLC to understand what's going on, as the DLC's events define major points of those games (even what actually happened to the playable character to cause certain literal changes in him).


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 1, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> I haven't finished it yet, but my understanding is that the ending is rather incomplete, and only really "completed" in two $10 DLC packs that expand the ending. Even worse, both the Mirror of Fate interquel and the true sequel rely very heavily on the player having played the first game's DLC to understand what's going on, as the DLC's events define major points of those games (even what actually happened to the playable character to cause certain literal changes in him).


My first thought was Starcraft 2. I still can't believe Blizzard releases _each of the campaigns_ as a _"separate game" (__meaning massive expansion pack)_. I played Wings of Libery back when it came out and I want to play Heart of the Swarm, but I almost don't want to before the trilogy is actually finished.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Sep 1, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> My first thought was Starcraft 2. I still can't believe Blizzard releases _each of the campaigns_ as a separate game. I played Wings of Libery back when it came out and I want to play Heart of the Swarm, but I almost don't want to before the trilogy is actually finished.


 
That's crazy. I didn't even know about that (not a Star Craft player). I heard of Heart of the Swarm, but I assumed it was just an expansion or something.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 1, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> That's crazy. I didn't even know about that (not a Star Craft player). I heard of Heart of the Swarm, but I assumed it was just an expansion or something.


Don't get me wrong, Starcraft 2 is _f*cking excellent_, but a big part of the original's charm was the immediate access to all three sides of the conflict and being able to see the war unfold from three different perspectives. Starcraft 2 is more like three expansions that make up one bigger game. They're not _really_ whole new games, but as far as the price and the size is concerned, they might as well be.


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 1, 2014)

Now Nintendo is selling out?

I read this and about half-way through I made sure it wasn't on the EoF.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 1, 2014)

JoostinOnline said:


> Now Nintendo is selling out?
> 
> I read this and about half-way through I made sure it wasn't on the EoF.


Implying Nintendo wasn't a massive sell-out for years on end?


----------



## JoostinOnline (Sep 2, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> Implying Nintendo wasn't a massive sell-out for years on end?


Not compared to other companies.  In fact, up until recently, I'm pretty sure all DLC has been free from them.

It's one thing to develop a game and then release DLC later, but if they're actually cutting stuff out of an old game, reselling the game, then selling the missing content for more money, it's very wrong.  Well maybe not "wrong" as you're not forced to buy any of it, but I'd say sleazy.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2014)

JoostinOnline said:


> Not compared to other companies. In fact, up until recently, I'm pretty sure all DLC has been free from them.


Because it was practically non-existant, but fair game. 


> It's one thing to develop a game and then release DLC later, but if they're actually cutting stuff out of an old game, reselling the game, then selling the missing content for more money, it's very wrong. Well maybe not "wrong" as you're not forced to buy any of it, but I'd say sleazy.


Definitely. Just because the _"original"_ game had this content released as DLC doesn't mean that the translated _"complete" _edition should. Then again, it's all about the money.


----------



## shinkodachi (Sep 2, 2014)

I don't know why, but everytime I read the original news my head hurts. Seeing as I'm not buying this game (too much to play atm), I don't care that much, but again I just don't understand what's this about.

West is getting more than Japan and people in the West complain about that?


----------



## GameWinner (Sep 2, 2014)

shinkodachi said:


> I don't know why, but everytime I read the original news my head hurts. Seeing as I'm not buying this game (too much to play atm), I don't care that much, but again I just don't understand what's this about.
> 
> *West is getting more than Japan and people in the West complain about that?*


 
The West is getting content that was cut from the Japanese release as DLC.


----------



## shinkodachi (Sep 2, 2014)

GameWinner said:


> The West is getting content that was cut from the Japanese release as DLC.


 
The way I understand it, the Link version adds online features as well as being an expansion pack, which was released later than the original Japanese release. And the Western release is based on that later version, minus online features. Did I comprehend everything correctly or am I to get another migraine after looking into this? Thanks


----------



## GameWinner (Sep 2, 2014)

shinkodachi said:


> The way I understand it, the Link version adds online features as well as being an expansion pack, which was released later than the original Japanese release. And the Western release is based on that later version, minus online features. Did I comprehend everything correctly or am I to get another migraine after looking into this? Thanks


 
We have everything in the Link version excluding Origin Island which was in the original Japanese Link release.


----------



## shinkodachi (Sep 2, 2014)

GameWinner said:


> We have everything in the Link version excluding Origin Island which was in the original Japanese Link release.


 
Doesn't seem to be the case... I looked into the original NeoGAF thread and the first post has an update:



> UPDATE
> Okay, some clarification.
> This is what seems to be the case.
> 
> ...


 
So West is getting the original game PLUS online and Link features are DLC, just like it was for Japanese people. So the assumption the Western version is based on Link seems wrong. Goodness my head hurts.


----------



## GameWinner (Sep 2, 2014)

shinkodachi said:


> Doesn't seem to be the case... I looked into the original NeoGAF thread and the first post has an update:
> 
> 
> 
> So West is getting the original game PLUS online and Link features are DLC, just like it was for Japanese people. So the assumption the Western version is based on Link seems wrong. Goodness my head hurts.


 
The Link re-release included online and many other features. Obviously, the localized version is based on Link because the original Fantasy Life did not include any online features.


----------



## shinkodachi (Sep 2, 2014)

GameWinner said:


> The Link re-release included online and many other features. Obviously, the localized version is based on Link because the original Fantasy Life did not include any online features.


 
To me it sounds like the Western version is indeed a yet different version of the game catering to the Western market where online play is often assumed to be in a game. So the Origin Island DLC is there for people who want to experience the whole game without being overwhelmed while still getting the online features. In Japan you couldn't go online without buying the Link version re-release, which also includes Origin Island.

Sounds to me like the West is getting the "better" version. Is it really all that different to other games? We let Japanese players "beta test" Monster Hunter for us and when they get the full game as a re-released G version, we finally get the Ultimate version with the same features. In this case, Western players get all the Japanese had originally PLUS online. That's great. Now that I understand what this story is about, I may consider getting the game after all.


----------



## duffmmann (Sep 2, 2014)

I'd care if it were a title I were interested in.  But so far for all the games that Nintendo has been doing proper DLC for, I don't have any issues with (Mario Golf, Fire Emblem, Pikmin 3, MK8, and hopefully Super Smash).  Dumb what they did here, but again, I don't give a crap as this game doesn't interest me in the slightest.  Hopefully they don't start abusing DLC like this in any future games that I do care about.


----------



## shinkodachi (Sep 2, 2014)

duffmmann said:


> I'd care if it were a title I were interested in. But so far for all the games that Nintendo has been doing proper DLC for, I don't have any issues with (Mario Golf, Fire Emblem, Pikmin 3, MK8, and hopefully Super Smash). Dumb what they did here, but again, I don't give a crap as this game doesn't interest me in the slightest. Hopefully they don't start abusing DLC like this in any future games that I do care about.


 
The thing that strikes me as odd is that there's no confirmation or definitive source to say who's call this actually is/was. Level-5 or Nintendo?


----------



## xwatchmanx (Sep 2, 2014)

shinkodachi said:


> The thing that strikes me as odd is that there's no confirmation or definitive source to say who's call this actually is/was. Level-5 or Nintendo?


 
Either way, I think it's safe to say that Nintendo approved it, at the very least, considering they are the publisher.


----------



## shinkodachi (Sep 2, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> Either way, I think it's safe to say that Nintendo approved it, at the very least, considering they are the publisher.


 
And? Nintendo has long been a publisher of Level-5 games outside of Japan (e.g. Professor Layton games). To suggest this decision is part of Nintendo's plan is conjecture at best. It may have well been decided on the end of the developer.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2014)

shinkodachi said:


> And? Nintendo has long been a publisher of Level-5 games outside of Japan (e.g. Professor Layton games). To suggest this decision is part of Nintendo's plan is conjecture at best. It may have well been decided on the end of the developer.


_"To suspect that publishing terms are up to the publisher is conjecture at best"_.

Okay, bro.


----------



## VMM (Sep 2, 2014)

Mariko said:


> but those *who would like to see a change need to start voting with their wallets*. I see a lot of moaning, but I don't see a lot of change, so there must be more people buying than complaining.


 
That sentence is so good I needed to show it off.
Although I think that the public is already awakening to these mercenary moves by some companies,
last I heard Capcom was in an absolute finnancial trouble and willing to have their company sold.



shinkodachi said:


> Doesn't seem to be the case... I looked into the original NeoGAF thread and the first post has an update:
> 
> 
> 
> So West is getting the original game PLUS online and Link features are DLC, just like it was for Japanese people. So the assumption the Western version is based on Link seems wrong. Goodness my head hurts.


 

But yet there is no reason to cut this content and sell it as day 1 DLC.
I know the japanese version didn't get that, but just look at MH3,
they received a re-release as MH3G and we received later a ultimate version.


----------



## Foxi4 (Sep 2, 2014)

*tl;dr* Newsflash: Nintendo is a company like any other, they're a business, they're in it for the money and they've been bleeding money for two years straight, so you're going to see underhanded tactics like this. In other news, the sun rose this morning and water has been found to be wet.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Sep 2, 2014)

shinkodachi said:


> And? Nintendo has long been a publisher of Level-5 games outside of Japan (e.g. Professor Layton games). To suggest this decision is part of Nintendo's plan is conjecture at best. It may have well been decided on the end of the developer.


 
Sooooo you're saying that it's plausible that Level 5 made this decision entirely separate from the involvement of Nintendo, the publisher, the ONE THAT IS DISTRIBUTING THE GAME, and that Nintendo just kind of went "eh, we don't want you to do that, but we'll let it slide"?

Okay, bro.


----------



## shinkodachi (Sep 2, 2014)

Foxi4 said:


> *tl;dr* Newsflash: Nintendo is a company like any other, they're a business, they're in it for the money and they've been bleeding money for two tears straight, so you're going to see underhanded tactics like this. In other new, the sun rose this morning and water has been found to be wet.


 
No one disputed this and I'm certainly not defending anyone/anything or their tactics here. This news was and still is confusing as there are some thing still left unanswered and we'll know for sure when the game comes out. In that sense, of course Nintendo is a company like any other and it's in the interest of any company looking to succeed to make profit. If DLC is the answer in Nintendo's mind, I don't blame them trying. Consumers fortunately have a say in this as well (by not buying the game or DLC).


----------



## ForteGospel (Sep 11, 2014)

so nintendo is importing an improved version of a game and day 1 dlc that was also dlc in the japanese version? those greedy bastards!


----------



## Guild McCommunist (Sep 11, 2014)

ForteGospel said:


> so nintendo is importing an improved version of a game and day 1 dlc that was also dlc in the japanese version? those greedy bastards!


 

"Importing" is not localizing. You're like trying to say "You should be thankful Nintendo actually brought it over! They're taking one for the team!"

The issue is day 1 DLC regardless. Everyone shat all over DLC as "terrible" but suddenly it's not too bad when Nintendo does it.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Sep 11, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> "Importing" is not localizing. You're like trying to say "You should be thankful Nintendo actually brought it over! They're taking one for the team!"


...Pretty sure that's not what he's saying. Sounds like he's just misusing the word "import."


Guild McCommunist said:


> Everyone shat all over DLC as "terrible" but suddenly it's not too bad when Nintendo does it.


 
*Yawn* How many people here are actually saying that?


----------



## Sterling (Sep 13, 2014)

Guild McCommunist said:


> The issue is day 1 DLC regardless. Everyone shat all over DLC as "terrible" but suddenly it's not too bad when Nintendo does it.


 

Day 1 DLC is not as deplorable as you're making it out to be. I hate disk locked content and vendor specific bonuses, but day 1 DLC is about as innocuous as a day 1 patch. As long as the company is being up front about what we're getting and no one is getting preferential treatment, then we can stop crying foul. What I'm more concerned about is the fact that they specifically develop content for GameStop or Amazon and Best Buy and then release it all later as a complete package. Or the fact they put DLC on the disk instead of paying to have it stored on the platform's shop just in case not enough people buy the damn package to cover the costs.

All this shit is revolving around the fact that video game bloggers say we're getting the enhanced version of the game when we're not. We're getting the base game with the online mode to appease our always online boners. Just because the base game in Japan shipped without online and then later with the DLC (like an Ultimate Edition) does not mean we're we automatically get the content when it's localized. Even the name says it's the normal edition and not the enhanced version.

I'm not defending Nintendo. In fact, the moment they slip up and try something abusive with their system, I'll be right there protesting. So far however, they have decently priced their DLC and their games are better for it.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Sep 13, 2014)

Sterling said:


> day 1 DLC is about as innocuous as a day 1 patch.


 
Except... y'know, you don't have to pay for a day-one patch.

Small, trifling difference, I know.


----------



## Sterling (Sep 13, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> Except... y'know, you don't have to pay for a day-one patch.
> 
> Small, trifling difference, I know.


 
So? You don't have to pay for DLC. It's why it's fucking optional. A patch is completely necessary to fixing bugs. I'd be more angry if I had to pay for DLC to even get online, instead Nintendo did the right thing and released the base game with the full online mode with DLC expanding the completely option part of the game. You guys are so strung up about an optional part of the game that you can't see how inane your ravings are.

The same could be said for on-disk DLC and vendor specific bonuses, but I'm more angry that companies think that these are somehow more acceptable than announced day one DLC. I can't even see why these vanity items (which were likely part of the original game any way) are held back for the specific intent to sell us more despite what we already bought. Hell, I have no problem with micro transactions as long as I can get all the things with simple elbow grease and gamer's persistience.


----------



## xwatchmanx (Sep 13, 2014)

Sterling said:


> So? You don't have to pay for DLC. It's why it's fucking optional. A patch is completely necessary to fixing bugs. I'd be more angry if I had to pay for DLC to even get online, instead Nintendo did the right thing and released the base game with the full online mode with DLC expanding the completely option part of the game. You guys are so strung up about an optional part of the game that you can't see how inane your ravings are.


 
My point is that there's really no comparison between day-one DLC and a day-one patch. They're completely different things. One is content you can optionally pay for (which almost certainly was purposely cut from the game to make extra money off the customer), and one is a free bug patch that's often required for a more stable and bug-free experience.

Tl;dr your comparison is ridiculous, and the fact that you contrasted the difference yourself in your most recent post further proves that.


----------



## Sterling (Sep 13, 2014)

xwatchmanx said:


> My point is that there's really no comparison between day-one DLC and a day-one patch. They're completely different things. One is content you can optionally pay for (which almost certainly was purposely cut from the game to make extra money off the customer), and one is a free bug patch that's often required for a more stable and bug-free experience.
> 
> Tl;dr your comparison is ridiculous, and the fact that you contrasted the difference yourself in your most recent post further proves that.


 
No, my comparison is not ridiculous just because I contrasted myself. I'm just aware that there's another side to it. More debates would be better if everyone knew the other side of the argument.

The comparison is that both are day one. The second comparison is that people bitch about both. Oooh, why don't they bug fix before they release the game? Oooh, why don't they give us the DLC with the full game? I might be more inclined to agree with the second sentiment if it was legitimately held from the game specifically to sell.

The fact that bug fixes and DLC are often released at the same time further drives the public perception. Also the fact that patches are also DLC that you just don't pay for. This might be the root of entitlement for new age gamers. "Well they give us free patches on day one, why do I have to pay for day one DLC when that could have been included with the full game. What a fucking rip-off."

The fact that people are bitching now (because some bloggers insinuate that we were supposed to get the later edition which included the DLC like an ultimate edition) suggests that no one is doing anything to fact checking. No where in the name or press releases suggests anything of the sort. Everyone just wants to feel the butt hurt that comes with the fact that Nintendo is still experimenting in the DLC scene like some running fucking joke. Don't project just yet when there's nothing to be so angry about.

TL;DR: TL;DRs are complete shit.


----------

