New Super Mario Bros. 2 Will Have Paid DLC

[Shawn Hopkins]

So, apparently there will be new "Coin Rush" stages that you have to pay for. What do you guys think of this? Is it just Nintendo getting with the times or are they selling out everything that is holy and good? As a multi-console gamer, I'm used to it, and I barely even stir now when I'm mercilessly gouged for something like the Prothean in Mass Effect 3, but it may be a bit of a shock to the system to Nintendo-only gamers.

http://kotaku.com/5920424/nintendo-is-releasing-mario-dlc-that-you-pay-for

[Jave]

You'd be paying for extra stages that have no connection to the main story and are entirely optional. It's what DLC should be.

I'm OK with this.

[GWOtaku]

Depends on the price. I'd pay $0.99 for a good stage, maybe $2 for a long or challenging one. Beyond that you get into the range of premium prices for a minimal amount of content, which is what's called a "rip-off".

[Punisher]

As long as its true DLC and not content already in the game but locked and you have to pay to unlock it...looking at you, Darth Vader in SCIV.

[RockmanDash]

It's definitely strange for me to hear "Mario" and "DLC" next to each other. As long as the DLC itself is creative, fun, and doesn't cost too much then I think it's a pretty decent idea.

[Radiant]

I thought Nintendo said they weren't going to do any paid DLC. They tend to be lying a lot lately.

Anyway, aside from the fact that they lied, it doesn't surprise me. New Super Mario Bros. is now their milking series. They won't stop at making you pay for a very similar game twice on the 3DS and Wii U, they also want you to purchase more of the same through the DLC store.

[Jave]

I thought Nintendo said they weren't going to do any paid DLC. They tend to be lying a lot lately.

Anyway, aside from the fact that they lied, it doesn't surprise me. New Super Mario Bros. is now their milking series. They won't stop at making you pay for a very similar game twice on the 3DS and Wii U, they also want you to purchase more of the same through the DLC store.

You thought wrong. They never said they were entirely against DLC (they've allowed it on Wii since the beginning), but they did say they will never have you pay for stuff that's already on the disc or have microtransactions in their own games (like in Smurfs Village where you buy in-game money with real money). Paid DLC is something they've been considering for a while,it was mentioned in one of the recent Investor's Meetings and they even used Mario as an example of how DLC could work right. They've been doing it in Japan with Fire Emblem too, which includes extra maps and characters. It's not like you need to buy the DLC anyway. The game would be as complete as any other Mario game without any of it.

It is hilarious though, how companies like Capcom completely abuse the DLC system, yet Nintendo announces only their second game with paid DLC (the first in America and Europe) and people immediately jump at them claiming that they're "milking it".

[Radiant]

It is hilarious though, how companies like Capcom completely abuse the DLC system, yet Nintendo announces only their second game with paid DLC (the first in America and Europe) and people immediately jump at them claiming that they're "milking it".

It's actually because of my experience with DLC from other companies that I am very wary of Nintendo starting paid DLC as well. I am very worried about Animal Crossing in particular. It's a game that could have very similar DLC to The Sims 3, and that is not a good thing.

[Mandouga]

I understand how you feel, Radiant, but we shouldn't jump to conclusions, either. I don't think Nintendo lied about anything. Yes, they have made mistakes in the past, but this is still Nintendo we're talking about. They really want everyone to be happy with their games (of course, like any form of entertainment, you can't please everyone, but that's the general idea). They're aware of the ramifications that DLC can present. For this reason, I'm going to assume that Nintendo wouldn't abuse DLC for this game or any other game Nintendo makes that does have it, and for that reason, I'm also going to assume that Nintendo would never deceive anyone, either. FWIW though, I'm not entirely crazy about Nintendo games having DLC myself, but I'm still going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Sent from iPod Touch using Toon Zone.

[Shawn Hopkins]

It's actually because of my experience with DLC from other companies that I am very wary of Nintendo starting paid DLC as well. I am very worried about Animal Crossing in particular. It's a game that could have very similar DLC to The Sims 3, and that is not a good thing.

Man, can you imagine how bad Animal Crossing would be in the freemium model that some mobile games use? Energy meters that you have to wait to refill before you can do anything. A separate currency that you have to buy with real money to get anywhere in the game. Tom Nook gets to hold the mortgage to your real house.

Let's hope Nintendo doesn't go that far.

I understand how you feel, Radiant, but we shouldn't jump to conclusions, either. I don't think Nintendo lied about anything. Yes, they have made mistakes in the past, but this is still Nintendo we're talking about. They really want everyone to be happy with their games (of course, like any form of entertainment, you can't please everyone, but that's the general idea). They're aware of the ramifications that DLC can present. For this reason, I'm going to assume that Nintendo wouldn't abuse DLC for this game or any other game Nintendo makes that does have it, and for that reason, I'm also going to assume that Nintendo would never deceive anyone, either. FWIW though, I'm not entirely crazy about Nintendo games having DLC myself, but I'm still going to give them the benefit of the doubt.

Sent from iPod Touch using Toon Zone.

The "abuse" of DLC is relative. So whose standard do we use? Some fans are actually willing to play real money to get ahead in Smurf Village, or pay a hundred bucks for an in-game item. Surely we're not reckoning abuse by the lowest common denominator.

These are things I would call "abuse." If Nintendo does these, I'll be disappointed. I'm not making these up, these are all things other companies have actually done on other platforms:

Holding back a feature like additional difficulty levels as paid DLC. Or holding back something very useful like the storage chest at Warden's Keep in Dragon Age. Yeah, you had to pay to do something as simple as get a place to store your items.

In-game salesmen. Again, like the guy in Dragon Age that pitches Warden's Keep to you. Really takes you out of the game.

Charging for hints with its superguide system, most likely through a system where you get a certain amount of coins for hints but can buy more with real money.

Releasing a game unfinished and then releasing a paid "real" ending later, as happened with Asura's Wrath.

On-disc DLC.

Any type of currency that can only be bought with real money. Bonus awfulness if that currency doesn't just buy special items, but is also the only way you can quickly progress in the game because of built-in timers and energy meters.

Any items that can be bought with real money that confer an advantage in multiplayer. If some guy is kicking my ass in Mario Kart because he dropped 20 dollars for 100 blue shells, then screw it, I'm not playing Mario Kart any more.

Requiring a constant Internet connection to play or to use DLC.

On the other hand DLC can be freaking fantastic. Some of the Fallout 3 DLCs, especially Point Lookout, were so much fun and added so much to the game they were a bargain. If Nintendo uses DLC this way, I'm glad they've gotten with the times.

These are types of DLC I wouldn't call abuse:

Expansion packs.

Reasonably priced downloadable levels and multiplayer maps and tracks, as long as there is sufficient content in the original release and they don't try to sell us a game with a handful of tracks or levels and part the rest out as DLC.

Extra characters, to an extent. It's okay if it's one or two. If we get 16 characters in a Smash Bros. and have to buy the other 8 separately to get a full roster, then I would consider that abuse.

Purchasable cosmetic items. These can get ridiculous, but don't really hurt anyone.