So how do you feel about paid DLC?

Borderlands is a good example of walking the line, On one hand, the season pack DLC is acceptable, the plots involved are seperate from the main game so you don't have to play them and they carry enough content on their own to support the cost.

On the other hand, the buyable classes are questionable, the buyable level upgrades are bad game design, and the combat arenas are just plain shit

Personally I'm fine with it as long as it doesn't render the game unplayable without like a majority of MM Os and as long as it isn't required to enjoy the primary plotline of a game.

edited 15th Mar '16 11:17:37 AM by stevebat

I like DLC if it's enhancing the game. If it's selling me parts of the game that I already paid for, then I'm quite bitter.

On the other hand, developers putting in the effort to continue content to extend the life of the game? I'll happily pay for it.

I am 100% okay with cosmetic DLC, though. If it makes you enjoy the game more to have a shiny gold gun, go nuts. But paying real money to get an advantage is bullshit in any competitive game.

Wasn't it stated that you get one storyline when you buy one version of FE: Fates at the store?

Mind you, I'm not really caring about not being able to play the Nohr side because my intent was to side with the Hoshido for separate sides. My original plan before I found out about the different versions was to unite them both (like Revelations).

The expansion model I can get behind. I would be more willing to buy the more expensive yet extensive additions to games, such as X-Com:Enemy Within, and all the New Vegas DLC than horse armor.

That being said, even the lowest of the low examples I don't mind it much. It dissuades buying in day one, but as someone who's always a year behind, paid DLC is fantastic for fuckers that buy games a few years or months down the line.

Even if it's the very bery worst kind of exploitative DLC (overpriced skins, exclusive weapons and all that), they usually get bundled with the game in a package that is cheaper than the base game at launch. It feels good having the overpriced bullshite DLC without paying extra, even if the content adds nothing. Compare what you have to pay for the Battlefield 4 now (The constantly updated, lively multiplayer shooter that has all the stupid map packs built in) to what you had to pay for vanilla shit BF 4 + the DLC at launch.

edited 15th Mar '16 5:10:44 PM by mrsunshinesprinkles

Fire Emblem is a series that became something that no longer interests me, so thanks for the confirmation bias.

I guess pay twenty dollars is better than pay forty twice but you still need to effectively pay for the game twice if you want all the content, so in the end, it's still One Game for the Price of Two. I can see why your mom is annoyed. Still, it's one game for the price of two from your own home, rather than decide now or make two trips to the store/wait for another order to arrive.

Probably should not have made it possible to trigger the downloadable content before it was paid for though. Because how is sister who was just hitting buttons on the Wii supposed to know what would and would not trigger a pay wall? You know what, Rabidtanker? I blame you! It's your fault for letting him play the New Game Plus(except not really because the plus has to be paid for). You know what else is your fault? Everything I think is wrong with Fire Emblem, the very existence of paid downloadable content, the existence of a live action Transformers, war, pogroms, climate change and spicy food and the flu. And for what, what did we do to you?

Those bashing Fates in this thread... I own the Special Edition and disagree. I've finished Nohr and Birthright, each of which got me 26 hours of gameplay not including failed attempts, and almost none of which felt repetitive. Both sides also felt like complete stories, aside from Nohr's ending feeling like a sequel hook if it weren't for Revelations.

And I still have Revelations I'm going through right now, which seems to share even less in terms of maps.

While the model for Fates looked exploitative and like Pokemon at first glance, this was actually extremely fair. It's more like the Zelda Oracle games. Plays completely differently, shares assets. I expected an actually bad example when I clicked on this thread.

I should note, however, that it is actually worse to buy two separate cartridges, as the game gives you bonuses for owning multiple routes.

edited 15th Mar '16 7:33:11 PM by burnpsy

It depends on the game really. Like, my go-to example for shit-DLC practices is Javik in Mass Effect 3 having to be bought if you didn't get the Collector's Edition. Reason why I found that unacceptable is that since the very first game, Protheans had been integral to the lore and backstory of the franchise. Upon recruiting the character, it completely changes the perspective of everything you know about the story...and he's not part of the base game.

This, so much. Fire Emblem Fates' DLC is not "buy missing chunks of the story for $20 each." It's "Buy a full, complete game for $40 as usual; and if you want, buy another two full, complete games at half-price each."

Failure to do research before purchasing, especially in this case when the split was very heavily advertised and explained by Nintendo, is the consumer's problem.

Bullshit like Javik in ME 3 (which is funny since ME 3 also has what may be the greatest DLC ever) and Asura's Wrath's ending being DLC is, well, bullshit.

Don't think of the 3 different versions of Fates as "buying missing story for $20", that's not what it is at all.

It's more along the lines of Pokemon, where there's different versions, but you can get the other two at a discount.

Pokémon doesn't have completely different narratives and difficultly levels depending on the version of the pair you bought. Even Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire were very similar despite having differing antagonists.

The only thing Fates did wrong was let you choose your path, play to the end of the chapter the choice was given (9?), and then inform you that you had to buy that path online. Kind of a dick move, but otherwise their paired version model is superior to Pokémon's "barely different" one.

edited 16th Mar '16 9:57:16 AM by Karxrida

Guys, girls, and dragons, branching storylines in strategy games (both real-time and turn-based) have long been established to not be enough to qualify it as a separate game. For that matter, Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones is also part of that established trend.

Before going 100% fanboy rage, keep in mind I'm not out to bash Nintendo or Fire Emblem. Nintendo is a relative newcomer to the concept of DLC, and while unfortunate, it's not a terrible surprise that they would make a mistake this early on. The key is getting them to be aware that this was a mistake, and they shouldn't do this kind of thing again.

Sacred Stones with both paths combined is also shorter than a single path of Fates. And the paths have a similar story compared to Fates's completely different stories. With a few small tweaks Nintendo could've easily had a new Fire Emblem game released in 2015, 2016, and 2017 while charging $40 for each of them.

Nintendo isn't new to DLC. They knew what they were doing. That's why Fates has mediocre DLC like its predecessor. But the split paths I find is consumer friendly if you base your expectations off the previous game.

Yeah, this isn't fanboyism (I've played a grand total of 3 Fire Emblem games, and nearly didn't buy Fates because of this exact issue), and the difference is far more extensive than Sacred Stones. According to my research and the opinions of practically everyone I've seen who're experienced with the series, each version is the same size that they normally release as a full Fire Emblem game. From the other 2 I've played, that rings accurate.

I recommend doing your research when you have to rely on memory from articles as you claim to have early on in this thread. Characterizing it as a mistake is the mistake, not Nintendo's actions.

If you're gonna pull precedent, Zelda's Oracle games, as I said, are the most analogous thing here.

edited 16th Mar '16 2:23:19 PM by burnpsy

I liked DLC better back when it was bundled together in bulk packages and called an Expansion Pack.

I'm with Karxrida in saying the Pokemon comparison isn't apt. With Pokemon you have slightly different versions of the same game. With Fates, from what I am hearing, you are getting what in the olden days would've been 2 campaigns in a single release with an extra one in an expansion.

Would there happen to be a $60 version with the 2 base campaigns? Or do you have to do $40 + $20?

There's an $80 cartridge with all 3 that sold out quickly. So your only option nowadays (unless you're in Europe where it's not out yet) is $40 + $20 + $20.

edited 16th Mar '16 2:42:55 PM by burnpsy

You have to do $40+$20. A special edition exists with both campaigns and the true DLC 3rd route on the cart, but it's $80 and was given a limited release.

edited 16th Mar '16 2:43:12 PM by Karxrida

I kind of miss just waiting for the next game. It always seemed like the people behind the game had to work harder to ensure the game was solid. You couldn't rely on future patches/updates to fix the game, there's no guarantee they'd come out with a "Definitive/Game of the Year/Unlimited/Awesome Edition" later.

Compare the number of games you saw re-released/fixed on PS 2/Gamecube/Xbox, to the number you played on PS 3 and 360.

So you have to do it piecemeal? That's....odd.

Wait, hold on. This is 3DS, right? Standard 3DS game pricing is $40, correct?

Yes. Standard price for the base version, half off for all additional routes.

Yeah.

Also, is it possible to just get the Revelations DLC if you only have, say, Birthright and not have to get the Nohr storyline for Fire Emblem?

Yes. The other routes are there as DLC options after the route split in chapter 6 and do not require each other. That said, the game does give you a message recommending you play both standard routes first.

Okay. I had almost no intention of siding with the Nohr.

That storyline is definitely... you have to know what you're getting into with Nohr. Lots of the protag holding themselves back while pretending to be obediently doing evil deeds so they can eventually win, and maps that are aggravatingly tough but can be cheesed if you figure out the right strategy. Not for everyone, so I can't blame you for skipping it.

It's actually weird that the game recommends to play it before Revelations because the difficulty curve is Conquest > Revelations > Birthright.

edited 16th Mar '16 3:02:55 PM by burnpsy

Yeah, that's why I chose Hoshido.