Nintendo

Nintendo: Nintendo Isn’t Interested In Paid DLC

Nintendo of America president Reggie Fils-Aime has told AOL’s Games Blog that the Kyoto based company isn’t interested in dishing out downloadable content for first party content as they want consumers to feel like they’ve purchased a full game. Nintendo may add additional downloadable content after launch, but only when it makes sense to for the company to do so and not necessarily for a charge.

“We’re interested in it to the extent that it makes sense to the consumer.”

“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 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, and then we have opportunities to provide more on top of that.”

71 comments

  1. I think it makes sense to add tracks to Mariokart… free of charge of course, since I shouldn’t have to buy additional content :). Seriously I would pay for the backlog of retro courses.

  2. Best philosophy regarding DLC out of any developer.

    Realistically if they wanted they could have released less tracks for Mario Kart 7 and had some of the retro tracks available as DLC instead, and made people pay for them.

  3. The way it should be. Though if something is added later which really adds to the game and isn’t just something the dev intentionally left out, then I don’t mind dishing some extra cash to improve the game.

    For example with Nintendo I’d pay to get some extra characters for Super Smash Bros.

    1. Another good example, but for Smash I’d have to like the character. If it’s a pokemon or something I’d say pass on it, but something like a playable master hand… definitely.

  4. I dont think i love nintendo possibly more than i do right
    *gives skyward sword for free*
    FUUUUU!!!!

  5. Yup yup, that’s quality right there. Instead of selling Batman Arkham City and having to download that Catwoman part. As soon as a game comes out you inevitabley here “…and the new [insert title here] DLC will be avaliable the week following. Why not just include it?

  6. Nintendo cares about the financial benefits of the consumer better than anybody else. For that I will always love and respect them even when their hardware falls behind.

  7. and doubter, non believers, “link or it didnt happen” posters can now stfu lol reggie had said this before. im glad nintendo took this route though, maybe capcom, Ea and all these other publishers start getting shitted on because nintendo will be giving away free dlc while they are ripping off consumers.

  8. Well, the article says Nintendo don’t want to add DLC content to FIRST PARTY GAMES for a price, third party games will still have their own for a price.

  9. This is a misleading title. RFA doesn’t say they don’t want to do paid DLC, just that they don’t want to do it if it’s like selling chunks of the game. Honestly, as a consumer, I’d rather Nintendo not decide for me if I want to buy a map pack or extra cars or whatever the DLC is. Give me the option, if I don’t want it I won’t buy it.

    1. They arent making you download it either.. you still have the option to get it or not, but for FREE, if you want to throw money away you can always send it my way ;)

  10. Awesome. That’s a smart way to look at it. If I’m going to be charged $50-$60 for a new game, I want that game to be complete. If, a few months down the road, I can pay to get extra levels/tracks/characters/etc, then I’ll do it if I like the game.

    I would love DLC for some of my current Wii games. New tracks for Mario Kart, new boards for Mario Party 8, new stages and trophies for Super Smash Bros. Brawl, that sort of thing would be great. Those games are excellent and complete as-is, but I would be willing to get something to expand them if possible. I hope Nintendo realizes that with games like Mario Kart 7 and the inevitable Mario Kart/Party/Smash Bros. games coming to Wii U.

    Kudos, Reggie!

  11. you should change the name to “Nintendo isn’t interested in advancing to the future” just cause you have a neat controller doesnt mean your futuristic. also DLC doesnt have to be payed for it can be free of charge.

    1. So you’d rather pay $50-60 for a game that’s half finished, with content left out INTENTIONALLY just to get more money out of you for DLC? Didn’t know “advancing to the future” requires that they extort gamers out of every penny they have. >.>

      1. the only game company that releases their games half finished is Capcom. and on MW3 theres 4 maps on the disc that arnt in the game. anyways a game is only half finished if the DLC is actually on the disc.

    2. Did you even read it?

      frwfew – “Nintendo isn’t interested in advancing to the future… DLC doesnt have to be payed for it can be free of charge.”

      Reggie Fils-Aime – ” I think the consumer wants to get, for their money, a complete experience, and then we have opportunities to provide more on top of that.”

      See that? “More on top of that.”

      NOT having paid DLC SHOULD be the future. It should be free. Which is what Fils-Aime has just stated.

      *sigh*

  12. This is great. I think DLC has it’s place, but it’s been so marred by past attempts that any attempt now to offer it would be dished with an ill taste left in the consumer’s mouths.

    The one game on Wii where I’ve truly wished DLC would be available was Monster Hunter Tri. I would have paid for more monsters to hunt, but I truly respect Nintendo’s approach to DLC.

  13. I suppose they can safely say this since they rarely rush games out. Consoles, maybe but rarely games. I mean Skyward Sword’s been in development how long? I’d prefer to wait than have day 1 paid DLC.

  14. Well most Nintendo games aren’t known for longevity, so I can understand this.

    But games like fallout, I can get 20-30 hours out of just 1 DLC pack. For 10$ that’s not that bad, and at the same time, feel like the devs earned that 10$ from me.

    DLC should be implemented and charged for where it needs to be. So I can see and agree with nintendos point.

    1. “No longevity”? Are you kidding? Don’t you know that their games sell looong after they’ve been released. Mario Kart DS was a consistent best seller years after it was released. So was Smash Bros.

  15. Free DLC Content means 100 Million HOURS of Mario, Mario Kart, Zelda, Metroid, Donkey Kong, Kirby, Smash Bros, Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing, Star Fox, F-Zero, Pikmin, and all these other franchises and games.

  16. DLC should always be free. If you honestly think you deserve cash for it (as a developer) then consider this: why wasn’t in the original release in the first place?

  17. This is what I love about Nintendo. Consumers come first. Some DLC is cool but most of it is a complete ripoff and should have come with the game to begin with. To often developers leave stuff out so they can nickle and dime people later.

  18. I see DLC as a way to extend the life of a game, not as a way to complete an unfinished game (well most of the time). I will beat 1st party Nintendo games and never touch them again (ex: Mario Galaxy, Twilight Princess, Metroid, etc.) It would have been nice if they would have added extra quests to either games to give me a reason to keep playing it

  19. This is good, the only problem is that then Nintendo games hardly ever get any kind of DLC or bug fixes or anything.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: