Add to this limitations of what you can show with what the agreement means. If you sign your channel up for the full deal, you can ONLY have games from Nintendo that are approved. If you're someone like my Channel, where I'm working on a few PC games as ideas for Let's Plays, I can't do it because something like Dragon Quest IX because it's not approved Nothing else unless you want to make another channel. As well, if you choose individual videos, you effectively have to have Nintendo approve EVERY Video you do before you get any money from it. If they don't like something, congrats, you can't make that video.

 

I feel like I'm the only one who is actually trying to understand where Joe/Youtube gamers are coming from.

Really? I wonder how much Nintendo would restrict other videos from other games being on your channel if you signed that contract. I thought it would only apply to Nintendo videos but I suppose they could their contract with you if they deem your channel unsuitable for whatever reason.

You're definitely not the only one that understands where Joe is coming from as I have expressed in this thread also. Nintendo's YouTube policies are lame and hurt Nintendo's online communities, why anyone would support them is beyond me.

It's stupid that they don't give an option and think no option is somehow the better way to go. It takes a true Nintendo employee to use that kind of logic.

Just a question, does the Wii U allow voice chat within the OS itself. As in, one person could be playing a different game or no game at all but be able to voice chat with people in their friends list?

Gamepad has a mic on it and you can video chat. MK8 lets you post match. Again I say why is it a big deal people praise Dark Souls and Journey and niether have voice chat either.

But can you voice chat across games like I asked? Well not necessarily across games but just to other friends while in-game through the OS.

Why are you comparing Spatoon to other team based shooters? A game none of us have played but looking at it may as well compare Mario Kart 8 to Driveclub if you keep comparing it to other team based shooters.  You race so must be the same right? It may not even be needed in Splatoon.

 

In Dark Souls it would be nice to communicate telling a dude how to strategize on a boss. Instead the series uses emotes from MMO's in the 90s.

Are you being serious? I really can't tell. Journey? That game not including voice chat can easily be overlooked but a team-based shooter such as Splatoon voice chat would definitely be ideal. Upon searching it seems that Dark Souls lacks voice chat but Dark Souls II doesn't so I'm not sure where you're getting your information from.

So you're claiming coordination and communication wont be necessary in Splatoon? It's a team based shooter, we know enough about it to know that voice communication would only enhance the experience.  

I'm not a MH fan but it does look interesting so I looking forward to seeing some gameplay.

No you cannot chat across games with friends, there's no "party" system like on xbox or whatever the equivalent is on playstation. The only way you can communicate with your friends is to go onto miiverse and send them a private message or use the video chat (which is in a separate app so you cannot do anything else while using it).

Ah, that's what I thought might be the case. That makes this much worse and comparisons to Dark Souls or other PS or Xbox games that lack voice chat are even less valid considering this.

Agreed with the rest of your post. I really don't see how this decision could be defended.

Bloodborne doesn't.

Why do you keep bringing up other games as if it has anything to do with Splatoon?

I don't care about Bloodborne. You can use PS Party chat if you want to chat with friends, that is a feature that would benefit the Wii U greatly. Bloodborne's co-op functionality is designed in a different way that isn't even necessary, it's a game that can be played entirely on your own. I wouldn't say the same could be said for a team based shooter like Splatoon, surely the best way to experience such a game would be online.

You're constantly diverting attention from this game as if it somehow makes Splatoon a better game. Splatoon isn't going to be perfect and you're going to have to accept that PlayStation games lacking voice chat wont change that. If a game like Team Fortress 2, CS, Overwatch or even Destiny lacked voice chat you bet I'll criticise how stupid a decision that would be. 

People like to do this false equivalence thing with this issue...

 

"Splatoon is a team-based tactical shooter. Other team-based tactical shooters I've played benefit from voice chat. Therefore Splatoon would benefit from voice chat."

 

But it's not so simple. Splatoon is a very different game to anything we've seen before. It's such a quick game. Iteration time is very low with the super jump; you can get straight back into the action. You can easily see everything that's happening on the map just by looking down to the gamepad. You don't need somebody yelling at you to get over there, you can look at the map and see for yourself where things are happening and go there. You say voice chat could be used to call for help when something unexpected happens... Two things: 1, there are predetermined signals in the game, used by pressing up/down on the dpad. You can change these messages somehow, and I'd be surprised if there wasn't some way to signal for help. 2, If something unexpected happens, you're basically dead. It only takes a few shots to splatter a player, and if you're caught off-guard, it's likely you'll end up dead. There's just no time to react. Nobody could come in time to help you.

 

Splatoon is a game where every player has all the information possible at all times. Other than if an enemy is hiding in their ink, or around a corner, you see everything either on the TV or on the map. The only thing determining the outcome of the match is the strategic and twitch skills of each individual player.

 

Of course, this is assuming most players will be competent. If there's a lot of baddies, then yes, a simple "Hey stupid, standing there doing nothing won't help." might do some good, but then they're a lost cause anyway...

 

EDIT: I had an idea the other day... What if Nintendo charged a monthly fee for voice chat in Splatoon? People would probably flip out. Even though they do it for Xbox One and PS4. lol

That's not a false equivalence though... It's a team-based shooter. TEAM BASED.

You're acting like this is some entirely new genre when it's really not. Do you honestly believe that it would not benefit from more communication options? How can you honestly claim this?

You can see everything going on the map but you can't read the players on your team's minds. You claim this is about the skills of the individual player but this is a team based game, with proper communication you can strategise together rather than simply call for help or whatever else the limited preset communication options offer you.

There's a game called Awesomenauts that I've been playing a bit of on PC lately. It's a team based MOBA like game so communication is important but I don't think there is a way to use voice chat through the game itself so it's up to text and presets which limits communication considerably. Sure you can use the presets to ask for help, tell your team to attack or defend or even taunt the enemy team but you can't properly communicate and strategise without stopping to type it out by which time it might be too late to tell them your plan.

I honestly cannot see how any team based game would suffer from featuring a voice communication option. Especially with Splatoon offering ranked leaderboards, why bother taking that seriously when the Wii U system itself or the game don't allow you to properly communicate with your team? You're only encouraging Nintendo to stay where they are when they should be improving, don't you find it insulting to be treated like the child Nintendo assumes you are? Parental options aren't hard to implement and Nintendo has experience with them already, there is just no excuse or justification or false equivalence here.

Of course they'd flip out if Nintendo charged a monthly fee for their online features since it's a step in the wrong direction for Nintendo, it's beyond me why people pay for the Xbox One and PS4 services let alone the consoles themselves.

Imagine trying playing a game like Story of Seasons (the latest Harvest Moon title), Tearaway or even Super Mario 3D Land, on an iPhone, iPad or mobile Android device, without the help of a dedicated GamePad.

 

Developers would be forced to crowd countless buttons onto a tiny screen that was never designed with gaming in mind in the first place.

This is something retro emulators often end up doing, and although games are still playable with this control method, the experience is never as enjoyable as it would have been on the original console the game was intended to be played on. The number of times I’ve accidentally turned my vehicle in the wrong direction while playing Grand Theft Auto III on my Nexus 4, because the game’s virtual directional pad is too close together, is frustratingly significant.

 

The same can be said about other console-to-mobile ports like recently released Tomb Raider and Bioshock, and countless other games. Sure, you could argue bringing along a compatible controller would solve this issue easily, but do you really want to lug a gamepad around along with your smartphone, just to play a game? This would defeat the purpose behind on-the-go portable gaming.

 

Wouldn't simply using a peripheral, like some of those that already exist, negate this completely? The types of controllers that attach to the phone so that the phone would resemble something more like a Vita/PSP.

The last point mentioned there of having to "lug around" a gamepad along with your smartphone just to play a game... It's a phone that most would carry in their pockets. If you have room for a phone and a portable gaming system then you would definitely have space for a phone and a gamepad peripheral for your phone.

If you have to lug around a controller, how much easier is it then lugging around a handheld? You're not going to keep the controller with your phone all of the time.

It might be a little easier since it's just the controller that attaches to the phone and not a separate device like a handheld gaming system. That's the thing though, if anything it would be a bit easier to "lug around" the controller so I'm not sure why the author says it as if the controller would be heavier or harder to carry than the gaming system itself.

If you're going to be bringing the gaming system with you then who's to say you're not going to be bringing the controller with you just as much? This is under the hypothetical that the phone or similar device can replace a dedicated gaming system, which it most definitely can.

Technically that's still an equivalence. What other team-based shooter involves ink physics (hiding in ink, high speed swimming and climbing, rival ink impedience)? Are any of those other shooters restricted to four players? It's a lot different then shooting up terrorists in Iraq, you can't honestly expect it to translate completely. Hell, even Team Fortress 2 has some fairly unique techniques (spy checking, spies in general, sentry turrets) that makes it a different game.

 

So can you please stop pretending that Splatoon is simply a port of COD but with family-friendly textures (and voice chat disabled)?

How do the ink gameplay mechanics affect the fact that it's team based? That really doesn't make any sense. Hiding and swimming around in ink don't change the genre from a team based game to anything else, they're just part of the gameplay mechanics just as shooting, rocket jumping, building sentries, spy checking etc are parts of TF2.

I'm not arguing that they're the same game, obviously. I'm arguing that the team based nature of these various games makes communication important if you want a successful team especially in the ranked modes.

To reiterate my point from past posts, you're supporting Nintendo in not giving us the option to communicate with our team more effectively. Think about that and why you support that because I honestly cannot understand why anyone would.

Tell you what, how about you bring a Wiimote or Pro controller with you everywhere you bring your phone for week? It's fine and dandy talking hypothetically but in the end you'd either only bring the controller if you think you would use it, or you would have a rainbowty little keychain controller. You might as well just grab the handheld when you need it.

The 3DS doesn't even offer support with the Wiimote so that point is invalid as we're talking about handhelds. I'm also not talking about a full size gamepad such as the Pro controller or an Xbox controller, have you not seen controllers that attach to smartphones? Such as these, for example: 

These are considerably smaller than a full size gamepad and therefore more portable. Arguably more portable than a handheld gaming system that you would be carrying around with you in addition to your phone anyway. If mobile gaming had the developer support to offer the right kinds of experiences for these controllers and the kinds of experiences that rival that of dedicated handheld systems wouldn't it be much more worthwhile to just buy a peripheral device for your phone than to spend hundreds of dollars on a handheld system and its games?

It's all up to devs really. If both software and hardware devs were to market affordable, functional and portable gaming peripherals for smartphones then it could really push dedicated handheld systems out of the market. That's why the argument against smartphone control schemes isn't an argument when it can easily be solved with an affordable peripheral and why it's entirely possible for such devices to also take over the handheld gaming market in the future.

Just to respond to this:

 

It's fine and dandy talking hypothetically but in the end you'd either only bring the controller if you think you would use it, or you would have a rainbowty little keychain controller. You might as well just grab the handheld when you need it.

That's the whole hypothetical though, that the smartphone is able to replace or compete with a dedicated handheld device. If the smartphone offered experiences that were of the same standard as handhelds then it would be more affordable and portable to just bring a controller for your smartphone than a dedicated handheld.

That's the problem with mobile gaming, there isn't a standard. With a dedicated device devs can take advantage of both hardware and software to provide the best and fullest experience possible. It will always be a mixed bag in mobile.

That why nintendo has to be careful in how and what it provides in mobile

It's definitely hard with how the mobile gaming market is at the moment but it would only take some devs to push the idea and with enough support they could really stand a chance at taking a portion of the handheld market. It's entirely possible is all I'm saying, we'll see what happens in the future and whether devs are willing to make the push.

Weren't you paying any attention when I was talking about Nintendo's target audience? The average consumer will stop playing and tell their friends and family about the manchild screaming obscenities rather than hitting mute and continue playing.

 

YOU ARE NOT THE CUSTOMER

 

Nintendo has a reputation for fun yet family friendly gaming. They killed swapnote because a little girl got raped, even though not using swapnote is available as a feature in every 3DS.

Oh, right. I forgot that Nintendo only makes games for children. My mistake.

There are a lot of ifs in your post. A lot of your argument hinges on future changes in smartphone gaming that are not guaranteed. That has no bearing on what Nintendo should do NOW, when smartphone gaming is still a more complicated mishmash of features and peripherals. You have to realize that.

I guess I was going on a bit too much on what could be. As it is now the mobile gaming market and the handheld gaming market are two different things so handheld gaming will definitely continue until a change happens in the market, either mobile market will eat in the handheld market or Nintendo could even take advantage of the current mobile market.

Does the 3DS get any of this DLC?

Anyone else here as excited for this as I am?

People still play these games? I really wish the series would just die out but people keep throwing money at it for some strange reason.

It's like a bag of Doritos: it's mindless fun that you can easily enjoy, but it's not that great and you can do much better.

Same reason McDonald's is still in business. Cheap but accessible quick garbage.

I wouldn't call a bag of doritos 'mindless fun' but I get what you mean. I also wouldn't call these games cheap because they're full priced retail games, they're definitely accessible and that's the main source of appeal but it's just odd to me that these companies can sell the same game and people still pay good amount of money for them. It's the same damn game and it's not even a good one, like you both said it's accessible, mindless fun. Consumers are stupid.

So is this like a sequel or what?

Yep. It's a new main series Star Wars movie which takes place around 30 years after the events of episode VI.

Could be awesome, could be horrible, could be meh... Trailer really doesn't tell us much.

It's a nice teaser. I've got high hopes, I don't think we'll be disappointed.

What exactly happened with Swap Note?

Instead of updating parental controls due to incidents involving pedophiles using the 3DS to contact children Nintendo thought that removing features was a better idea. As horrible as it was and as safe a choice for Nintendo, they just took the easy way out at the expense of the rest of their users.

Let's be honest though; who is using parental controlls? I would say almost nobody. When i was 11/12 years old, i could play what i want on my N64. Imagine i could use online fuctions back then...

It's not just the child's responsibility to keep themselves safe but also their parents especially with the technology of today, they need to learn how to use it if they want to be a responsible parent.

I hope this becomes Nintendo's answer to Team Fortress completely. But with better fashion options than hat towers.
Also with dlc and continued support, voice chat probably will come if it turns out the game actually benefits from it.

Voice chat dlc would really be a low blow move by Nintendo.

The game would definitely benefit from it, I doubt they'd charge for it if they did make it DLC though.

As for the TF2 comment, there's far better cosmetic items in TF2 than hat towers.

I'm seeing some "DLC sucks but it's ok when Nintendo does it." Let's not kid ourselves into thinking that Nintendo has some unique DLC practices when theirs is more like the last-gen option in the image posted by Ryudo.

Charging money for Mii costumes......

 

I agree with him tho and for the most part Nintendo has handeled DLC how you are supposed to. PC games in the 90's did Expansion packs and expanded the games..sometimes was like getting a full new game. MK8 DLC is very much like that.

 

Most developers treat DLC like this.

How is MK8 DLC like '90s DLC when they have multiple DLC packs at $7.99? As I mentioned above, it's much closer to the last-gen option here. Not to mention SSB is charging $6.5 AUD for a single character...

For 12 bucks you get entirely new tracks and get Half a game. For 12 dollars you get almost 50% more game for a 60 dollar game. So that is cheap.  It's not like a new mission in parts of a game that already exist like say Metal Gear Rising for example. They gave new new missions but in areas of the game that existed on the original game,tho was free but there are games charge 10 bucks for that and it lasted 20 minutes. Mario Kart 8 did not give you a new objective to race on the same tracks. They created almost an entirely new game for an existing one. Take DIablo II for example. It added 4 new acts. New enemies some new assets and made some tweaks to make the game better and MK8 is the same thing.

 

Mario Kart 8 retroactively added changes like 200cc,online stability,several new characters,cars,tracks and such. Last gen often just took assets already there and gave you a new mode that should have been in the game in the first place. If you are saying all that should have been in Mario Kart 8 in the first place then some people feel entitled when they should not.

A good deal of last gen DLC is a new quest or mission in areas you been before and could have easily been in the game day 1 on disc.

MK8's handling of DLC seems pretty good, especially since they're giving us free updates too. It's hard to categorise though and I've never liked that image itself, it just generalises so many games into categories of 'last-gen' and 'next-gen' when plenty of games handle DLC just fine. This hatred of DLC rubs me the wrong way the title of this thread is just how these people act when anything anti-DLC is said as if it's revolutionary for the industry when Sakurai is charging $6.5 AUD for an individual character in SSB... Compared to MK8's approach to DLC that isn't such a good way to go about DLC especially when Sakurai complains about 'DLC scams'...

I haven't dealt with enough 'last-gen' DLC to agree with that last statement, though it's not surprising that some games do that. The problem is that people incorrectly label games with DLC to be unfinished and the devs/publishers to be selling the rest of the game as DLC which is the idea that image conveys and an idea that is too often incorrectly applied to games. Gamers do often feel entitled to more content and then complain that they have to pay for more content as DLC when I find with the games that I buy the DLC just adds to an already complete game, if we didn't have the option of DLC we'd be charged more for expansion packs or wouldn't get this content at all until a sequel.

Overall I dislike people's opposition to DLC because I feel it gives us gamers more good than it does bad.

DLC is great in idea but many developers treated it badly,some do it well like Dragon Age Origins Awakening. Look at Capcom. They locked DLC on the disc. The game you bought the DLC wa son the physical copy but you had to pay extra to get that content on the disc you already paid for. That was not the exception either. It happened a lot but Capcom did it the worst. Madden 2006 charged you for extra uniforms for teams,something that was always a given in the game to begin with. Thankfully since they dropped that but others do the same. 5-6 bucks for a chracter makes sense tho. A single character is a lot of work and that's just general how fighting games have worked since Street Fighter II. If you don't get that then you don't get how the fighting game scene works. If Mewtwo was on the disc at launch but paid to unlock now then yeah be total BS.

 

 

DLC/Expansion packs is meant to be getting more out of the game and expanding on it and that is a great thing. Problem is many times and become the rule not the exception that it's not expanding the game but paying for something that is kinda there already and even getting worse where look at Driveclub. That was a hot mess and took months before it was playable. Same with ACU or Halo MC on XBO ship it now patch it later. Some of these things are day 1 DLC for things that should have been fixed before shipping. DLC is a wonderful thing but often treated badly.

The whole 'locked content on the disc' thing isn't really a big deal if you ask me, it really depends on the game itself but it being on the disc but locked for a fee isn't an issue in itself. Since we're just the consumers who are we to say what is the full game? We don't have a say in it so what they give us is the full game as much as some people will feel entitled to that DLC they're just not. What's the difference if they had this content ready at launch compared to them locking it on the disc? There isn't really.

Well sure characters in fighters are more important than those in Mario Kart but $6.50 AUD per character still seems like a bit much. Are they giving players free content like maps and whatnot too? The only Street Fighter (SFIV, USFIV and SFxT) games on Steam appear to include all of the characters, Mortal Kombat X on the other hand is charging $4.99 USD for Goro and they are actually offering easy fatality DLC and that DLC that some games do of being able to unlock things that you would normally get from just playing the game with a single DLC purchase. I don't think fighters should be charging that much for individual characters, Nintendo isn't the type of company to offer a season pass so to own all the characters you're going to have to fork out quite a bit of money.

Sometimes they have strict deadlines set by publishers so I'm at least thankful when these issues are patched up quickly but if the game is broken or unplayable then it should not have even shipped in the first place. I'm not sure that I'd agree that it is often treated badly but it is at least at times.