Undertale OST - Hopes and Dreams

I'm still not convinced. It looks like it may be decent from the videos I've seen, but anything more than that, I'm not so sure. It kind of reminds me of Never Dead, and if you can remember that game, it wasn't very good...

To be honest, the game looks pretty awful. There's not much in the way of personality, and it looks like just another below average third person action game, with nothing to really help it stand out. The swordplay, like the rest of the game, looks pretty bland. Games like Metal Gear Rising did swordplay incredibly well, and I can't settle for anything that doesn't at least match that quality. Uncharted had more engaging gunplay than this puts on display, and I thought Uncharted's gunplay wasn't all that good to begin with.

So with Minecraft, if you buy it now you're buying past versions and the current one.

So... If you buy the digital verson of splatoon in August? What are you paying for? The splatoon with the current version. It's simple, just buy the digital version in August.

I've explained this multiple times now.
 

"In August, if you purchase Splatoon via disc, you are buying the version that is on that disc. If you buy it digitally, and the digital version has been pre-updated to the current version with new maps and modes, then that is what you are buying. If you have to update the game after purchasing it in order to get those new maps and modes, then no, those maps and modes are not part of the game you are buying. The same applies to a new version of the game."

Even then, I still don't find it okay for Nintendo to charge $50 to $60 for the current version of the game and the amount of content it includes.

@Bill Cipher
 

I bought my Wii U this past April, and it was only because there were finally enough games for it that I wanted. I do not purchase a new console unless there are plenty of new games for it that I want to play.

When I purchase a game, I except the base game, which is what I am putting money down for in the first place, to have enough content to justify the price. I do not buy games at full price, either, because no game to date has ever been worth a full $60 to me. It's fair enough if you pay more, but $50 to $60 is still asking a lot, and I expect a game to have a lot of worthwhile content on offer for such a steep price.

@MatrixChicken

When you buy Minecraft, you are buying the current version, and Minecraft's launcher allows you to go back to previous versions, so you are also buying the ability to play those as well.

In August, if you purchase Splatoon via disc, you are buying the version that is on that disc. If you buy it digitally, and the digital version has been pre-updated to the current version with new maps and modes, then that is what you are buying. If you have to update the game after purchasing it in order to get those new maps and modes, then no, those maps and modes are not part of the game you are buying. The same applies to a new version of the game.

You are buying the game in its current version and with whatever versions and content is included with the initial purchase. You are not purchasing future versions of future content, even if said versions and content are released for free.
 

I just said this in my previous response, but perhaps I wasn't clear enough. Hopefully now you understand.

1. Did I ever say this was the case for every game? If you think you'll be able to play Splatoon online on the new maps and with people who have the paint brush without having the updates yourself, you are mistaken. And no, nobody is doubting the fact that Splatoon costs $60. Whether the game will be worth $60 in August after the update is debatable.

 

2. When you buy a Nintendo eShop card, are you literally only buying that piece of cardboard? Are you really just spending $20 on a piece of a tree? No, you're buying access to anything on the eShop. Please answer this: If you buy Minecraft right now, are you only buying the original alpha? Should you base its worth on its earliest purchasable form? Is Minecraft just a game where you walk around in a flat grassland and build stuff, or is it a game where you walk around through many different biomes and build shelters, fight enemies and craft anything imaginable?

 

3. You did say that a game's main mode's content should be the basis of its price, though. Splatoon is not a multiplayer game. It's not a single player game. It has both, and both should be taken into consideration when talking about the price.

 

4. So what do you want? Do you wish Nintendo had held back Splatoon until all the updates were finished and release it all at once? Would you rather nobody gets to play the game until you're happy with it? I, for one, am glad I'm getting the opportunity to play Splatoon this soon. Also, if all content should account for a game's price, why doesn't the content added in the updates account for it?

 

5. Obvious facts like the fact that when you download the game in August, you're getting the fully updated, current version of the game. Or the fact that the game's single player campaign is a big part of its content and price.

 

Here's the thing. If Splatoon was a $60 game with a 6 hour single player, 5 maps, and 2 modes, and that's all, I would hesitate on buying it. That's quite a bit of money to ask for such little content. But it's not. It's a $60 game with a 6 hour single player, 5 maps and 2 modes, and more maps and modes being patched in when they're ready, completely for free.

1. I never said no one was debating whether or not it will be $50 or $60. What I said was that, even if later on the digital version is bundled with the maps and modes that come later, it doesn't change that right now they are asking $50 to $60 for a MP focused game in which the MP only includes 5 maps and 2 modes, which I don't find to be acceptable.

2. When you buy an eShop card, you are buying a code which allows you to add $20 worth of store credit to your account. When you buy Minecraft right now, you are buying access to what the program you download includes. That program includes the current version, as well as access to previous versions. You are not buying future versions of Minecraft. You are buying the current version and past versions.

3. No I did not say that the main focus of the game is the basis for its price. What I have said numerous times is that it has been advertised since Day 1 on its multiplayer. From the very beginning the multiplayer is what Nintendo has been showing off the most and advertising the game on the most. That means that the main focus of the game is its multiplayer.

Yes, all content should be taken into consideration, but when your main mode is so limited in content, that doesn't sit well with me. Yes, there is a 6 to 8 hour single player, and yes that should be included in the price, but what they are trying to sell you on most of all is its multiplayer, which has very little content to it. I do not agree that a MP focused game with only 5 maps and 2 modes, even with a 6 to 8 hour campaign, is worth $50 to $60, and that is where the entire discussion originates. I do not find the price suitable for the amount of content included, while others don't mind it.

4. What I would rather they do is delay the game for a couple of months so that they're able to include the free maps and modes with the initial purchase. We will have more maps and modes in the base game.

5. I have not once denied that you would have the full game were you to download it in August. If you purchase the game digitally, and the new maps and modes are not bundled with that initial download, then they are not part of the game you initially purchased. It's very simple to understand. Even if I have to update the game to include those new maps and modes later on in order to play the game, that updated version that includes them is not the version I payed for.

I have also not denied that the single player is a part of the game, nor have I tried to ignore that it has a single player, or said that the single player does not matter. What I have said, over, and over, is that the multiplayer is the main focus of it. It is what they're selling you on first and foremost. That's it.

Here is the thing. That is what Splatoon is. It is a 6 to 8 hour single player campaign and a multiplayer with only 5 maps and 2 modes. That is what the base game is. That is a fact. The content that comes later is not part of the game they are trying to sell you right now. Unless they manufacture new copies with these new maps and modes, or update the digital version to include them, then they are not part of the game you're buying.

So they don't have to go back and figure out how to fix or nerf horribly broken maps. Back on the original Xbox it didn't matter if all the maps had an exploitable unfair advantage, but now in the days of competitive gaming if an unfair advantage is discovered it will be abused and make online game not fun anymore. By waiting and watching Nintendo can plan the maps accordingly. Honestly, is not having all the maps st launch really going to stop you from enjoying the game.

It did matter if maps had exploits, unfair spots, or other poor design choices, as much as it always has for any shooter. It was arguably even more important to check for those back then, because Halo 1 didn't support Xbox Live, as Xbox Live was not yet finished when Halo was in development.

Having so little content in the game as is will keep me from picking it up until a big price drop (until it's around $30 or $40 at most), but my dissatisfaction with Nintendo's handling of this new IP and their pricing of this first game does not mean I want it to fail, nor does it mean I don't like it. I love its art design, sound design, core gameplay, etc.

It's what I feel are many a poor design decisions (such as no voice chat, no local 4 player splitscreen, and splitting up party members by placing them on opposite teams), and a price that's far too steep for the amount of content on offer (6 to 8 hour single player, and only 5 maps and 2 modes for multiplayer which, again, is the main focus of the game), that I have issue with, and what bring my excitement way down.

 

They are not part of the purchase because they are not on the disc or in the bundled files if you buy it digitally. It's that simple.

 

Except yes, if you download the game after the updates are released, they are included in the files.

 

These new maps and modes aren't coming on launch day. They're coming some time afterwards. Even if they were, and you had to download an update in order to play online, and this update included those, they are still not on the disc, and not bundled in the digital release, therefore they are not part of what you purchased.

 

When you buy the game after the updates are released, whether physical or digital, you are buying access to the game's initial version and all the updates released afterwards. If you buy Minecraft right now, you aren't buying alpha 1.0, you're buying its current version and all later updates. Please don't tell me you think differently on that...

 

I didn't say the single player didn't matter. What I said was that the multiplayer is the main focus, and it is. That some people are buying it for the single player does not change that fact. From its original announcement to now the multiplayer has been what they've advertised it on more than anything. It's what the initial gameplay has been about. As it is the main focus, there should be plenty of content for it, but there is not. There are only 5 maps and 2 game modes, one of which is locked until enough people reach level 10.

 

I knew you were going to say that... I know you didn't say single player doesn't matter, but you did say that it shouldn't account for any of the game's price. Splatoon may be multiplayer focused, but that doesn't mean the single player campaign should just be added free of charge.
 

Halo in particular is not advertised and sold most on its multiplayer. They focus on the single player and multiplayer in equal measure, and cover both of them extensively. Whether or not other games focus more on single player or multiplayer does not matter. Call of Duty certainly includes many more maps and game modes than Splatoon does on launch, and its focus, like Splatoon's, is its multiplayer.

 

You're dodging my question here... Should any game's "secondary modes" not account for the game's price? Shouldn't all content be payed for? That seems to be what you want...

 

Throughout the entire discussion I have remained civil and not once resorted to name calling or otherwise insulting anyone. I would appreciate it if you did the same.

 

Usually, people are just misinformed, or have been drenched in a certain narrative for so long that they just go with it. But you just deny even the most obvious of facts, and that is just. Plain. Stupid.

 

1. This is not the case with every game, and it does not change the fact that now they are asking $50 to $60 for so little content.

2. When you buy a game, you are only buying what is included on that disc and in its package, and what is bundled with the files that you initially download. If you download an update after downloading and installing the game, then no, those updates are not part of the game.

3. I never once said that the single player should not account for the game's price. I never said that the single player should be added free of charge either.

4. Nothing I have said has implied I wish for all content released for a game, DLC specifically, to require payment. If that is what I meant to say at any point, I would have quite clearly said so. The same goes for anything I may wish to say. Yes, all content should account for a game's price, but the main focus of the game, what the developers are selling it on most of all, which in Splatoon's case is the multiplayer, then it should have plenty of content within it. Splatoon's multiplayer doesn't, and that's my issue with its pricing. There are only 5 maps and 2 modes, where as the majority of shooters out there, past and present, have included both a single player campaign and more maps and modes than that for the same price.

5. What "obvious facts" are you talking about? Would you care to list them off, because as far as I can tell, this entire discussion is based solely on a difference of opinion. I don't agree with Nintendo's pricing, which I feel is far too inflated given the amount of content presented. Others disagree, and they're allowed to. You calling me stupid is completely unwarranted.

Actually the team working on this is the ones who worked on Animal Crossing and Mii sports/music/resport and Nintendo Land, The people who create the 3D mario games just got finished making Captain Toad and Nes Remixes, The people who made Super Mario Galaxy are making the very minor things (although they co-developed Majoras mask 3d).

Call of Duty has had 12 years of games to keep adding content, each game having 2 years of development, where they take the gameplay, copy/paste it, add some stuff and the rest of development goes soley on the single player and maps. Add some new gamemodes in each game and after 12 games they'll have a bunch of gamemodes (12 to be exact if you don't count hardcore). Splatoon is a brand new game and it'll have 5 game modes. It's like comparing Mario to a newly released 3d platformer. You can't expect the new game to be just as good as Mario games right off the bat.

Let us again take a look at he original Halo: Combat Evolved. It was released back on the original Xbox in 2001, was focused primarily on and marketed for its single player. Multiplayer was a last minute addition, and yet they created 13 maps and 5 game modes, maps that were all set in original locations mind you, not recycled from the single player.
 

That game went through a very rocky development, and the end product we got was in development only for about 1 to 2 years, around the time that Microsoft bought up Bungie and the Halo IP. This was also Microsoft's first  big step into the video game industry, with their very first console. This was also Bungie's first time developing a console game, and more importantly a console shooter.

So please explain to me, why in 2015, Nintendo of all companies is unable to create and include more than 5 maps and 2 modes in their multiplayer focused game, when back in 2001 Halo: Combat Evolved, despite being focused on its single player, managed to not only create a single player campaign around 8 to 10 hours, but 13 original maps and 5 original modes.

They are not part of the purchase because they are not on the disc or in the bundled files if you buy it digitally. It's that simple.

These new maps and modes aren't coming on launch day. They're coming some time afterwards. Even if they were, and you had to download an update in order to play online, and this update included those, they are still not on the disc, and not bundled in the digital release, therefore they are not part of what you purchased.

I didn't say the single player didn't matter. What I said was that the multiplayer is the main focus, and it is. That some people are buying it for the single player does not change that fact. From its original announcement to now the multiplayer has been what they've advertised it on more than anything. It's what the initial gameplay has been about. As it is the main focus, there should be plenty of content for it, but there is not. There are only 5 maps and 2 game modes, one of which is locked until enough people reach level 10.
 

Halo in particular is not advertised and sold most on its multiplayer. They focus on the single player and multiplayer in equal measure, and cover both of them extensively. Whether or not other games focus more on single player or multiplayer does not matter. Call of Duty certainly includes many more maps and game modes than Splatoon does on launch, and its focus, like Splatoon's, is its multiplayer.

Throughout the entire discussion I have remained civil and not once resorted to name calling or otherwise insulting anyone. I would appreciate it if you did the same.

1. Maybe they're releasing it now because there's no other games coming out for the WIi U now, splatoon can be released now to fill in that gap of no games.

2. In the UK Mario Kart 8 cost £40 at launch, Splatoon costs £25 from certain retailers and £40 for the game, the inkling amiibo and a hat.

1. It still doesn't make it okay to release it with so little content for their main mode, and yet charge the same price as other games that include much more.

2. I'm speaking from the perspective of someone that lives in the USA. Here Mario Kart 8 was $50 to $60, as is Splatoon. I'm going by the price that Nintendo themselves have set, and not any discounted price that a particular retailer is putting it up for.

Well, I'm jumping in to just add ONE thing, because personally This argument seems to be going around in circles/Feedback loops.

 

They had a year to develop it, most likely because(If someone with actual knowledge of the dev cycle can find evidence) This is the EAD Team who usually works on Mario. If I had to venture a guess, Nintendo's looked at sales data and noticed that the 3DS only started selling at a decent pace due to the double bombs of MK7 and SM3DL. Considering NX might be launching 2016, Nintendo's going to want a Mario Game(3D Mario most likely in some form) to come out at/near launch, and they'll be trying to give ample time on it(Anyone remember Kid Icarus: Uprising and how it was going to be a launch title? Yeah, that was a launch title in the same way me traveling back in time to stop the Assassination of JFK and ending up a year late is stopping it). I could see Iwata/the higher ups going "We want a 3D Mario Game for NX's launch", EAD realizing that they can make an NX 3D Mario in about a year and half(Assuming testing/localization/everything of 3-6 months, they've been on that pace since Galaxy 2 roughly without the HD..issues[Galaxy 2 May 2010, SM3DL November 2011, SM3DW November 2013, Splatoon May 2015]) so they time to fill.

 

It's likely that the plan is once Splatoon finishes development(Which it has because Global testing) about 75% of the team will go to work on Super Mario NeXt while the 25% left will be making/finishing the maps/patches and the like.

 

TL;DR-Iwata has visions of the Future, but thanks to the EADNoda he can help make sure everything goes optimally.

Even then, I still don't believe it right to price the game as they have done. As others have pointed out, yes, it's releasing free content later, but I don't feel that, nor what you've mentioned (if it is indeed the case) still makes it alright to charge such a large price for what little it provides in regards to its main mode. If they were advertising the game's single player and multiplayer in equal measure, and had been from Day 1, and were charging $30 to $40 at most, then I don't believe I'd have quite as much an issue.

For such a steep asking price I expect much more than a 6 to 8 hour campaign, 5 multiplayer maps, and 2 multiplayer modes, especially when your game's main selling point is the multiplayer itself.

Miyamoto is too busy making Starfox so he's out of the question, Retro Studios probably in the middle of a Metroid game so they can't help, Zelda team is working on Zelda, Group 4 is working on Mario Maker.

Also lets put it into perspective, You compart Mario kart 8 to Splatoon saying it has more maps, it takes them 6 months to make 8 maps, 4 of which have are old ones with better graphics. So 4 new maps and 4 revamped ones. And that's when they're focusing on 3 characters, 4 cars and maps. Compare that to splatoon which they created an entire game in a year, the amount of maps makes sense, even more in august, and it's cheaper than mario kart by £15.

I was not suggesting Miyamoto or Retro be the ones to help, nor did I say that members from teams already in production of games like the new Zelda or Mario Maker should be taken from their current project and put on board to help with Splatoon. Those are not the only people that Nintendo has employed.

That it may take less time or be less difficult than making maps for a shooter does not excuse them including so little multiplayer content for their multiplayer focused game. You said it yourself, they've only had about a year to develop this, where as other Nintendo IPs get around three to four, if not more. Why is it that they're unwilling to give Splatoon more time? Again, it comes across as laziness, impatience, and/or stubbornness on their part to allow them more time to include more content.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Mario Kart 8 charged $50 to $60 upon release as well, the same price that Nintendo is charging for Splatoon, so where you see this price difference I'm not sure. Even if Mario Kart 8 were charging more than that, which I would view are wrong as well, it still doesn't make it okay for Nintendo to charge so much for Splatoon, its focus being the MP, and yet giving us so very little MP content for that initial purchase price.

And again, it doesn't matter that they're releasing more later for free. Those aren't what you're getting when you pay for the game, no matter if you buy it now or when those extra maps and modes are out. All that is included in your initial purchase, on the game's discs or bundled in the game's files if bought digitally, are those 5 maps and 2 modes, not the 3, 4, 5, or however many more maps and modes they add later on.

Splatoon with 8 hours, 2 customizable characters, extra gear/equipment to unlock AND it's cheaper! Even more content with amiibo. You also don't unlock costumes in Hyrule warriors, you buy them with real money.

 

 

This is splatoons first game, Mario Kart has had 8 games so they know what they're doing with it, and 16 of those courses are just past courses with extra graphics and tweaks. Splatoon has no past games to copy maps off. Nor did they know how to create splatoon or what to base it off. Giving them even less time for content, which comes out later anyway

This is also Nintendo we're talking about, a company that has been in the video game industry since the 80s, with a lot of people, and a lot of talent, working for them. They absolutely have the ability to give more a helping hand to the group they've put in charge of developing Splatoon. Miyamoto was sent out to help Retro studios when developing the original Metroid Prime on the Gamecube, and look at how it turned out. So it isn't unreasonable to assume they could very well send extra help for Splatoon, especially when it's being developed in house.

They could, again, also delay the game long as necessary in order to get this extra content included in the base game. Neither of these things is unreasonable to ask of them, nor are they something that Nintendo has no experience with doing, or shown unwillingness to try.

I got a solution for Bubble, wait until the free content is released, then purchase the download in eshop. Then you will be getting the "entire" game for the same price.

No, because this free content would still not be a part of the initial purchase, even then. The initial purchase, the content on the disc, or bundled in the game's files if purchased digitally, would still only be those 5 maps and 2 modes, not the extra maps and modes released later. You would still be paying the $50 to $60 for 5 maps and 2 modes.

Actually, i know quite a few people who wouldn't be picking this game up if it didn't have SP.  If you don't like the price for what you get, that is on you and i would recommend contacting Nintendo or hitting up MiiVerse. Other than that, there is not really much else to be said.

Again, this is not the point. The point is that their multiplayer focused game offers very, very little for said multiplayer. The mode they have been advertising the game, the game's main selling point, has always been its multiplayer. So it makes no sense at all to charge so much when you're offering so little for the main focus of your game. I don't find it to be acceptable, especially with games both in the past and present offering more, and I even find it to be disrespectful towards the consumer, especially with them asking you to pre-purchase the game all over the demo.

Again, you can't compare Zelda to Splatoon, all Splatoon lacks is maps which can be added any time after it's release, Since they can easily just keep playing the maps they have now. Zelda has a progressive story which CANNOT be paused because the dungeon hasn't been made yet. It completly haults the players experiance and stops them from doing anything else in the game, they will literally not be able to do anything until an update appears, compare that to splatoon where they have an entire single player to go through (again, 8 hours of content right there, a lot more hours if you count amiibo's), aswell as the multiplayer which you can already play without any bugs or glitches or anything broken, just less maps, Which again will get a ton more when time passes, There's no need to not allow players to not play the game because that 6th/7th/8th map isn't complete. Just play it now, give them it later. Heck it even gives them a reason to play splatoon again if they get bored after the first month.

It lacks maps and game modes. That they can be added later is not the point. It does not matter that they can add maps and modes later. What matters is that they're selling a MP focused game with an astonishingly bare bones amount of content to that main mode.

I'm not defending any mistakes Hyrule Warriors has made, so please don't take what I've said in such a way.

You keep throwing single player under the bus, like it isn't even in the game.

No I'm not. I've already acknowledged that there is a single player. That isn't the point. The game is focused on, sold on, advertised on the MP first and foremost. That is their main reason for you to pick it up. That is why I find it unacceptable for them to charge $50 to $60 when the main focus of their game offers so little. That there is a single player is good, but it isn't the focus of the game. It's not what they're trying most to sell you on.

The story itself takes around 12 hours to complete, 7 hours if you're rushing through.

So around a 12 hour story with multiple characters, costumes, and other content to unlock in the base game? That sounds a bit more reasonable, depending on how many characters, costumes, and other content there was in the base game.

There's about the same if not more content in it's dlc than there is in the initial release, which is a joke in my opinion. Mario kart 8 looks to be heading in that direction too.  

Mario Kart 8 is MP focused, but it included 32 maps and 3 or 4 game modes with its initial release, where as Splatoon is MP focused and, though it's charging the same price, it includes only a fraction of that. That's the difference here.

I should also point out that the same people making this are the same people who made animal crossing games and those Mii games (Wii sports, Wii music, Nintendo land etc). They have no experiance in a game of this type before. It's the first time they're making a non casual game. So there will be flaws, which will eventually get fixed as time passes.

That still isn't any excuse. They're a part of Nintendo. Nintendo is more than capable of sending out more people to give a helping hand. It is also Nintendo that decides when to ship the game, and they again are more than capable of delaying the game to give these people the time they need to ready the other maps and modes for inclusion in the base game.

They've no issue with delaying games, as evidenced by their delaying the new Zelda from 2015 to 2016. Why would they not do the same with a brand new IP like Splatoon? One that doesn't have the brand recognition that Zelda does. This seems either like a case of laziness, stubbornness, or maybe a combination of the two, and I find it disrespectful towards the consumer to charge so much for a MP focused game when your MP offers so very little in terms of content.

Hyrule Warriors charges like 20 dollars for dlc content that has even more content within the initial game lol.

The $20 is when you buy all of the DLC in one bundle. Were you to buy everything separately it would be around $27 dollars, so you're at least saving $7.00 then. I'm not sure just how many characters and skins, as well as levels, the base game shipped with. If someone could please let me know, I would greatly appreciate that. It's also important to know the average length of the game as well, and any additional content, as to my knowledge Hyrule Warriors is a singleplayer focused game.

Well they're free aren't they. You might as well complain about hyrule warriors content.

The fact that they're free is irrelevant. That isn't what you're paying $50 to $60 for. You're paying $50 to $60 for a MP focused game with only 5 MP maps and 2 MP modes. That is an abysmal amount of content for the mode they're selling the game on, that they have been focusing on and advertising the game on since day 1. This free content is not part of the game you're buying. The only MP content that is part of the game you're buying are those initial 5 maps and 2 modes. Anything else is entirely separate. Not part of that initial $50 to $60 entry fee.

Cute. Your introduction certainly made me giggle.