Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (Ridley Me This)

masofdas wrote:

Sure it's just a thought and seen a few talks about it not just on NVC as Evolving Games (What BAFTA are calling Games as Service) is popular and seems most want to get in on the act with Rainbow Six and Overwatch being the standouts.

With SMASH being the most logical game from Nintendo that would suit the model and Splatoon has shown that Nintendo can do that in a way.

I can't say for sure on Overwatch but with R6 Siege it was never designed to be a "games as a service" from the start in fact I think Ubi expected a game that sold decently well enough for them to do a yearly sequel but because it sold way more than they expected they evolved it into that type of model & now want the game to be about for the next 5+ years.

If you want your game to be a service from the get go it has to be truly compelling at the core when it launches & adding new things as you go (fighters in this case) has to mix things up enough but still retain that core compelling element. As Jay said this doesn't really work for a fighting game as one or 2 fighters doesn't affect the meta of the game that much.

masofdas wrote:

and Splatoon has shown that Nintendo can do that in a way.

Splatoon isn't like that at all as it's a free dlc model over a set period of time. (usually about a year)


----

EDIT:

Balla wrote:

No MH characters until Nintenod machines get World though.

Why? It's a series that has only been on Nintendo platforms for the last 8 years, Switch might not get World but it definitely will get it's own MH at some point.

I'm not against an Sf:V model in theory, but I feel like most companies will use the model as an excuse to minimise their costs. So, "yeah, we will add more maps or fighters, we will develop those, but only if the game is a success."

In the past you'd have everything in the box, or more recently, a nintendo dlc model - where it was apparent we had a huge game bursting with content and Nintendo had gone and made more stuff anyway. I feel like the , games a service, schtick is really just a codeword for battlefront for most publishers. Aka how can we make more cash while doing less?

Andy mentions Siege fatigue, I'm the same with overwatch. I can't be arsed to keep up with all the updates and while I'll join in if I get invited to play by enough people, I'm otherwise at the point where I've had my fill. The model clearly works for people invested in the game and that's great for them, but it's not for me. Or perhaps more accurately, I'll only ever be able to sustain interest in one game at a time using the "service" model because I live in the real world and don't have the time.

See I would say Splatoon is a game as service game, you have a base game but new content gets added to keep you playing that game. In Splatoon case it's weapons, items, maps and modes.

Don't see why SMASH couldn't do the same but with characters and stages. I'm not saying it's the best idea but could see it working for SMASH and I wouldn't be against having 30 characters then more to come over time then 40 at the get go with some paid ones.

Yeah most of us aren't saying it couldn't work (it has for some games) but as Muss mentions it's a slippy slope for bad practices from certain devs/publishers, considering Nintendo are just getting back to their best in terms of sales............ ................oh, what, yeah I'm awake.

It just wouldn't be a wise direction for them to take in my opinion.

masofdas wrote:

See I would say Splatoon is a game as service game, you have a base game but new content gets added to keep you playing that game. In Splatoon case it's weapons, items, maps and modes.

I don't disagree, I think you could say that Splatoon represents the best of "game as a service." But everything added to Splatoon was free, there was no gambling system, there were no coercive matchmaking systems engineered to subtly psychologically pressure players into paying for better guns, any paid for content was listed as Nintendo do with all their DLC - in such a way as to give the consumer as much information as possible about what they could expect in the DLC pack and its exact cost. To me, a Splatoon system is so radically different to EA's Star Wars or Warner Bros' Shadow of War that I can't see how anybody could use the term "games as a service" to colloquially refer to both of those games and Splatoon.

Either you use the term to talk about games that exist to serve - free support benefiting the entire community equally (Splatoon - the NHS style of services) and where paid DLC is dealt with in way that doesn't force extra costs/coercive algorithms on the community at large (The option of paying for private health care) - or you use the term to talk about how Star Wars or Shadow of War have been used to strip as much money from consumers as possible while masquerading as something that's better (An American style health "care" system).

But yeah for me, the philosophy behind how Nintendo have treated their customers versus what EA, Warner Bros etc. have done is so different that it makes no sense to refer to the two ideologies as anything like comparable. That's what bothers me so much about "games as a service" patter, it's an incredibly imprecise term that doesn't clearly reflect very different approaches to customer care.

Certainly are bad examples of Game as Service and I look at MS upcoming Sea of Thieves (All MS's upcoming games will be game as service) and that seems a great way to do it by having no paid extra stuff till 3 months time where costumes, pets will be added but cost money and I think people staying around in 3 months will likely be the ones willing to pay for pets.

Games as services is an awful structure for full priced games, which are essentially premium products.  You expect me and other consumers to pay sixty bucks for the privilege to even play your game?  Then I expect it to be worth the price of admission and not have a pile of strings attached that leave my purchased product's lifespan at the mercy of some big corporation that doesn't give a crap about anything besides their bottom line.  

It also stinks of companies trying to subvert various consumer laws by changing games from products to services, so that when they screw over the customers they aren't liable for s***.  

Besides we don't need such a thing when dlc expansions have existed for ages.  Like I said, all this is is a subtle (or not so subtle given I've noticed it!) push to slant things more in favour of big business to disempower the consumer.  

*Puts away tinfoil hat*

Balladeer wrote:

Surprised to see you culling FE quite so brutally Athers!  Would you say that the release of SSB5 would be what pushed you into Switch-buying territory?  We missed you in the votes thread (well I did, I was the only one to vote for Xeno ).

It's hard to tell, expendable money isn't going to be big this year.  Moving house and the expectation of the removalist costs is in the thousands given the distance (which'll wipe out my savings pretty much), then there's the planned adoption of a cat/kitten soon after the move, and on top of all that moving back to the city will mean an increase in general life expenses and a reduction of expendable income (at least in the short to medium term).  

I'd definitely like to get a Switch sometime this year given what's coming and what's already out, but given everything I'll probably be scrounging just to keep up with my existing consoles and hobbies, so it'll probably be a 2019 thing. Still I am nearing the end of ps4 games that were on my radar and have started to catch up on authors that caught my eye so maybe in the tail-end of the year!

I don't know look at Overwatch that's a game as service game which for my money I've had almost 2 years of content and continuing. I've bought loot boxes 2 or 3 for skins but nothing more but the new content such as Brigette out tomorrow, will get me to play a bunch of it this week and likely will see others on it as well, all that keeps me interested in the game and I guess the same for Jas with Rainbow Six.

Once again, Rainbow 6 doesn't work there. Overwatch releases all content for free, there is no purchase either with virtual or physical currency. Rainbow 6 does attempt to nickel and dime you by locking the operators behind in game purchases. At the same time you do have the option to buy a season pass and have them all, but the model has clearly shifted to try and rake in more cash.

Sure, I'm just saying the continuous new content keeps people interested and new operators might do that in Rainbow. Even Nintendo has with Splatoon and ARMS, and is Rocket League a favourite round here and liked how Heroes of the Storm was set up.

Not all are bad but not all are good and unfortunately the bad ones gets the press.

But the point is there's a good way to go about that and a bad. Free offerings to keep the game alive is good & having some fun cosmetics to support that long term is obviously fine, running a Service as a machine to keep milking people for every drop they can is not.

And I think Nintendo would be the former.

masofdas wrote:

I don't know look at Overwatch that's a game as service game which for my money I've had almost 2 years of content and continuing. I've bought loot boxes 2 or 3 for skins but nothing more but the new content such as Brigette out tomorrow, will get me to play a bunch of it this week and likely will see others on it as well, all that keeps me interested in the game and I guess the same for Jas with Rainbow Six.

Not really I play because the base game is fun and always fresh because people like to play in a variety of ways and I can do the same, sure the seasonal content is a bonus and does add to keeping it fresh as well but most of my favourite Operators launched with the game. If the game never had this season structure I'd most likely still be playing it the same amount that I am now.

Andy wrote:

Once again, Rainbow 6 doesn't work there. Overwatch releases all content for free, there is no purchase either with virtual or physical currency. Rainbow 6 does attempt to nickel and dime you by locking the operators behind in game purchases. At the same time you do have the option to buy a season pass and have them all, but the model has clearly shifted to try and rake in more cash.

While you're not wrong it could be way worse than it is and you at least have the choice to play to earn that content.

----

Anyhow this games as a service chat isn't really going anywhere, is it? So I suggest we get back to some proper chat about Smash bros.

I was going to say, the only Smash conversation I can think of that's more boring than this one is whether the Drill Dozer heroine should feature.

The_Jaster wrote:

Balla wrote:

No MH characters until Nintenod machines get World though.  

Why? It's a series that has only been on Nintendo platforms for the last 8 years, Switch might not get World but it definitely will get it's own MH at some point.  

Ah yes, Nintenod, that great and mighty videogmae compayn...

The main series' last act was to shun Nintendo platforms. The main series' last act before that was to shun the West. I wouldn't mind the main character from MHS, preferably on top of Ratha, as DLC; otherwise I'd rather they came back home to Switch first.

Also Rhythm Heaven characters. How did we all forget Rhythm Heaven characters? There were a bunch of rumours going around that the Chorus Kids would be in 4, but I'd really like to see some representation in 5.

Just going to pitch in to say that I fully expect Smash Switch to be pretty much like Smash 4: the occasional bout of DLC fighters but none of this ‘as a service’ malarkey. I’ll have none of it, you mark my words!

Narrator: 'He would, in fact, have all of it.'

(cut to Zero swimming in the new series of Smash amiibo)

ZeroJones wrote:

Just going to pitch in to say that I fully expect Smash Switch to be pretty much like Smash 4: the occasional bout of DLC fighters but none of this ‘as a service’ malarkey. I’ll have none of it, you mark my words!

It might not be SMASH but I still feel Nintendo will have a go with other game as service games and not just ARMS & Splatoon maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow but soon it will be a more established IP.

Thanks to my psychic powers.

Balladeer wrote:

Narrator: 'He would, in fact, have all of it.'

(cut to Zero swimming in the new series of Smash amiibo)

I have been wondering about new amiibi in the new era of Smash. I’m genuinely not planning to get any more, honest.

Rhythm heaven characters are a good shout & Karate Joe as Balla mentions is definitely a front runner for me as is the Wrestler, just imagine a pose for the fans smash special?

The Rhythm Heaven Wrestler would be my new main, even if he had rhythm-based controls. I would learn the rhythm - wubba dubba dub; is that true?

Yeah.

I'd happily get the Wrestler (Final Smash: HUAAAAAARG!, alternative bird costume), but with only the one minigame under his belt I can't see it happening sadly. With Smash's current focus, I can more easily see this fella:



Any of them would be good, I just want them to use a bunch of Rhythm Paradise games for their moves.

ZeroJones wrote:

The Rhythm Heaven Wrestler would be my new main, even if he had rhythm-based controls. I would learn the rhythm...

I know I said that I didn't like Ryu introducing new move mechanics... now I'm going to go against that completely and say I'd love a rhythm-focussed fighter! Somebody whose attacks got stronger if you did them in time with the music's beat, say. Whether that's a Rhythm Paradise character or an EBA (with an Ouendan chap as a costume change).

*Gasp* I never thought about Rhythm Heaven - that's a great shout! Yeah, Karate Joe makes a lot of sense there.



In other news, I still don't entirely understand what this means, but I've just been in 2 topics so far today, and if I see the words "game" "service" and "as" in the same sentence again I'm going to chainsaw someone.

Jimbob wrote:

In other news, I still don't entirely understand what this means, but I've just been in 2 topics so far today, and if I see the words "game" "service" and "as" in the same sentence again I'm going to chainsaw someone.

How am I meant to review Sea of Thieves?

Make sure you have separate scores for plot, gameplay, sound, lifespan & graphics.

masofdas wrote:

Jimbob wrote:

In other news, I still don't entirely understand what this means, but I've just been in 2 topics so far today, and if I see the words "game" "service" and "as" in the same sentence again I'm going to chainsaw someone.

How am I meant to review Sea of Thieves?  

7.8
Too much water.