Could we ever see DLC?

[Mab]

DLC, or downloadable content, usually refers to extra gameplay content that's available to download for an additional fee. This obviously only applies to digitally distributed games, but since a lot of modern Pokémon games are downloaded via the Nintendo Store, I wouldn't rule out DLC at some point in the future.

Do you think this is possible? And would it be a good or bad thing? Some people aren't a fan of the idea of having to pay extra for content they feel should have been included with the base game, especially in the case of "day 1 DLC", which is when the game devs leave out features that they had ready in time for the game's release but made a DLC instead because they wanted extra cash.

 

[Melody]

I think honestly US/UM definitely could qualify as an additional DLC update to Sun/Moon. Obviously it's not, it's an entirely new game though.

It's been my experience that Nintendo typically Doesn't Do DLC. The only notable exception being something like NSMB2 where they sold Coin Rush maps. This, ostensibly, was done to demonstrate to other developers that yes you can do DLC on the 3DS. Few other Nintendo First party titles ever do DLC. (I don't count titles such as Smash as "first party...they're second party, Nintendo owned IP and hired X development group to make Y game)

While it is true that *technically* Pokemon is a second party title, through Game Freak; they Don't Do DLC either OR/AS Delta chapter came via update, though it was Free and optional.

Mostly DLC is discouraged. The age group that Nintendo worries most about is prone to spending very little, so it's better to include all content up front, because that's all that's spent usually. Additional content that's sold as DLC is usually not necessary. (Badge Arcade/Shuffle/Picross/Home Menu Themes)

 

[Mikazuki]

It always sucks having to pay extra for additional content to a game you already bought. On the other hand if it means additional post game for a game or series you love (i.e. Pokemon) to keep you intrerested, wouldn't it be worth a few extras bucks? I'm not above DLC. My question would be what would you expect in terms of items, content, play hrs, etc. and what would a fair price be for what you'd expect?

 

[Sawsbuck]

I hope to god no, because if I'm paying close to 40 bucks for a 3DS game (especially Pokémon) I expect to actually get the whole game, DLC would ruin something like Pokémon

 

[Mab]

I hope to god no, because if I'm paying close to 40 bucks for a 3DS game (especially Pokémon) I expect to actually get the whole game, DLC would ruin something like Pokémon

I should point out that I agree DLC is bad when they have additional content that's released at the same time as the game but costs extra (day 1 DLC), but most DLC is released months after the game has come out, when the developers have had time to devise some new quests or areas. In those cases I feel that it's legitimate.

 

[pkmin3033]

I think that it's only a matter of time before this happens. I fully expect to see it on the Switch title, in fact - like Breath of the Wild, there will more than likely be a season pass available on the day of release promising content in the future. It will probably be expensive, and it will probably not be worth it.

I recognise that DLC varies wildly in quality - I mean, compare the season pass for Hyrule Warriors Legends to the one for Fire Emblem Echoes: Shadows of Valentia, both in terms of cost and content - but I still think it a thoroughly unacceptable business practice on the whole in the way it is utilised, especially for games which are designed to be complete experiences such as Pokemon, or for distribution of content that in the past titles would have been available as part of the game as it was. DLC is a cash cow, and Nintendo titles tread a very thin line with it sometimes, providing examples of the best and worst that the industry has to offer. A series as popular as Pokemon, they could get away with some of the most disgustingly expensive minimalistic DLC and people would still buy it and sing their praises for it.

If it saw the end to regional re-treads, with the third version/sequel content being sold at a later date as season pass material - at a REDUCED cost from the RRP of a full price title - I think that may be a positive step forward. What I would not want to see are microtransactions, or crap like the free 50 Pokeballs they give away as codes - or worse, event Legendaries - being bundled up and sold at horrifying prices.

 

[Spyro]

I would welcome free DLC, but isn't this basically Mythical Events? Sure, they are timed, but they can't be optained otherwise...and they've been doing that for years.
imo the Mythics are lowkey DLC, to keep people playing for much, much longer than they would, just to obtain the Pokémon.

 

[blue]

"I like the idea that Pokémon can be enjoyed with just one piece of software. You buy the game and it can be enjoyed just with that one software that you buy. That's a key point for Game Freak." -- Junichi Masuda

unless he changes his mind then i can't see it being a thing. i just don't think it would work with a game like pokemon.

 

[Alexander18]

No thank you. DLC can stay with other franchises. Leave the main series pokemon games intact. DLC will be terrible.

 

[neoshai]

I hope not ... this might actually make me do a full 180 to pokemon and I'm already rather close cuz of how they do things in the tcg >.>

 

[Drayton]

If a FREE DLC is acceptable, but as of now paid DLC is just terrible idea hence already have in-app purchases, but adding DLC it just makes more worse. SO NO DLC please

 

[LilyGardy]

DLC in Pokemon will be a slippery slope. It may start off harmlessly enough as paying for a Mew then eventually escalate possibly to paying for 'battle ready' Pokemon or Shinys (Said Shinys would also be unobtainable in game) or even parts of the game itself.

I dislike the multiple events for rare Pokemon than the next person but it is preferable to locking parts of the game or rare Pokemon behind a paywall.

 

[Frozocrone]

People against DLC should need to stop collecting all the Mystery Gifts. By definition, they're DLC, they weren't there at the start and were implemented at a later date.

DLC isn't inherently bad and it's going to depend on how exactly GameFreak implements it, especially if it's going to be paid content.

Take for example, Skyrim and it's two expansions, Dragonborn and Dawnguard. Both of these are examples of DLC done right. These are real expansions of the base game, especially Dragonborn, which gives you a huge new island to explore. Same with Zelda:BOTW for DLC 1 - it provides a new tougher mode with regenerating allies, new items to search for, a fantastic new quest to improve your Master Sword. Again, providing stuff you wouldn't have gotten otherwise out of your base game. Freedom Cry for Assassins Creed IV Black Flag is another example of great DLC, a new area to explore, a new story to submerge yourself in and over four hours of content. Bioware also did a good expansion for their Bioshock Infinite game with Burial at Sea and while not as substantial as previous examples, still provides a good experience to justify the price.

All of these games (and many more) did something with their expansions; they provided a brand new experience that you wouldn't have gotten otherwise. Another thing to note is that a lot of these games are also single player based within an open world (which is extremely similar to Pokemon when one thinks in broad terms).

Now for the bad examples of DLC of which there are usually three types:

1)

Spoiler:

Overpriced rubbish that should either be (A) cheaper than what it is or (B) free and already in the game. This usually extends to multiplayer maps such as those for Call Of Duty for example, but in a Pokemon sense it could be moving animations in battle. Here's a notorious example - Battlefield 3. Battlefield 3 released their first map expansion, Back to Karkland. Nothing that bad until you realise how it actually works. There are two ways it can work, either you have to have the DLC to actually play online in which case you either spend on the DLC (in addition to the game and online service if you're on a console) OR you don't have to pay for the DLC to go online, but you're either then put into a room with everyone so you'll never play the DLC you bought, or you're put into an exclusive room that is entirely dependent on how many people actually bought the DLC so the chances of you playing your DLC are very slim. I won't even go into how it completely ripped off every who did buy Karkland when the Season Pass they put out also included Karkland while offering no discount for people who actually did buy Karkland.

2)

Spoiler:

Content ripped from the game that should have been implemented in the game in the first place but is instead required to be paid for after you've already bought the game. Mass Effect 2 blocked parts of your ship behind a paywall and you had to buy it to move around. Which is mildly irritating at best, however Mass Effect 3 really takes the piss by removing integral parts of the story behind a paywall and expecting to make an extra ?10 just so you can finish the story. EA earn an A* in truly f**king over their customers.

3)

Spoiler:

Finally and probably the one most applicable to Pokemon is the delightful little thing known as microtransactions. There is nothing good about microtransactions, anything bought as a microtransaction could be legitimately obtained in the game. With that said, I understand why microtransactions might be incorporated, especially in a mobile gaming world for free games, it's a good business sense. However, the dogs**t side of microtransactions involve allowing the lazy people to fast-track their way to the top or again, locking stuff paying a paywall that should have been included, such as a new weapon, new skin. Nothing that would change the way the game is enjoyed or expanded upon.

GameFreak could easily make microtransactions a thing. A shiny Pokemon. A battle ready team. A breeding Ditto. Some new clothes for the PC. All things that either (A) can be obtained in the game or (B) do nothing other than make you look different.

I don't trust GameFreak and Nintendo not to implement paid content at a later date when GameFreak already drips in Mystery Gifts (like the Megastones and Mythicals, although thankfully Matsuda seems to be keeping it free right now) and Nintendo has been bringing out Amiibos for three years now. Yes, Amiibos are DLC, not every sort of DLC is bought online!

 

[Alexander18]

We are gonna continue collecting mystery gifts because they are different and we won't stop collecting them regardless of what others say. Mystery Gift is different to dlc.

DLC is bad and should not be allowed in the main series games.

 

[Frozocrone]

The way that Mystery Gift was implemented in the first place fits perfectly in-universe with how Pokemon is supposed to be; Game Freak is essentially "gifting" you Pokemon/items. It becomes a problem when you have to pay for those gifts as it ruins that "illusion" more or less, if that makes any sense.

Imagine every Mega Stone giveaway this year except with a $4.99 price tag; now you're just making Pokemon transactional when the only time that **** makes sense is in the Game Corner.

I'm not saying Mystery Gift should be paid for. My point was that you still download those gifts, hence they are by definition DLC - and that people against DLC need to stop downloading their Mega Stones, Marshadow and the like. Can you get Swampertite in the SM games naturally? Or do you need to input a code that will grant you access to the Mega?

DLC =/= paid for content.

If you say you will trade for Swampertite then that question just moves onto to whoever gives you that stone - basically the first legally obtained Swampertite will have to be gotten from the code GameFreak made available.

 

[Archive10]

If it contains stuff that is usually added to third versions, then sure, beats paying full price. Mystery gifts are pratically free dlc anyway.

 

[Alexander18]

People need to stop telling others to stop downloading things from mystery gift. We are not gonna do what others want us to do.

As for DLC, it won't make the franchise popular. It would make it worst. Playing the game as a whole is better by far. Third versions will not be reduce to DLC. That is just a poor business decision to make.

 

[Mab]

If it contains stuff that is usually added to third versions, then sure, beats paying full price. Mystery gifts are pratically free dlc anyway.

I agree! I thought I was alone here haha.

 

[Frozocrone]

ya I was only arguing in the cases of paid content DLC in this thread. Any other DLC like some sort of paywall content or some **** to access parts of the same is stupid.

Can somewhat agree.

Paying for a new map with challenges to explore? Sure. Battle Frontier? I wouldn't mind. To get Mega Stones and such? F*** that!

 

[Alexander18]

Paying to unlock new areas of your game would be a low thing for GF to do. The majority of fans want full access to the games. Not get limited. That is how franchises fail.