Splatoon Datamine Reveals a Bunch of Unreleased Maps, Weapons, And More

[InsanityRequiem]

Snip.

So no, there are no games that their dev/publishing company did such practice. Good to know. Because all the companies you listed either brought out content months after major outcry over practices or as paid content. Or the companies locked content on disk at cost to unlock either through preorder, season pass, or straight up buying after buying the game.

 

[xaszatm]

Snip.

Because unlike everyone else, Nintendo is not charging people for this content. And unlike everyone else, Nintendo is not throwing everything out day 1 to the whole populace to be played in a manner of minutes, creating a stale and boring experience. You keep saying it's been done before, but I want to know. Who has done this before? And remember, released at a price or after a large scale uproar do not count, because they're not the same as Nintendo's slow unlock of content.

You're saying other companies have done what Nintendo's doing, but I've only seen companies lock characters/maps/weapons behind paywalls or they released a bad game in the first place and hastily tried releasing new content months down the line after their game either failed or their practices lead to an uproar.

Actually, there are a few. Like TF2, for instance. It started out with nine classes with no changes in weaponry and like 5 maps (well 6, but who the hell plays Hydro?). We didn't get any updates until months later that allowed for different weapons, maps, game modes, etc. Oh, how we lambasted TF2 for this clearly...oh, wait. We enjoyed it as well. Huh, apparently the "it's only right when Nintendo does it" thing does hold water after all...

PS, I realize the anger sounds directed at you but its not. Sorry if it comes off that way.

 

[Sheo_Dagana]

I've seen this community lose their collective minds over other publishers doing something like this. Why suddenly are so many defending Nintendo's decision to do it?

Because this isn't just any community of fans defending a publisher... these are Nintendo fans. It's nearly impossible to get them to see that the publisher is doing (and has been for a while) wrong by them. They'll allow staggered access to maps and other various options in a game like this because Nintendo could never do something bad, but fuck EA or 2K, those guys should know better.

It's like a strange, abusive relationship. 'Sure, Nintendo is locking all this content away, but it's for our own good so we won't get bored too quickly!' I decide when I get bored of a game, and with the way Splatoon handles map selection, I'm already pretty bored.

 

[Las7]

Maybe make informed purchase decisions next time, the amount of content was noted by everyone. The developers themselves explained how the content will be rolled out. All reviews knocked down review scores citing small amount of content as one of the main negatives. If you weren't happy with the amount of content the game would have at launch than I really recommend not to buy the game or wait until August to purchase it.
There is far more things I want from the game personally, but I have found more than enough there at launch to justify the purchase. I was well aware of what I was buying and you obviously weren't. I just don't understand people who purchase games on impulse. Afterwards ending up disappointed by them simply because they failed to read what everyone had highlighted already.
For example I read the reviews of DA:I and even though Orgins was one of my favorite games I decided not to even try DA:I until it's fixed. Its still not fixed in my mind and hence I have not bought the game. Plenty of people have put DA:I as their game of the year 2015 - so obviously they didn't have much of the same issues I was adamant about being fixed.

Splatoon is a game that gets a pass from me because it was made clear from the get go what to expect, and if it wasn't what I wanted I could have easily decided not to purchase or wait till until August.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Wow, Nintendo and Splatoon share a lot with a lot of shitty fucking shooters out there.

"Let's with hold content on disk so we can seem a lot cooler then we really are, instead of making actually new content. Let's cut off... this this aaannnnd this from the whole game, and release it later."

Shitheads.

 

[Hero of Lime]

Wow, Nintendo and Splatoon share a lot with a lot of shitty fucking shooters out there.

"Let's with hold content on disk so we can seem a lot cooler then we really are, instead of making actually new content. Let's cut off... this this aaannnnd this from the whole game, and release it later."

Shitheads.

But at least we get the full game, even if it's not from the start. Sure, it made Splatoon kinda barren for the first two weeks, but as long as I don't have to pay anything else, I'm fine with it. Basically, if I get a full game eventually, then I won't complain much. Not to mention, unlike many other shooters, knowing every little thing about the maps themselves are essential to doing well in a match. If we had gotten all of them on launch day it would take a long time to get to know each map.

These justifications may sound flimsy, but I probably would not still be playing Splatoon almost one month after launch if they had released everything from the get go. Maybe it's artificial longevity, but this is the longest I've been able to stay interested in a multiplayer game without getting tired of it.

OT: The pictures of the inklings all looking at the camera is both cute, and really creepy.

33 new weapons? Damn. I don't have a WiiU so it doesn't really matter to me, but that's kinda nuts. How many different ways can you possibly spray paint ink around?

You have no idea...

 

[Strazdas]

this is not surprising. When a game that has to be balanced is bieng tested some maps and weapons get rejected as unbalanced that may later be rebalanced and introduced. most gamers do not see it, but often you have 3 rejected maps for 1 that makes it to the game, all in the name of balanced competition. and weapon balance is almost always a point of contention, maybe Nintendo is just being careful here.

 

[Vigormortis]

Whether the game is good or bad is entirely the point.

No, it isn't. The point is whether or not Nintendo is making an ethical decision in keeping content locked away from the people who've already purchased it.

Let's say you bought a TV from Target (or some equivalent store), but the store told you, "You can have the TV now, but you can't have the proprietary power cord and remote that come with it for the next one and two months, respectively. Trust us, it's for your own good. You'll enjoy the TV more if you get everything you paid for over time." Would you still sit there and say this is a good idea?

Consider the motive here. They aren't locking content away to make money later cause it costs the same. They aren't locking away content because they haven't developed it yet, it's already on the disk.

And THAT'S the issue. It's already on the disc. The players have already paid for it. Yet, Nintendo won't let them have access to it.

They're locking the content away because they believe players will have a better experience with the slow release.

Which is a nonsensical notion since many other companies have supported their online games and communities with post-launch content and events that weren't a part of the launch title. Many of them for free. So I really fail to see how what Nintendo is doing is admirable or even advisable.

And players are having a good experience with the game. Which means they did well.

Players had good experiences with Diablo 3 at launch. That doesn't mean every decision that went into the game at launch was a good one. Same applies to Splatoon.

 

[Vigormortis]

So no, there are no games that their dev/publishing company did such practice. Good to know.

Are you asking if there are any other instances of a company putting content on the disc and locking it from players for arbitrary reasons, only to offer that content later for free? No, I can't think of any particular case. But that's because locking out on-disc content for ANY reason is a fucking stupid and unethical idea, regardless of whether or not it's charged for later.

So as I said, at best, what we have is a mildly less egregious case of bullshit than what we've seen prior.

Yet you're still praising the practice.

It boggles the mind....

And you still haven't addressed that point. All you've done so far is say the practice is "good for the players" (which I've seen no objective reason why it's better than, say, supporting the game post launch with actual free DLC) and that "Well, other companies have done worse!"

That doesn't absolve Nintendo of doing something that is, at it's core, an unethical move. All it means is that they're not quite in the same league of douche-baggery as some of the other publishers.

 

[Vigormortis]

Because this isn't just any community of fans defending a publisher... these are Nintendo fans. It's nearly impossible to get them to see that the publisher is doing (and has been for a while) wrong by them. They'll allow staggered access to maps and other various options in a game like this because Nintendo could never do something bad, but fuck EA or 2K, those guys should know better.

It's like a strange, abusive relationship. 'Sure, Nintendo is locking all this content away, but it's for our own good so we won't get bored too quickly!' I decide when I get bored of a game, and with the way Splatoon handles map selection, I'm already pretty bored.

I mean, I get being a fan of a particular companies output or services. I can even appreciate having an admiration for the minds behind those companies, content, and services. I'm a fan of a number of developers.

But to not only defend but rationalize blatant bullshit practices involving one of their products or services as if they're good and beneficial?

I just....wow....

 

[Vigormortis]

this is not surprising. When a game that has to be balanced is bieng tested some maps and weapons get rejected as unbalanced that may later be rebalanced and introduced. most gamers do not see it, but often you have 3 rejected maps for 1 that makes it to the game, all in the name of balanced competition. and weapon balance is almost always a point of contention, maybe Nintendo is just being careful here.

Changes and alterations in the name of balance can be made without locking content from those who've purchased it.

 

[tstorm823]

No, it isn't. The point is whether or not Nintendo is making an ethical decision in keeping content locked away from the people who've already purchased it.

Let's say you bought a TV from Target (or some equivalent store), but the store told you, "You can have the TV now, but you can't have the proprietary power cord and remote that come with it for the next one and two months, respectively. Trust us, it's for your own good. You'll enjoy the TV more if you get everything you paid for over time." Would you still sit there and say this is a good idea?

Imagine if an entertainment company asked for your money now for a year's worth of content, but then spread that content out over the whole year in weekly increments! What a terrible idea! There is no way I just described a magazine subscription, right? It's just too anti-consumer to possibly be something millions of people gladly pay for.

There's nothing immoral about selling people content released over time.

 

[Chaos Isaac]

Wow, Nintendo and Splatoon share a lot with a lot of shitty fucking shooters out there.

"Let's with hold content on disk so we can seem a lot cooler then we really are, instead of making actually new content. Let's cut off... this this aaannnnd this from the whole game, and release it later."

Shitheads.

Not to mention, unlike many other shooters, knowing every little thing about the maps themselves are essential to doing well in a match. If we had gotten all of them on launch day it would take a long time to get to know each map.

These justifications may sound flimsy

Pfft. You must not play that many shooters. Map knowledge is super useful, especially when it comes down to communication in team play and calling out things...

And, they are entirely flimsy and weak. It's basically apologist about it, not to mention it's a out right lie that it'd take a long time to get to know each map. Anyone who consistently plays will catch onto the maps fairly well, unless they have bad memory on things like that. (Which is fair enough. But even they catch on.)

But, you know, that's experience on my part from when I played shooters a lot. (And my few recent forays in gaming in my off time.)

 

[Hero of Lime]

Pfft. You must not play that many shooters. Map knowledge is super useful, especially when it comes down to communication in team play and calling out things...

And, they are entirely flimsy and weak. It's basically apologist about it, not to mention it's a out right lie that it'd take a long time to get to know each map. Anyone who consistently plays will catch onto the maps fairly well, unless they have bad memory on things like that. (Which is fair enough. But even they catch on.)

But, you know, that's experience on my part from when I played shooters a lot. (And my few recent forays in gaming in my off time.)

I've played enough. Which is why I talked at length about how most shooters never hold my attention for long. Because of this, I can't say I mind their tactics keeps me interested in the game. Anything that catches my attention this long gets a lot of credit from me, especially a multiplayer focused game.

Also, I never said map knowledge was not important in most shooters, it is. It's just not as important as it is in Splatoon, since the map itself is the key to victory, rather than killing the other players. Maybe I exaggerated its importance in my first post. But it's based on my experience with any other shooter, where combat prowess outweighs map knowledge and traversal.

 

[Kaimax]

It has been done with ALL the Main Monster Hunter series, and it has worked well with little to no complaints besides, "I wish they can release it faster".
To the point that Hackers who tries to unlock the "locked" stuff early getting shunned by the community with insta-kicks from the Gathering Hall.

Artificial caps to prolong interest? Yes.
Free? Yes, SO who cares besides impatient pricks.

 

[Strazdas]

this is not surprising. When a game that has to be balanced is bieng tested some maps and weapons get rejected as unbalanced that may later be rebalanced and introduced. most gamers do not see it, but often you have 3 rejected maps for 1 that makes it to the game, all in the name of balanced competition. and weapon balance is almost always a point of contention, maybe Nintendo is just being careful here.

Changes and alterations in the name of balance can be made without locking content from those who've purchased it.

Sometimes it can, sometimes it cant. For example World of Tanks took out around a dozen maps that were unbalanced and brought them back in after a rebalance around a year later. had they left those maps in for that year, people would have to play on unbalanced maps for entire year while the developers get their shit together (seriously Wargaming is very slow on updating anything). There is also very good reason not to leave overpowered weapons in a game until you balance them, otherwise peoples enjoyment would suffer.

Im not saying that this is necessarily what happened in this case, but this stuff happens in game development all the time and with good reasons. Of course the smart thing to do for nintendo here would be to simply not have the content on the disc. but discs are printed months in advance and testing and balancing is still being done until release. It may have been too late.