Mario Golf: World Tour Will Have DLC And A Season Pass

By Ishaan . April 22, 2014 . 11:30am

Mario Golf: World Tour is getting downloadable content with a Season Pass, Nintendo announced this morning. The base game will contain 10 courses with 126 holes, but if you want more, you’ll be able to purchase an additional 108 holes as well as new Golfers.


DLC for Mario Golf: World Tour will be released in three separate packs—the Mushroom Pack launching on May 2nd, the Flower Pack launching later in May and the Star Pack launching in June. Each pack will contain two new courses with 18 holes each and a new playable character.


The Mushroom Pack will come with Toadette, the Flower Pack with Nabbit and the Star Pack with Rosalina. Each pack will cost $5.99, but if you want to buy them all, you can grab a Season Pass at a discounted rate of $14.99, starting May 2nd.


Season Pass holders will get access to each pack as it is made available. Additionally, they’ll also get a Gold Mario playable character as a special bonus at the time of purchase. Gold Mario has a special “Golden Flower shot” that gains coins for every yard it travels. If you eventually buy all three DLC packs separately, you’ll get Gold Mario once all three packs have been released.


Additionally, Nintendo say they will offer “trial tournaments” for consumers that are interesting in sampling these DLC courses before deciding to buy them. In order to access these, you’ll need to own the game and download the Trial Pack.

Read more stories about & on Siliconera.

  • J_Joestar

    Et tu, Mario?

  • 하세요

    Sounds good to me.

  • Cazar

    It begins.

    • Slayven19

      It began with FE and Luigi U, where have you been?

      • Cazar

        I’ve been here, and not like this it didn’t.

  • NintendoPSXTheSecond

    So since this is happening, can we get DLC for Smash Bros too?

    • Kaleido-Ruby


    • AuraGuyChris

      Sakurai said he wasn’t going to go through that route, if I recall correctly.

      • Twilleppac

        Ah, I wouldn’t actually mind DLC for SSB4 if it allowed them to potentially add more interesting 3rd party characters that they couldn’t get the rights to in time before major development began. Or characters that they had planned out and were going to add but had to scrap.

      • Ben Sylvia

        He actually said he has no plans at the moment for DLC.

        But he didn’t shoot the idea down completely.

    • SilvaStarRippa
    • J_Joestar

      IIRC, a game (especially console based ones) need to be built with DLC in mind or else there is only so much you can implement into a game afterwards.
      Sakurai in particular has mentioned that a part of his development philosophy has to do with treating each game as if it is the last one he is going to make. I think that may make it very unlikely that he would end up leaving such opening for DLC to be implemented easily.

      • Slayven19

        Sakurai isn’t opposed to dlc, he just wants the game out first.

    • subsamuel01

      Its Sakurai’s call and from last I heard there was no planned DLC, but that was a while ago maybe he changed his mind.

  • Noor Mahmoud

    Someone made a comment complaining about the DLC. Since then, it has been deleted. Below was my intended response to the comment:

    Yes, definitely. They have a large amount of content in game, and then make DLC that has almost has much content, giving you over 200 holes to play on. Further more, they’ll have trial tournaments to let everyone try the DLC out, those villains. Oh, just found out that the base game is going to retail for $30 instead of $40. Someone stop these fiends!

  • DrakosAmatras

    “If you eventually buy all three DLC packs separately, you’ll get Gold Mario once all three packs have been released.”

    Hey, that’s actually not a bad idea. Instead of making the special bonus completely exclusive and lost forever after the early period, everybody who eventually end up with all three packs will get it one way or another.

    • luckgandor

      I approve of this as well. They could have tempted people, by making them feel like this was their only chance to get Gold Mario, but they didn’t.

  • Binks5

    im usually a bit sketchy on DLC but i gotta say this sounds very nice in addition to having a trial pack, i feel a bit more inclined to get this game now

  • Kaetsu

    Usually I’m not a fan of DLC but Nintendo has been handling it very well. Especially with Fire Emblem Awakening.

    • Adrián Alucard

      yeah, the pay to win DLCs are cool


      • hng qtr

        How p2w even works on a single player game?

        • Adrián Alucard

          if you pay to make the game easier you are paying to win, basically

          Also, FE: A have multiplayer (local and via street pass)

          • DrakosAmatras

            I believe the extent to which the grinding goes is up to each player. I can’t count how many hours of non-DLC grinding the DLCs saved; especially Gold, since I played on Hard. Level DLC also let me play around and tweak My Unit to my liking.

          • Adrián Alucard

            “I can’t count how many hours of non-DLC grinding the DLCs saved”

            I like spent 80-90 hours grinding and molding all the characters. But just because they removed the coliseums and the gold card (the classic and free item it’s now a paid DLC in awakening)

      • Rock Volnutt

        “Pay2win” only applies to competitive games where it gives the player an unfair edge over other players–not single player ones. In Awakening, it’s perfect. Those who don’t want it don’t have to get it, and those who do can.

    • Gemlit

      While I do believe that they are handling the DLC very well for this Mario Golf game, all of the Fire Emblem Awakening DLC will cost about an additional $53.

      • Kaetsu

        Doesn’t mean the DLC wasn’t any good.

        • Zenthos

          It just means that it was too expensive and not worth the price.

  • Raymond

    damn it. Im going to need a a new Sd card. Lol

  • Somebodyissilent

    Look at Nintendo getting with the times.

  • Thelastgunstar

    I’m pretty anti-DLC, mainly due to the content to price ratio always seeming a bit…off. This doesn’t sound all that bad. I just never thought I’d see “Mario” and “Season Pass” in the same article….

  • Gemlit

    Hmmm…what is the price going to be for the rest of the seasons? Will the cost of every DLC go down after a specific number of days/weeks/months/years?

  • Twilleppac

    Wow, that’s a surprisingly good price for DLC, Nintendo. Nowadays you’d expect companies like, say, Capcom or EA to charge you like a dollar a piece for each hole.

    • Tylor Boreas Makimoto

      You realize that would be cheaper than what Ninty is going to charge with this, right?

      • Asura

        108 holes at $1 per hole is cheaper than $15 for 108 holes? Maybe you should head back to third grade arithmetic class.

        • Tylor Boreas Makimoto

          Originally, it said course. Or, perchance, did you forget that Disqus has an edit button?

  • ivanchu77

    NOOOOOO , not you too nintendo ;__;

    this industry is going to shit

    • CozyAndWarm

      You spent the entire PS3/360 gen watching DLC and the like bog down games, even from first-party Sony and Microsoft devs, and gamers ate it all up. Now Nintendo wanting a piece of the pie is the one thing that makes you realize “this industry is going to shit”?

  • neo_firenze

    People are really surprised by this? Nintendo introduced DLC to Mario in the last major 3DS Mario title (NSMB2), it did well for them, and I wouldn’t expect them to stop now. They’ve also been using DLC in other games: Fire Emblem, Pikmin 3, etc.

    As DLC goes, it’s certainly less offensive to me to release the game at a lower price point and offer the full experience with DLC. I don’t really view it as a cheaper game + DLC though, I see it more as a $5 premium price for the complete game, or a lower cost “light” version if you don’t get any DLC. Not that there’s anything inherently evil about that business model, I’m
    just being realistic about the cost to own the complete package. I’m perfectly fine spending $45 for a new Mario Golf game stuffed with content.

    That being said, I’d prefer a full on-cartridge package for $44.99 retail, just to avoid having to download/store DLC and worry about potentially having to transfer it to a new system some day. Particularly with Nintendo releases, since Nintendo lacks a good user account system that is recognized across devices, unlike ALL of their major competition (Sony, MS, Apple, Android, Steam, etc.)

  • Derek E Nay

    Wait what? I thought Nintendo hated DLC because, “… they wanted their games complete.” nonsense. Don’t get me wrong, I love this idea for Niny. But I HOPE they add DLC for Smash. I don’t want to wait years for another Smash to hope to get a character I would play.

    (And before anyone grabs their rope. DLC is fine if done right. Just most company’s never do.)

    • Niermyico

      I’m sure they still stand by this. In their case I feel like they add everything they could possibly can in the game then distribute whatever else they can’t on DLC.

      • Derek E Nay

        Like how it should be. Looking at YOU Mass Effect 3… Freaking DLC spoilers…

    • Anewme…Again

      I haven’t played all Mario golfs, but i think 10 courses/126 holes is the highest any mario golf games got until now, so if that’s incompete it must mean every other Mario golf before was incomplete.
      Mario Gold 64 had 4 courses/72 holes and most likely less characters then this game will have and no one ever said it was an incomplete game.

      • Derek E Nay

        Oh, sorry. I didn’t mean to say that it wasn’t going to be complete with DLC. I just think Niny is scared of people point at them saying that the game isn’t complete because their is DLC. And who can blame the consumers? We have been hurt so many times because of stupid DLC that should have been part of the games (Like Mass Effect 3 character).

        And it just hit me… I completely forgot about Fire Emblem lol.

  • JoJo_718

    Wonder if there will be any plans for Super Smash Bros. Wii U/3DS and Mario Kart 8.

  • Firion Hope

    Really Ninty, even you’re doing the pre planned DLC with season pass thing now?


  • NeptuniasBeard

    At least Ninty is upfront about what you’ll get with the season pass. Too many companies are hush about, hoping you’ll buy the pass in confidence that something worthwhile will be released later, even if no announcements have been made. Then on top of that, they pick and choose what the season pass covers.

    So stay classy Nintendo, and don’t go down that slippery slope

  • hazelnut1112

    Damn, and I was hoping Nintendo wouldn’t give in to this season pass bullshit, especially since before the game launches. I guess they gotta blend in somehow, such a shame.

  • Takane Shijou

    Nintendo always feels so late in some ways.

    • ShawnOtakuSomething

      Whats so called “late” thing have they done now?

  • ShawnOtakuSomething

    A Season Pass? for a Nintendo game? Welp lucky it a sports game..right? * oh no I might jinx it*

  • ronin4life

    Well, they weren’t exactly keeping nags at bay by not heavily investing in DLC, as Mario Tenis, Mario Party and Luigis mansion have shown…(All games with good content and FREE Single card Download play, something Mario Golf also lacks.)

    So why not just do what everyone else does too? If you can’t beat em…

  • epy

    Nintendo…not you too…

  • otakumike

    Rosalina again huh? Nintendo sure loves her.

  • Hector Velar

    Nintendo welcome the the DLC boat, hold on tight for a bumpy ride.

  • CozyAndWarm

    DLC and season passes never stopped the gaming media from adoring games like The Last of Us, or stopped the Siliconera comment base from worshipping many Vita games. It’s funny how a lot of people hold Nintendo to some higher standard, saying they shouldn’t be doing DLC, while wholly accepting it from other companies. Eh, I just find it interesting.

  • pokeroi

    So the main game is only at 30$ and for 14.99$ more you get almost double content + new characters and you can try some maps before you buy the whole DLC? First time I’m interested in DLC.

  • Nanashrew

    I just feel like reiterating something I said in another place.

    Nintendo has been dipping their toes lightly into the DLC stuff and more often giving you more bang for the buck on top of an already complete and finished games. Some DLC in more recent games have even been completely free.

    One of the big problems around season passes in general is you never know when the content is coming, but here, Nintendo laid out the dates of when they are, so you know upfront. Nintendo has actually been very transparent with their handling of DLC at every moment they’ve spoken about it for a game.

    I actually really like how Nintendo has been handling this and I hope they continue with what they’re doing, continue to experiment with pricing and DLC for other games and keeping things fair.

  • Kevin Lima Ferreira

    To people defending DLC: No matter what you say, in the PS2/GC/XBOX generation and the generations before, when DLC didn’t existed in console gaming, we had MUCH MORE CONTENT in the games than in the games from TODAY even after paying for ALL the DLCs. Maybe there are some exceptions, but generally speaking this is the truth. And we used to pay the same price for the games. Honestly! If we buy FULL games by FULL price, they should have the FULL content. That’s how worked before! Why people accept paying for DLC now!? It would be best that DLC NEVER EXISTED at all! For EVERYONE! And sorry if my english isn’t too good.

    • Nanashrew

      I don’t even buy DLC but what Nintendo has been doing actually has been overall good. I don’t trust many companies with how they handle DLC at all except maybe Nintendo at this point because they haven’t really done anything offensive with them like the rest of the industry has.

      You got a full game with New Super Mario U and you got a full expansion with Super Luigi U. Fire Emblem: Awakening is also a full game too and the DLC added an equal amount of chapters to that of the main story. I don’t see much problem with how Nintendo has been handling this.

    • Twilleppac

      Game DLC was gonna happen eventually so being all “IT WOULD BE BETTER IF IT NEVER EXISTED” Is kind of pointless, it’s not DLC’s fault that publishers are being shits about it, doesn’t mean that all DLC is bad either. It’s very fair to hold those who carve full games up into bits and sell them to us as “DLC” to task, but this doesn’t appear to be the case here with this game.

    • Suicunesol

      Mario Golf World Tour isn’t being sold at full price, though. It’s being sold at $30, which is $10-$15 less than a regular 3DS game. Your argument for this particular game is moot.

  • Namuro

    Star Pack for me, baby! (Well, I’ll get them all in the end…)

  • LordHyper

    Well, at least they’re not making a separate game that’s nothing more than a mission pack sequel (a good one though).

  • Arrei

    Thank goodness for the comments, I could feel my ire building up until I learned the game was only 30 bucks and contained more holes in the base game than previous games in the series. As long as DLC doesn’t cut into the worth of the base game, I’m still happy.

  • hng qtr

    So this is how you do something that shoudn’t be done?

  • hazelnut1112

    No it shouldn’t, announcing DLC before the game releases and a Season pass is never acceptable.

  • pokeroi

    Better, the game is only 30$

  • DrakosAmatras

    Don’t even start it with the “DLC – Yay/Nay?” threads.

  • NintendoPSXTheSecond

    How important are you to declare that it shouldn’t be done?

  • MegamMix

    doing the wrong things the right way? Sounds like a quote from Jerri Blank…

  • Cazar

    I’m going to complain about it. This is not how DLC should be done. DLC should be additional content that is developed post the initial game development process. Release day DLC is and forever will be a nothing more than a scam. They should just release the game in its complete state then create actual DLC later. The expansion packs you speak of never released simultaneously with the base games themselves.

  • hng qtr

    I’m a consumer. If my opinion has no worth then nobody can complain about anything.

  • DrakosAmatras

    “Release day DLC is and forever will be a nothing more than a scam.”

    Even for a game that is sold in parts priced reasonably? I can’t say I see your idea allowing a lot of variety in publishing formats.

  • Combo

    “DLC should be additional content that is developed post the initial game development process. ”

    That’s exactly what it is though. Unless Nintendo suddenly changed their policies, this DLC was almost certainly developed after the game was finished, like with NSMB2 and FE Awakening.

  • NTaiyokun

    I don’t think you understand how the industry works. Development is a ridiculously complex system and it’s extremely likely that this could’ve been developed after game completion deadline and had no other choice.

    I initially was kind of biased towards the negative side, but when you see how they’re handling this, it ain’t a bad thing. This is Nintendo we’re talking about. There’s probably a method to this madness somewhere.

    If that’s not the case, it’s an expansion pack in a sense that will be there forever.

  • Nanashrew

    From the small bit of what I’ve saw of the first DLC has what looked like 5-6 remade courses from Mario Golf 64. So the day 1 DLC could be a good portion of past stages which means It could be feasible that it was done post development in time for its release while the rest are wholly original courses.

    Nintendo reduced the price of the game to $30, made the season pass $15 and you’re getting 4 characters and 108 courses on top of 126 already.

    The main game itself is already far more than what was even in Toadstool Tour on the Gamecube. You’re still getting a full and complete game with or without the DLC.

  • Combo

    “something that shouldn’t be done” makes it sound like you’re pushing your opinion as objectively true. If you don’t want the DLC, don’t buy it. I for one will be happy to pay $15 to almost double the content of a $30 game. If anything, that’s a hot deal compared to other games with DLC.

  • Cazar

    Because they are splitting up the game instead of releasing it in it’s complete state. You can argue all you want that 16 characters and 120 holes is enough but the matter of the fact is that they dedicated a large amount of resources into developing DLC during the initial development process instead of just including it in the game as it should be. I would have no problem with paying full retail price for a complete game if they would just ditch the day-one DLC and season pass gimmicks.

  • Cazar

    Yet it’s launching the same day as the game?

  • Cazar

    When is splitting up a game ever a good publishing practice?

  • DrakosAmatras

    And your implication is that it inherently isn’t? I said “sold in parts priced reasonably”. It’s already happening with some adventure games.

  • Cazar

    Is it so shocking for someone to want a game to be complete instead of broken up and sold in pieces?

  • DrakosAmatras

    No, but demanding that the base game’s content and price adhere to arbitrary limits – and implying that not doing so counts as undignified business practice under any circumstance – certainly is. And we’re not even talking about an overpricing issue here.

  • Cazar

    No. I would rather pay $40 for the 120 holes and the DLC which they have already completed, included in the game.

  • NintendoPSXTheSecond

    Then what’s the difference? It’s price is cut so roughly either way if you as a person choose the Season Pass it’s basically the same price.

  • DrakosAmatras

    And your rationale for that is that they’ll release it on the same day, thus it belongs in the same package? Just because some publishers abused split-content delivery doesn’t mean the idea itself has to get the bad rep for it.

  • Cazar

    As I already said to Minos I would have no problem paying full price if the game were sold in it’s complete state. I have a feeling this argument wouldn’t even be happening if this weren’t a Nintendo game. I’ve never seen people get so defensive over day-one DLC.

  • Combo

    Yeah, that happens all the time. There’s a gap of time between a game going gold and a game being printed and released, especially with recent Nintendo titles for some reason. (Waiting for Luigi’s Mansion 2 to come out when it was finished eight months ago was painful ;c)

  • DrakosAmatras

    You’re barking up the wrong tree here. I’m not even arguing about the release date as much as the split-package publishing, which I do see potential for under fair decisions. The fact that this is a Nintendo game never even mattered as much as the pricing either. Don’t distract from the topics at hand.

  • Fallen_Persona

    You want to blame anyone, blame the consumers anyway.

    Consumers want cheaper games.
    Consumers want complete games.
    Consumers want used games.

    Basically, following these 3 guidelines, the only choice seems to be to add DLC.

    What do you expect them to do? Attempt to *lose* money?

    Since used games to them are essentially piracy, they have to squeeze money out of the other customers. Otherwise, they’ll never make their bottom line.

  • Slayven19

    Day one dlc isn’t what people are mad about. High priced on disc DLC is. Other than that there’s really no difference in this case. Basically most companies just release day 1 down the road 6 months as DLC just to give you the illusion that it isn’t day 1 dlc. Same thing different method, they can cut out whatever they want without you ever knowing regardless of the time span.

    They used to cut stuff out of old games on the snes/playstation as well that they didn’t have time finish. Don’t see how anything is different now.

  • FivePointedTheStar

    Who defines “complete game”? The one who makes the game or its consumers? This is what I’m seeing as the cause for this mess.

  • Cazar

    That is not what I’m saying though. Why are you deciding what I’m saying for me?

  • Cazar

    It’s just a bad practice that’s only paving a road for abuse of this system to come. And while the price difference is minimal they are still squeezing out an extra $5 there. They are taking baby steps.

    Not to mention that you’re being forced to use Nintendo’s terrible digital purchase system if you want the full game.

    The entire concept is just gimmicky and unnecessary. When fans say they want DLC content in Nintendo games, they don’t meant they want them to start splitting up their games. We want new content created post-release.

  • NintendoPSXTheSecond

    Dude it’s a bloody golf game, this keeps interest. Are you going to say the Trials Fusion Season Pass is “bad practice” since it had preorders? Well guess what, I got it and what’s a few extra bucks for more content? Nothing.

  • NeptuniasBeard

    Well the games only a few weeks away, it most likely went gold awhile ago, and we have no definitive evidence on how far ahead they planned this content. It’s not like Arkham Knight, where pre order dlc was announced the same damn day the game was. THAT’S inexcusable

  • Cazar

    >unless you are counting the other 60

    Yes that’s what I’ve been trying to say. The additional 60 108 holes should be counted as part of the full game.

    And I don’t see why you need statistics from Nintendo to understand this. If the content was completed before the game released then they clearly had the time and resources.

    Look, I really don’t want to argue endlessly about whether this is acceptable or not. My main issue was with how eager you were to declare that “this is how you do DLC.” Just because it’s Nintendo branded doesn’t mean that every little thing they do is perfect. There are much better ways to do DLC such as, focusing on releasing the best and most complete game possible during the time frame of the initial development. Then investing time and resources into developing content-rich DLC after the game has successfully launched to extend the appeal of the game. A good example of this was the Artorias of the Abyss DLC for Dark Souls.

    Regardless of how “OK” you might think this is, you’re never going to convince me that splitting up games into day-one DLC is an ideal form of DLC practice.

  • hazelnut1112

    Nintendo has always been the type of company that releases a game as complete as they can without the need for DLC or any of this season pass stuff. Another delay would have been appropriate to finish the game but instead they took this route and I hope this doesn’t become routine for them.

  • Cazar

    Holding out is no better, and not all DLC is like this. There are some developers who believe it or not, actually focus on delivering a complete game, then develop DLC post-launch.

    Time constraints are very different from this because if time was at fault then this DLC wouldn’t be day-one.

  • Cazar

    You’re avoiding the point. The type of game is irrelevant. This is not the way to do DLC. It accomplishes nothing and once this sort of trend gets started it only gets worse from there.

  • Cazar

    Well, more like jumped into it but all I meant was that I’m surprised to see people so passionately defend something that’s generally abhorred. Or I guess I shouldn’t be, some people will defend Nintendo over anything.

  • Cazar

    The sequence of events is neither known nor relevant. The DLC was still completed and prepared for release before the game’s launch deadline. There’s nothing preventing them from including it.

  • Combo

    Yes, but it wasn’t completed before the game was content-locked and went into production. Pretty hard to put something that doesn’t exist yet on your game cartridge.

  • Cazar

    Unless you work for Nintendo that’s a pretty bold claim to make. Game media doesn’t generally take that long to produce except when faced with delays.

  • NintendoPSXTheSecond

    “Not the way to do DLC”
    “Accomplishes nothing”
    Whose to say they want to accomplish anything except giving us more to do? Seriously, stop trying to drill your opinions in as a fact. I ain’t buyin’ it.

  • Combo

    Like I said, that’s how Nintendo did it with NSMB2 and Fire Emblem, and I think Pikmin 3 as well. They seemed adamant that they were going to stick with that type of DLC. Besides, this is just Nintendo experimenting like they usually do. If it’s a huge failure, they wont do it again, or at least they’ll rethink it and take a different approach. I happen to think it’s a largely inoffensive experiment, especially considering the other types of DLC out there.

  • Cazar

    Have you not read anything that I’ve said? Explain to me how splitting up a game gives you more to do.

  • Cazar

    This is exactly what I’m talking about:

    >This is Nintendo we’re talking about. There’s probably a method to this madness somewhere.

    Because it’s Nintendo, there must be some kind of good excuse!

    No one would be saying that if it were any other company. For myself, it’s because it’s Nintendo that this bothers me. A game company that’s Iong been dear to me is now experimenting with anti-consumer business models.

    >If that’s not the case, it’s an expansion pack in a sense that will be there forever.

    Not sure if I understand what you’re trying to say there. In what other situation would the content not be there forever?

  • Suicunesol

    I don’t believe that. Developers have to start planning and developing DLC before the game releases. They have to plan, develop, test, and advertise the DLC, which takes time. If they don’t do it before the game launches, they likely won’t make the time window in which the DLC will sell the most, which is usually not long after the initial game release. Offering fries with your burger won’t matter much if they’re offered a month after you’ve finished your burger.

  • Herok♞

    Ok so if you made a game, and your game has gone gold would you wait until after the game was out to make the dlc or would you get started on it after you make the base product?

  • Cazar

    Dark Souls and Skull Girls are a couple examples that would disagree with you.

  • RedShadoww

    This is exactly what I’m thinking. It all depends on an individuals definition of a complete game. Everyone’s is different. Personally I don’t like the idea of DLC in the first place, I’d rather a developer make their game the best it can be and then put it out. The problem is we’ll never know for sure if they’re actually withholding content so they can sell those bits to us later and can only assume when the DLC is day one.

    Someone here said “Developers should create their game with DLC in mind” and I cannot disagree enough with this statement because that’s the equivalent to saying “They should withhold their ideas to make the game better so they can sell it to us later”. Then there’s the factor of cost of development, where they don’t have enough money to add what they want and then add it later when they get money from their game.

    Personally, I think most games these days do have less content but still keep their core experience, and cut out those extras that don’t matter much to sell it to us. What sucks is that people are getting accustomed to it and shell out absurd amount of money for those extra things that used to be in the previous games of the series.

  • MegamMix

    no reason to complain once nintendo tells us its complete? dear lord keep tis power away from Toriyama!

  • Suicunesol

    For Dark Souls, Is there any indication that the DLC was developed after the game released?

    I don’t know the circumstances behind Skull Girls, but I heard it was partially crowdfunded. Am I right? Skull Girls developer wasn’t in a position to make additional character DLC without additional funds, which would have definitely impacted their decision to not make day 1 DLC. It was also a new IP, so they probably wanted to wait until the game was a hit before making DLC.

  • keef

    It appears you’re wasting your time, either people don’t understand what you’re saying or something else.

  • Cazar

    FromSoft have stated themselves that they do not plan DLC during initial development.

  • Jesus Roman Leal

    For Skullgirls they were making Squigily when issues started to happen with Autum games and they had to stop production on her. She, Big Band, and the new characters that will be released were Kickstarted and will be released as DLC as they are finished. After their free period they’ll have to be bought from the store.

  • Cazar

    I know where you’re going with this. This idea that somehow all of this was done after the game was finalized and yet before it was actually released is nothing more than speculation and quite frankly a very unlikely scenario. And how would I know if my game had gone gold or not if it hadn’t even released yet?

  • DrakosAmatras

    “This idea that somehow all of this was done after the game was finalized
    and yet before it was actually released is nothing more than
    speculation and quite frankly a very unlikely scenario.”

    Don’t start stating things for sure when you don’t have any way of confirm it. You’ve been stating one thing after another since the thread started, but you hardly touched up on the main points you’ve been rallying for. For you, it’s bad because it just is; no capacity to consider other possibilities.

    At this point, you’re not going to convince anybody, or vice versa. So just stop going around in loops.

  • Herok♞

    That doesn’t answer the question, you just avoided it and made an assumption.

  • Cazar

    I’m sorry but I think you have it backwards? Who are the ones stating things for sure? I’m saying that they’re unsure.

    It looks like you’re just choosing to go after me because I have a conflicting opinion.

  • DrakosAmatras

    What, you’re playing the “minority opinion” card now? People who disagreed with you gave their own arguments; you’re the one who keeps looping back to how unacceptable it is without even considering the possibility that there might be other ways this can be made to work. Not only are you trying to impose arbitrary limits based on your preferences as the definitive “proper” ones, you refuse to even consider the possibility that the actual timeline of the development isn’t something people can just know without the devs divulging it. That’s just bullheaded.

    You’ve made your point repeatedly, and you obviously have no ears for what others have to say. So I’d say further repetition would be pointless.

  • Cazar

    No, I’m talking about you specifically. You called me out on stating something as fact without confirmation when I did no such thing. I was doing the exact opposite, saying that there was no way to confirm that the DLC was developed after the game was finalized for sale, which some other users here have tried to claim. Yet you had no interest in calling them out, instead you pointed the gun at me presumably because my opinion conflicts with yours. And now your saying I lack the capacity to hear what other people say? You’re just calling the kettle black.

  • DrakosAmatras

    “You called me out on stating something as fact without confirmation when I did no such thing.”


    “This idea that somehow all of this was done after the game was finalized and yet before it was actually released is nothing more than speculation and quite frankly a very unlikely scenario.”

    “You can argue all you want that 16 characters and 120 holes is enough but the matter of the fact is that they dedicated a large amount of resources into developing DLC during the initial development process instead of just including it in the game as it should be.”

    To quote what you yourself said to another user:

    “Unless you work for Nintendo that’s a pretty bold claim to make.”

    So when others start speculating, you play the “lack of confirmation” card? Stop playing the victim.

  • Cazar

    How is saying that another claim is unlikely or speculation count as me claiming something as fact?

    I can admit some fault to the second one, but that’s a pretty straightforward assessment. Game content doesn’t just appear out of thin air. This wasn’t what you had called me out on either though.

    But did you even read the comment I was replying to in that last one?

    >Yes, but it wasn’t completed before the game was content-locked and went into production. Pretty hard to put something that doesn’t exist yet on your game cartridge.

    How is this not considered a baseless claim but my reply was? How biased do you have to be to not see that? You taking all this time to search through my posts is only further indication that you’re just determined put me down. But I get it. As a mod it’s your obligation to be right 100% of the time. I’ll take your advice and stop going in loops with you. Have a good night.

  • Zenthos

    So when you lose your own argument you go scavenge your way to find something that had nothing to do with what you were discussing before just to try to find something your “right” in, which by the way you weren’t. I fail to see where your going with this.

  • Jesus Roman Leal

    Yup, I what I do with the games I dont feel like they will keep me entertained as much. Just wait for the price drop to what I think is good then buy it. This time I wont have to wait and will get the DLC if I’m still playing it or to pad some more time from it till another game I want comes out.

  • Jesus Roman Leal

    Games have to go into a lot of reviewing processes that can take from weeks to months. If the game changes at all from the content that was submitted at the time they need to review everything again.

    I have been part of games that have gone gold 2-3 months before release since production needs to start. Also, for games with DLC planned it is usually done in the planning stages of development to not encounter issues later trying to integrate it to the game. Lots more bugs and glitches in testing this way.

    Games and all their content available are tested together to make sure everything is released on schedule. Cant make everything in a DLC pack and test it in 2 months when making a game for most big companies takes from 6 months to 6 years.

    I know there have been games that have gone gold almost a year before release while content was still being made for them. Adding this extra content to the game after that would mean that they would have to test the whole game and every new content again, re package it all, compress the files if needed to fit them on the media, re submit the package, and fix and test everything again if something when wrong.

    If things are released separate after release then patches are easier to implement since they already got the “working finished” main build and they just need to address the new issues from the DLC and/or fix old ones that sometimes mess with the other parts.

  • ronin4life

    With that Thinking, the game would never be finished/released…

  • DrakosAmatras

    “Scavenge”? Let me remind you that all of what I quoted was from this very page; everything he said is right there, in public; it’s not exactly the dirt-digging he’s making it out to be. And the only reason I brought those up is because he’s acting like he’s the only one being critical. If being reminded of inconsistencies from just a few hours ago is a problem, he shouldn’t be calling people out for lack of confirmation when he’s just as susceptible – i.e: maybe he should follow his own advice. That’s precisely what I meant by “playing the victim”.

    And if stating repeatedly about how DLC released on the same day is inherently bad under any circumstance, even if there’s possibility that it could have been developed after the main game is finished (which is hard to confirm without the developers releasing the info), all the while citing the slippery slope argument, doesn’t come off at any point as stating speculations as fact… and that this has nothing to do with my initial point… I have nothing else to say.

Video game stories from other sites on the web. These links leave Siliconera.

Siliconera Tests
Siliconera Videos