4 ms·

As a shareholder, I don't think Nintendo is doing all they can to capitalize on their IP and industry position. I played the first three levels and the game see

As a shareholder, I don't think Nintendo is doing all they can to capitalize on their IP and industry position. I played the first three levels and the game seems fine. But why build a two-hour game and stop there? Once you've built out the infrastructure, isn't the hard part done, and additional art/level assets are comparatively less expensive? Wouldn't a 30 level expansion be inexpensive to develop and well received by fans?

valarauca1 10y ago
But why build a two-hour game and stop there? Over saturation, artificially create more demand. Nobody goes back to an all you can eat buffet because the steak was so well prepared. Wouldn't a 30 level expansion be inexpensive to develop and well received by fans? Generally no. DLC doesn't typically sell at a high rate. Also a Nintendo shareholder you should be aware they don't sell DLC's. I don't even understand your support over this business model. ATVI supports this model and is down ~$2 on the year. While NTDOY has avoided it and is up ~9 on the year. KING who heavily practiced this model is no longer trading. Going out 5year there has been little difference in the per-share profit. So the market really doesn't validate this business model. It is a model, it works, but it isn't wildy successful... The only justification I can see for it is chasing trends. Once you've built out the infrastructure, isn't the hard part done, and additional art/level assets are comparatively less expensive? This is also true for releasing future games at a premium point. Why sell 30 levels for $1. When you can sell 5 for $1 every 6 months? One is a far steadier revenue stream.
- AlexandrB 10y ago
  > Also a Nintendo shareholder you should be aware they don't sell DLC's. This is completely false. There's plenty of DLC (new characters, maps[1]) for Super Smash Bros. Wii U & 3DS. [1] http://www.smashbros.com/us/dlc/ http://www.smashbros.com/us/dlc/

valarauca1 10y ago

But why build a two-hour game and stop there? Over saturation, artificially create more demand. Nobody goes back to an all you can eat buffet because the steak was so well prepared. Wouldn't a 30 level expansion be inexpensive to develop and well received by fans? Generally no. DLC doesn't typically sell at a high rate. Also a Nintendo shareholder you should be aware they don't sell DLC's. I don't even understand your support over this business model. ATVI supports this model and is down ~$2 on the year. While NTDOY has avoided it and is up ~9 on the year. KING who heavily practiced this model is no longer trading. Going out 5year there has been little difference in the per-share profit. So the market really doesn't validate this business model. It is a model, it works, but it isn't wildy successful... The only justification I can see for it is chasing trends. Once you've built out the infrastructure, isn't the hard part done, and additional art/level assets are comparatively less expensive? This is also true for releasing future games at a premium point. Why sell 30 levels for $1. When you can sell 5 for $1 every 6 months? One is a far steadier revenue stream.

AlexandrB 10y ago
> Also a Nintendo shareholder you should be aware they don't sell DLC's. This is completely false. There's plenty of DLC (new characters, maps[1]) for Super Smash Bros. Wii U & 3DS. [1] http://www.smashbros.com/us/dlc/ http://www.smashbros.com/us/dlc/