With S.T.E.A.M. I thought the design was deliberate.  The idea being that you're supposed to observe the other team's moves and if you can't see it that's all part of the strategy.  Get into a better position next time, right?  Maybe I'm wrong but in the demo it didn't feel unfinished but just an idea that requires a little more open-mindedness than one should expect from a typical gamer.  So I figured they tried that idea out, it did not go over well and then they made a patch for it.

But that is what I thought well before this Splatoon stuff and in THAT case it certainly seems deliberate.  But then they're announcing it now while S.T.E.A.M. gave no indication that a fix was on the way.

I get it though because the real big problem Nintendo faces right now is "holy shit, there are no games coming out!"  They're desperate and justifiably so and I think it looks good for Nintendo that very dire circumstances forced them to rush this stuff while someone like EA doesn't have that excuse.  With Nintendo I feel like it's an emergency (we'll see what they do if they're not under the gun) while with other companies it feels like taking their customers for a ride because they can get away with it.

With Code name STEAM, I'm conflicted on the half-empty/half-full dichotomy. On half-full, I'd have to acknowledge that Intelligent Systems thought the waiting was not a problem or was a unique twist. Strategy games are ponderous enough as they are, so it is hard to think that an accomplished strategy game developer would think having more down time is better or acceptable. On half-empty, well, that's a cynical business move.


With Splatoon, I'm curious to know at release if the data for updates are already on the disc. Some of the maps in the future updates are featured in video and screenshots since last year. Splatoon has the grace of being a new IP as well as a Nintendo game which is why it's "updates" aren't as scrutinized as NHL '15. Sad to say, but it is normal to expect some amount of oddity with Nintendo games, especially when it comes to periphery stuff (Yeah, I just called "having enough maps" and "matchmaking with friends" periphery stuff... ugh.).


And of course, the cynical view is that content was excised out of Splatoon in a ploy to extend its longevity in the news cycles and the hands of players.

This isn't the first time they've done this sort of thing either: Mario Kart 8 felt rushed out the door.

It was nice when Nintendo were above things like this, but they had this luxury during the Wii and DS since they were the market leader. Presently, the Wii U is a flop, and although the 3DS was eventually successful, Nintendo still went through several straight years of losses. They were desperate for profit any way they could get it, so of course they've started rolling out the questionable practices of other companies such as patches, frivolous DLC, and of course, the toxin that is amiibo.

I don't see this changing any either, not after Nintendo's gotten a taste of the money this stuff can make. From a business perspective, I can't really blame them: being themselves no longer makes money, so they had little choice but to follow the unfortunate state of the industry.

Games weren't perfect before patches, they can be a force for good if they aren't abused and Nintendo are by no means above releasing unfinished games (Wind Waker anyone?). Smash Brothers Melee had balance "patches" between each release but due to technology they couldn't be applied to each territory, Majoras Mask had a "patch" in the form of owl statues but only for the West, Fire Emblem for Gamecube had been "patched" to inculde higher difficulties, Fatal Frame 2 had a game breaking bug and subsequently was never released in the US, Metroid Other M had game breaking bugs, Skyward Sword had game breaking bugs.


X/Y, Smash Bros and Tropical Freeze also had game breaking bugs but this time round they were able to be fixed in a way that didn't involve sending your SD card to Nintendo.

Just pointing out a typo in the headline: "Relase" vs. "Release"

Oh my how ironic for an article about releasing unfinished products  :P:

Except Nintendo is using patches as they are meant to be used. To fix problems and to tweak gameplay for balance. They aren't using it to fix an unfinished game that was rushed and released as a broken piece of crap. I'm not downloading a 30gb day one patch for Nintendo.

Splatoon I'm wagering is sort of a promotional thing. Release new content that was held back throughout the summer. Keep your players coming back. Not a very good idea, but better then the industry standard which is to hold back content then sell it back to you later

I think that patches and DLC are a massive and necessary part of the Wii U's life simply because the library is so small. These minor improvements and additions give players a reason to return to the game. In the case of Splatoon, a title that revolves around a steady multiplayer environment, the patches are less for unfinished content and more for perpetuating that community.

In the case of STEAM, I don't think the patch drastically change a thing, it simply addresses an issue that many found with the game. I think that's more forgivable than content being unavailable post launch.

Basically it tells me, "Don't bother buying games Day 1... it's not done until around Day 30-100."

The day one patch is ruining the appeal of physical releases.  There is a certain security in a physical release that is lost if a download is necessary for the game to play correctly.  Retro gaming in 20 years is going to be weird.  You'll buy an old disc of a game and then realize that it's missing content and is full of bugs.

I bought the Mass Effect Trilogy last year for the PS3.  Aside from the free extending ending download I realized that the original PS3 version of ME2 did not have the ability to import your character from the first game, simply because the first game was originally an Xbox 360 exclusive so it had no reason to have that feature so they patched that functionality in for the Trilogy release.  I remember thinking "gee if my PS3 breaks way in the future and I get a used one after the downloads are not available anymore I guess I won't be able to import my character."  It's nothing that outright ruins the game but it's lame and makes my insistence on getting a physical release a little silly.

If these post-release patch features of Splatoon seem essential to you, then the only real reason to bother with the physical release is to save hard drive space.

In Splatoon's case I think the game is deliberately unfinished in order to make a summer release. Of course, "unfinished" is in the eye of the beholder, but they're adding key features (not just content, such as new maps) months after release.  I don't think this is a heinous offense, but Nintendo shouldn't be given a pass on it either.

Fanboys used to love to trot out the fact that Nintendo didn't need to do DLC because their retail releases contained all their content on day one, but those days are clearly in the past. I think this is all part of Nintendo coming to grips with the challenges of balancing HD development while adhering to tight delivery schedules.

On the topic of Halo MCC, that game actually did contain all content at release. The online was horrendously broken but they didn't patch in any FEATURES after the fact. They had to fix features that were already there, granted, but all core features were included in the retail release, as I recall. Post-release they've added different game modes to playlists and whatnot, but those are variations on what's already there.

I think the STEAM situation was reactionary.  I mean, how much work was it to add that?  Would it have really taken months to implement at launch?  With Splatoon, THAT seems deliberate since it's THE summer release and any online feature would require some extensive testing (I would think).  Not to say level packs couldn't be used in the same way; a developer can give enough to satisfy initial buyers, then put out a few already finished levels to keep up buzz.  But that isn't as bad when the content is "free".

I was never a fan of patches, particularly day one patches. However, I now see them as necessary evils. Games have gotten more complex and more difficult to develop. I was a strong advocate of "make it right the first time," and I'd still like to see the effort so I only bemoan patches on a case by case basis.

That said, I can't really support what is being done with Splatoon. The game is very clearly being rushed. Nintendo has a history of offering free DLC, but these aren't merely nice bonuses. They're major features and substantial parts of the game still being worked on, and Nintendo is releasing the game anyway to fill a massive gap in its release schedule. Nintendo should be mildly commended for not charging extra (since, let's be honest here, most companies would), but I don't think Nintendo should get a pass.

They're not charging for them, and they're being completely up-front and transparent about what's happening, which are two big marks in their favor compared to some other times this has happened with other companies, but it's still a bad precedent.

With S.T.E.A.M. it seems like Nintendo just didn't foresee people having that negative a reaction to it taking that long between turns. They did it the way they did consciously, and only changed it because people were upset. As far as I'm concerned that's a huge positive in having the ability to patch, that they were able to make that change after the fact in response to complaints.

I'm confused. It sounds like you're correcting me, but then you just reiterated what I said.

I appreciate Nintendo's honesty (and the fact that it's offering the update free of charge), but willingly releasing an unfinished game is still shitty, and Nintendo is doing that more and more frequently as of late. Splatoon looks like a really great game to buy in a few months.

Sorry, I didn't mean for it to come off that way, I was just expanding on/agreeing with what you said.

Nintendo's consoles are starting to get that way too.  Great to buy about a year after launch.  But I guess that's every console.

Yeah, buying pretty much any console right at launch doesn't make a ton of sense when you really think about it.

"A delayed game is eventually good, a bad game can be rushed to the market and passed off as good when it gets patched."

Heh.

Splatoon at launch isn't a bad game. Just severely lacking in features and content that is expected of its genre. I'm curious as to how long Splatoon will see new stuff and support after August 2015. Maybe that's when Nintendo will drop the premium DLC hammer.

I'd rather Nintendo finish games with patches then be stuck with rushed games that are incomplete forever like Mario Sunshine and Wind Waker.  Seriously, if the Gamecube had the ability to patch games people would have been begging Ninendo to do it since many of its biggest titles were rushed as well.  The only difference between then and now is Nintendo can actually finish the games after release and even fix some major problems these games have as well had instead of blatantly releasing unfinished games with major issues that will always be that way.

I don't think the debate is whether a company should finish a rushed game via patches. I believe most people would agree if a company rushes a game, it should make sure its game is the one promised to consumers, not a working game missing key features or at worst a broken, incomplete mess. Rather, the debate is whether a company should rush an incomplete game to market in the first place. It means a company is beholden to release dates rather than the state of its products. This is becoming a common theme in the industry. Nintendo was like the last holdout, and it's a shame that even Nintendo couldn't continue to fight the good fight in this regard, either by choice or the demands of the market.

But then again, Duke Nukem Forever.

But they weren't, during the Gamecube era Nintendo was rushing games out in order to meet dates for that system as well.  Nintendo made it clear over a decade ago they will rush games out if their system is struggling and needs games.  I agree it's sad much of the industry is releasing unfinished games that they just fix later but Nintendo releasing unfinished games to help fill their schedule isn't really a new thing.

The main thing about this particular practice is that it opens the doors to developers who will rush a broken game with the promise of a patch and not deliver it one the game out due to low sales.  Which adds an element of risk to the buy.  (Though, that doesn't exist here, IMO.)  The other part is customers (us) not wanting to buy something we know isn't finished.  Then we get the peek behind the curtain of knowing that developers know the product isn't finished, but expect us to buy it anyway.  It causes a certain uneasiness under the guise that our buyer power is, in a way, weakened.

I don't know, man. You mentioned Wind Waker in your previous post, and called it "incomplete forever." Nintendo updated the game a year and a half ago, and if it considered the game incomplete, it could have easily inserted additional content outside of tweaks like the swift sail. I suppose it's possible that, given Wii U's obscene lack of first party titles at the time, Wind Waker HD was also rushed, giving that game the unique distinction of being rushed twice.

When I said, "Nintendo was like the last holdout," I was specifically referring to the oh-we'll-fix-that-later attitude that has become common in this industry. Every game has content cut for a variety of reasons. Comparing Wind Waker to Splatoon is problematic due to the kind of content they're missing. I would have loved another dungeon or two in Wind Waker, notably instead of Jabun giving Link Nayru's Pearl. However, I'd argue that Splatoon's post-release patch is content the game shouldn't release without given the type of game it is. I'd hate for this to be the first step in Nintendo eventually deliberately releasing a broken game with the intent of patching it later.

Nintendo's been on record saying that the reason they never put the missing dungeons from Wind Waker back into the game is because those dungeons were adapted and moved into Twilight Princess.

And I'm on record (in the post you quoted) saying "it could have easily inserted additional content" which is distinctly different from saying "it could have easily completed and inserted the removed content from the original version." Nintendo repurposing those dungeons is common knowledge among Zelda fans. That said, Nintendo could have created new dungeons for Wind Waker HD if it really wanted to correct the pacing issues in that way. However, in the same interview Eiji Aonuma admitted to using Wind Waker's removed dungeons in other games, he admitted that not adding new dungeons was a conscious choice to stay true to the original version. The entire point of bringing this up is that Nintendo doesn't consider Wind Waker to be incomplete. Conversely, it does consider Splatoon to be incomplete, and is correcting that with a post-release patch.

If it wasn't complete and still got a 40/40 in famistsu, I wonder if it'd get a 42/40 if they actually completed it.

The ability to patch is a tool and like most tools it can used for good and evil.  It is very difficult to find all bugs in a piece of software.  There were games in the past with serious bugs that were not a result of the developers being lazy or rushing things out the door.  It was just a mistake and everyone makes mistakes and the ability to patch would have been ideal to solve a simple mistake but instead those games just remained broken.  Online play adds a relatively new concept of players discovering a game balance exploit and having it completely ruin the game for everyone if it isn't addressed.  20 years ago if your group of friends didn't know of the exploit, it could exist in your offline multiplayer game and not ruin it at all.  The patch can be a tool for good to deal with unforeseen problems.

The sad thing is that the presence of a shortcut means that people will plan ahead to use it.  The problem is when the devs are thinking "don't worry we can patch it later."  That's the problem.  Nintendo is clearly thinking of that, instead of saving the patch concept only for emergencies.

Which is something I doubt because the TP dungeons are actually good.

I'm a person who enjoys old games, often ends up playing games that were released a decade (or more) ago, and strongly prefers physical to digital purchases because of those gaming habits. Knowing there will be a post-release patch to add significant amounts of content is typically a huge disincentive to buy for me - although the idea that a game derives most of it's value from online play is also a deterrent, so maybe Splatoon was a non-starter for me either way?


The ability to patch is fantastic. The way some developers choose to use that option to accelerate release dates by expecting consumers to pay in advance for unfinished content is not.

I think this is really all that needs to be said. Patching isn't a problem, but developers and publishers using it as an excuse for laziness is.