It makes plenty of sense when you actually engage with what I said.
I'm motivated by my personal biases wanting this kind of Smash 6 (super enhanced Ultimate DX port) but I'm just making sense of what I want to happen by explaining how I think it'd work. Saying that I'm purposefully eschewing objectivity in some pursuit backwards for a cheap confirmation bias is uncharitable and not what I'm doing at all.
But if you've advocated for Ultimate DX since before Ultimate even concluded and you will remain doing so regardless of the strength of your position, that's not reading the terrain at all to gauge what might make it likely or unlikely, that's just pursuing a single conclusion and trying to compile a reason for it happening. That
isn't objective.
I mean, I will support some characters regardless of the strength of their case, but many I wouldn't claim to be particularly likely inclusions.
Yeah MK8DX and Smash Ultimate are not the same and would require different approaches but how am I the one working backwards towards a confirmation bias when you're acknowledging this extremely important example while arbitrarily declaring they somehow it also doesn't count because acknowledging MK8DX success contradicts your entire aforementioned claim of re-releases not exceeding their initial releases. I'm sorry but MK8DX does count and demonstrates why a Smash Ultimate DX with Smash 6 resources could work very well. It simply would have to be approached differently.
Because the Wii U games having such small numbers meant releasing them on a system with a massive install base was basically akin to relaunching them, as the vast majority hadn't already played them.
It's the opposite to games like Ultimate, whereby 35 million people already playing it means to a very large group of people, it's not new. Fewer people are willing to buy something they already own some version of than something totally new - this is reflected regularly in sales of ports and remakes.
I feel like you're being purposefully uncharitable towards my implementation here for your own personal grievances and while I am sympathetic towards peoples' financial situations and feel they should be much better than they are by default in a better society/world simply bellyaching about price isn't a very compelling counter argument at all especially with the direct we all watched yesterday.
I don't even know what the specific prices are; three separate charges just to have all the existing characters
and any new characters doesn't make sense in a Deluxe version. It's like one cost for upgrading Forgotten Land, and then another cost to actually download the new story section.
It comes off circuitous and predatory. It's one thing to have to pay to get the new content, that's what a Deluxe version is. It's another to have to pay to then be able to pay for any new content. Why structure it with such bad optics? It's only going to dissuade people.
It's not a matter of personal grievances. It'd be great to not lose any characters. This implementation will just alienate more potential consumers than a standard Deluxe version because of all the different paywalls to the actual new content.
I'll reiterate to make it clear to what I'm proposing.
Own Smash Ultimate for Switch 1 then you pay to upgrade it to the Switch 2 version. Monetize the 35 million players. It's likely not the full price of buying the entire game again. They're literally already selling these day 1 of Switch 2 release and I don't see how anybody can sincerely claim that this release model wouldn't work for Ultimate.
And none of these ports will sell as well as the originals (not counting MP4 and Z-A). A lot of people skip games they already own, even new versions. So you're not getting all 35 million Ultimate owners. You're getting whatever fraction would be willing to buy it again for some new content.
But then if you put
all that new, day-one content behind a second paywall, even if it amounts to the same total price, that's going to turn some people away. It's just bad marketing. And it's completely unnecessary.
Seems like you're just upset at the thought. It almost seems to me like these Switch 2 editions were practically made with Ultimate specifically in mind.
And that's exactly what will happen when you reverse engineer arguments from the conclusion of getting Ultimate Deluxe.
This is the only version you need to play with everyone else and it's a more than fair budget option.
Well yeah, after it releases it becomes the definitive edition. But before that there was almost a decade where people were buying the other version, and not everyone is going to buy it again.
If you don't own the Switch 1 version then you have to buy the Switch 2 version because why wouldn't you have to do that?
It's not having to buy the game, it's having to buy the game, buy the new content, and buy the old DLC in a Deluxe Version. That's three separate charges for what most Deluxe versions would offer as the sole base charge. Which makes it seem exploitative.
Yeah getting into the full game just got more expensive but so what? Nintendo likes money so they don't care. If you didn't want Smash Ultimate in the first place and still don't then you're not going to buy it anyways so this also doesn't matter to you.
But they have the option to
not structure it like this, and eliminate that stigma.
Whatever Fighter Pass characters from Switch 1 Ultimate you own automatically carry over to the Switch 2 upgrade. Don't want them? Don't get them then. Want them but don't have enough on release to get them? Save up and get them later whenever you want. Again doing it this way further monetizes the game, sidesteps renegotiations (the main purpose) and acknowledges and accordingly rewards players that already own these characters.
From a practical, legal perspective I get the previous DLC not being in base. From an optics perspective, I don't think you realize how bad a Deluxe Version making you buy the old DLC is. Yes, people who already own the DLC wouldn't have to. But just the fact that buying the game cold wouldn't give you a single additional character past the 2018 launch is a very bad look.
The Expansion Pack is essentially Smash 6. It's how you're gonna basically monetize everyone again. Get it or don't though. You're perfectly within your rights to stop at upgrading Ultimate to the Switch 2 version but are you gonna really act like a majority of players are going to do that? That's seriously a hill you're gonna plant the debate flag on? Making an extremely appealing and content rich expansion pack that co-exits of a vastly improved already content rich game you likely enjoy already? Wow what a tough sell to the public I don't see how anybody would be convinced to buy this hahahaha.
If the Expansion pass is Smash 6... just call it Smash 6. "Smash 6" will sell better than "Ultimate Deluxe". So past the fact that it's a second charge to even access this content, just the branding of the content is already less effective than it could be.
There's a reason despite building off Smash 4's base, but adding enough that it stands as a new game, which is apparently what this does, they didn't brand Ultimate as a better version of Smash 4. There's a reason they gave it completely original branding. New games sell better.
You show me where in any of that I forced anyone to "rebuy" all the DLC because I suggested no such thing. I think you deliberately strawmanned me because you don't want this game to exist. Just say that versus making up things I didn't say.
Rebuy as in buy a Deluxe Version but then still have to buy the vanilla version's DLC. Which would be the case if you don't upgrade.
Thinking people will cancel their NSO accounts over Smash Ultimate garbage online is naive because no matter what it wouldn't ever be enough to matter to matter to Nintendo and would be offset by monetizing their existing audience to upgrade and buy Switch 2's. People cancel their NSO for reasons such as not using it enough for it to be worth it or just feeling like the service isn't worth despite using it. I somehow doubt ditching the Switch 1 Smash Ultimate's online is gonna be the that thing hemorrhages users especially when its to the direct benefit of a vastly improved version of Ultimate.
"I am sympathetic towards peoples' financial situations"
"SHUT OFF THE ONLINE, MAKE THEM BUY THE SWITCH 2 AND ULTIMATE DELUXE"
Ok. Marketing a new game as a port is a horrible idea. As is having all the new content behind an additional charge.
You're making it as close to Ultimate as possible to the point it can be literally just vanilla, base Ultimate. But Ultimate being Ultimate isn't more compelling to consumers than a brand new Smash, so you're leading with the exact quality that would hinder its market potential and putting the thing people would care most about behind an additional charge. Unless these two charges would amount to less than a normal game (it's Smash - they wouldn't), this structure is backwards. You should be emphasizing what's new, making that immediately accessible, and, if this game can literally be Smash 6, distancing itself from the concept that it's a game you already own.
There's a reason no company structures deluxe versions like this.
