Forum:Post-launch DLC and Most Recent Appearance: Difference between revisions
(New Page: {{Forumheader|Watercooler}}<!-- Please put your content under this line. Be sure to sign your edits with four tildes ~~~~ --> There's this one little logistic problem this wiki has nev...) |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
Given this scenario and the potential of such cases repeating in the future for other characters, do we now consider post-launch DLC for a game to be a separate product qualifiable for a most recent appearance or do we disregard them entirely and consider only the base game's release date even if so-and-so-character was not included in the on-disc package, coming in only through a later online update? [[User:Pikawil|Pikawil]] ([[User talk:Pikawil|talk]]) 19:43, 28 March 2014 (EDT) | Given this scenario and the potential of such cases repeating in the future for other characters, do we now consider post-launch DLC for a game to be a separate product qualifiable for a most recent appearance or do we disregard them entirely and consider only the base game's release date even if so-and-so-character was not included in the on-disc package, coming in only through a later online update? [[User:Pikawil|Pikawil]] ([[User talk:Pikawil|talk]]) 19:43, 28 March 2014 (EDT) | ||
:Well, seeing as Sony and Microsoft basically do the same thing, it's no surprise that Nintendo would do this. I mean, look at a few examples: | |||
:Resident Evil 6 for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 had an update that included the character, Agent. | |||
:Super Street Fighter IV, Call of Duty: Ghosts and Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 all have DLC of something after their releases, that were not on the disk. | |||
:Case in-point, it's no surprise DLC like this would happen. At least its an Update and not a micro-transaction. [[User:Requiem of Ice|Requiem of Ice]] ([[User talk:Requiem of Ice|talk]]) 07:23, 29 March 2014 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 06:23, March 29, 2014
There's this one little logistic problem this wiki has never faced before concerning Link's most recent appearance infobox I'd like to see settled via general consensus:
So there's the Sonic Lost World base game --- sans Link, obviously --- released first (October 2013), followed by NES Remix (December 2013), which is then followed by the Zelda DLC for Sonic Lost World (March 2014) which features Link in a cameo. Meaning that a game that didn't have Link at launch now suddenly features him through an update after yesterday, which wouldn't be a problem for the Most Recent Appearance infobox except that a game that did feature him at launch managed to sandwich in between the Link-less launch of a game and its much later DLC guest-starring Link.
Given this scenario and the potential of such cases repeating in the future for other characters, do we now consider post-launch DLC for a game to be a separate product qualifiable for a most recent appearance or do we disregard them entirely and consider only the base game's release date even if so-and-so-character was not included in the on-disc package, coming in only through a later online update? Pikawil (talk) 19:43, 28 March 2014 (EDT)
- Well, seeing as Sony and Microsoft basically do the same thing, it's no surprise that Nintendo would do this. I mean, look at a few examples:
- Resident Evil 6 for PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 had an update that included the character, Agent.
- Super Street Fighter IV, Call of Duty: Ghosts and Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 all have DLC of something after their releases, that were not on the disk.
- Case in-point, it's no surprise DLC like this would happen. At least its an Update and not a micro-transaction. Requiem of Ice (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2014 (EDT)
