Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
It ain't happening. Especially for a $40 budget release like TSR.
Hope I'm wrong, but it seems unlikely...
Also, game developers think economically. If this game will be a success, they will support it and make more DLC cause that is a way to both please fans and make money out of it.
I'm aware they're both developed by SUMO, but at the end of the day, SEGA is the one calling the shots since they're the publisher. Even if SUMO wants to do DLC, SEGA might very well nip that in the bud.
It's more economical to do a big release and move on then it is to dwell. Seriously, look at Generations. One of the best-selling games in the series' recent history--no DLC. You think that's an oversight on their part? Maybe, but it was a tactical one. Same goes for Forces. No DLC because they know milking the fanbase for $40-60 a pop is more lucrative than getting $5-10 here and there off DLC.
Remember, Lost World only got level DLC because Nintendo and Sega struck a deal for some cross-brand promotion. And SUMO only got to do weird DLC characters for Transformed because they were inexpensive, PC-exclusive meme characters that SEGA only wanted as promotion for their acquisition of Creative Assembly (hence the Shogun, the Roman, the Russian, etc.), a PC-focused developer. None of it was major, real DLC that reached all platforms.
Again, it doesn't matter what SUMO wants, it's about what SEGA decrees. And they have shown a nasty track-record about not caring about what fans want.
That wasn't proper DLC, that was a free pre-order bonus pinball table that was given away long after the fact to those who didn't pre-order. That's it. A pinball table.
C'mon, man. You're grasping at straws and you know it. Sega hasn't been in a strong financial position for a while, and it's why they stopped doing proper paid DLC after Unleashed. Obviously both of us hope for a miracle, that SEGA will do a fun thing for once, but let's not lie to ourselves. The only DLC they do are tacky pre-order stunts or oddball piecemeal content. The odds of a full-fledged team of three characters coming to TSR after release are, well, virtually non-existent.
To be fair the DLC that SEGA has is not required to beat or complete the game, some devs make whole sections of games a pay wall so you can get the full story or something along those lines.
Also you might not know this but SEGA was one of the first to use DLC with the Dreamcast back in 98, Sega giving out free extras was normal for them.
#1 Sega is fine they are owned by one of the most successful enterprises in Japan/South Korea known as Sammy corporation.
#2 Other products from SEGA are doing really well, you have to understand that SEGA does not equal only Sonic the Hedgehog.
#3 If DLC really hurt the bottom line then everyone would have jumped the bandwagon.
Your comment makes absolutely 0% sense. SEGA is nowhere near in as good of a financial shape as it was just five years ago. Sure, they had a decent fiscal 2017, but they've been trending downward overall for years. Their parent company won't save them; most parent companies just kill off their weakest children and absorb the remaining assets.
Second, we don't care about their other products here; we're here to discuss Sonic. For our purposes, Sega is Sonic, and right now Sonic is TSR. If you want to talk about other franchises, go elsewhere.
And your third point is worded so poorly that it is incomprehensible jibberish. Seeing as you didn't understand any of my comments (as evidenced by your first reply where you admit as such), I recommend you read more carefully and formulate a better response.
Edit: If I had to guess what you were trying to articulate with your last point, I'd assume you meant: "If DLC is bad for business, why do so many companies do it?" Your umbrella logic is bad. I'm saying Sonic is a kid-focused brand and DLC typically doesn't operate the same way for kid-friendly brands as it does for adult brands, i.e. the overwhelming plethora of M-rated games most publishers make their livings off. Sega's mascot remains Sonic and as such, they treat his brand differently than their DLC-obsessed Creative Assembly-driven franchises.
This is common sense. Different strategies for different brands. Sonic appeals to kids, so the titles are released at budget prices and DLC is minimal (or nonexistent).
On a final note, I checked out your profile, and I can see you're a bizarre, very young individual who's clearly still in grade school. It's okay if you're not up to debating on a serious level, but I have no interest in it, so I'm going to unsubscribe from this. Hopefully the years ahead enable you to form more cogent arguments.
Also Sonic appeals more towards people that grew up with him, also if you really want to think about it games with a M rating are popular with kids, so what do you mean? Should not allow DLC in those games too because people can't just have mom and dad buy it and take care of all the gun and map packs.
You make very little sense as well just saying.
Also you said they did the best in 2017, this just made me almost pee my pants.
http://prntscr.com/mh5t9c just look it up they had their best year in 2013, or was that just a typo.
"On a final note, I checked out your profile, and I can see you're a bizarre, very young individual who's clearly still in grade school. It's okay if you're not up to debating on a serious level, but I have no interest in it, so I'm going to unsubscribe from this. Hopefully the years ahead enable you to form more cogent arguments."
Ya something just makes me think he did not like getting pointed out by a furry, also I have no idea what he's smoking I bet he never read any of my profile. Also for the record my language skills are not the best but that does not mean I don't know what I am talking about.
People that try and clam such things are morons. Half the time I don't even check my grammar, it's just because in the end it proves nothing because all human language is pointless measuring contest by people that hate others for the sake of it.
Also help people out when they make mistakes, but I believe that was never part of his plan it was just to hide the fact he was not in the mood to debate anything at all.
I have seen a better argument from a guy that wanted to sue God because of natural disasters. And ya this happened it was a thing.