Splatoon Datamine Reveals a Bunch of Unreleased Maps, Weapons, And More

 Pages 1 2 NEXT
 

Splatoon Datamine Reveals a Bunch of Unreleased Maps, Weapons, And More

Get a sneak peak at all of the free content that will be coming to Splatoon over the next few months.

Splatoon has been Nintendo's surprise hit of the generation - as a completely new IP, and a third-person online multiplayer shooter, it really broke all of Nintendo's usual conventions. The only major complaint people had was it was a little light on content, with only 8 maps and a handful of weapons. Well, hold on to your hats, because dataminers have uncovered a wealth of unreleased content, which as Nintendo stated earlier, will be released completely free-of-charge.

Here is the NeoGAF thread which contains all the information, but the short-and-skinny of it is:

  • 2 new maps - Camp and Skyscraper
  • 33 new weapons - too numerous to list here, but here's a link
  • 2 new game modes - Rainmaker and Tower Control

Check out some images of the new weapons and game modes below:

From the looks of things, Tower Control is your basic "king-of-the-hill" type game mode, while Rainmaker is a little different. A description translated from Japanese explains that in Rainmaker, a "Rainmaker" will spawn somewhere on the map, and teams will have to rush to grab it, and carry it into the enemy base. Sort of like a reverse capture-the-flag.

It's great that Splatoon is getting a bunch of free content drops over summer, but it does beg the question of if it's already on the disk, and it's gonna be free anyway, why not just include it at launch?

Source: NeoGAF

Permalink

The same question was asked about The Witcher 3 over its content, regardless of the motive, I really don't think you should bite the hand that feeds you. This is free DLC, you're not being charged for it.

33 new weapons? Damn. I don't have a WiiU so it doesn't really matter to me, but that's kinda nuts. How many different ways can you possibly spray paint ink around?

WolvDragon:
The same question was asked about The Witcher 3 over its content, regardless of the motive, I really don't think you should bite the hand that feeds you. This is free DLC, you're not being charged for it.

I wouldn't really call moving the game closer to being a full game is DLC. TF2 when it came out had more game mods and more maps then Splatoon will after this update, and that was 10$.

Oh hey! DLC! That's refreshing!

WolvDragon:
The same question was asked about The Witcher 3 over its content, regardless of the motive, I really don't think you should bite the hand that feeds you. This is free DLC, you're not being charged for it.

It's not 'downloadable content' if it's already on the disc, so I'm not sure how being upset that the content is locked away is somehow "biting the hand that feeds".

Besides, as far as I'm concerned, if the hand that's feeding you is feeding you bullshit, you absolutely bite it. And you bite it hard.

Zontar:

I wouldn't really call moving the game closer to being a full game is DLC. TF2 when it came out had more game mods and more maps then Splatoon will after this update, and that was 10$.

It's not even about getting the game closer to some kind of 'content complete' state. It's about content on the disc that is arbitrarily locked away from the players until Nintendo decides when (and if) it wants to make it available, and whether or not such practices should be negatively criticized.

Perhaps it's on there but not fully complete akin to place holders and a update fixes and finishes files.

I don't see point in getting mad it's free so nothing is being blocked by a payeall

Veldie:
Perhaps it's on there but not fully complete akin to place holders and a update fixes and finishes files.

I don't see point in getting mad it's free so nothing is being blocked by a payeall

I was thinking the same thing, maybe they wanted to get the art assets on the disc so that there is less to download later when it is released, but know that they haven't finished debugging/balancing it all yet.

Steven Bogos:
It's great that Splatoon is getting a bunch of free content drops over summer, but it does beg the question of if it's already on the disk, and it's gonna be free anyway, why not just include it at launch?

The exact same reason why Monster Hunter 4 Ultimate does it with event quests. They dont want players simply clearing all the content and forgetting about it.

I heard from somewere (most likely read it on some BS forum, not this one!) that Nintendo were uncertain how how balanced their weapons were, so they started of with only the Basic stuff available and then when they had enough data on the Basic weapons, they could balance the new stuff and give it out when it was balanced, so that no weapon would be too OP for a period of time. No idea how reliable that is though.
I think a full game at launch is good, but if updates come later on to make sure the game works, I don't mind that. And the updates are free.

"First, we put a lot of effort into every inch of the online stages, so by playing them over and over again users can get a better feel for the terrain, giving the gameplay more breadth and depth. The characteristics of the weapons and the strategies for using them vary with each weapon, and of course these will vary depending on the stage you use them in and even what combination of equipment your teammates and opponents are using. We want users to enjoy each and every single piece of content we've prepared, so rather than provide a lot at once, we're going to be adding them a little at a time.

Second, is that while we've paid a lot of attention to the balancing the game, the flip-side of this is that we feel the game needs weapons with a lot of variety as well as stages with complex layouts to really expand the gameplay.
The problem there is that these can sometimes disrupt the overall balance of the game.
The real fun of Splatoon comes when players are comfortable with the game, and are able to play to their full potential with other players they meet in the online matches.

We'll be adding more stages and weapons as we see how the community matures. We'll also do something similar with further game modes too."

-Nintendo EAD's Hisashi Nogami, June 3

Vigormortis:

WolvDragon:
The same question was asked about The Witcher 3 over its content, regardless of the motive, I really don't think you should bite the hand that feeds you. This is free DLC, you're not being charged for it.

It's not 'downloadable content' if it's already on the disc, so I'm not sure how being upset that the content is locked away is somehow "biting the hand that feeds".

Besides, as far as I'm concerned, if the hand that's feeding you is feeding you bullshit, you absolutely bite it. And you bite it hard.

Zontar:

I wouldn't really call moving the game closer to being a full game is DLC. TF2 when it came out had more game mods and more maps then Splatoon will after this update, and that was 10$.

It's not even about getting the game closer to some kind of 'content complete' state. It's about content on the disc that is arbitrarily locked away from the players until Nintendo decides when (and if) it wants to make it available, and whether or not such practices should be negatively criticized.

So... Nintendo should do what every other company has done and charge $5-10 for each stage, every gun, and each game mode? Because that's a hell of a lot worse than Nintendo making sure the game isn't absolutely shit with unbalanced and unplayable maps and weapons, like Call of Duty/Battlefield and the battle arena games.

Vigormortis:

It's not 'downloadable content' if it's already on the disc, so I'm not sure how being upset that the content is locked away is somehow "biting the hand that feeds".

Besides, as far as I'm concerned, if the hand that's feeding you is feeding you bullshit, you absolutely bite it. And you bite it hard.

It's not even about getting the game closer to some kind of 'content complete' state. It's about content on the disc that is arbitrarily locked away from the players until Nintendo decides when (and if) it wants to make it available, and whether or not such practices should be negatively criticized.

If it was arbitrarily locked away, the criticism would be justified fully. But this isn't arbitrary. This is an engineered experience. The slow release is turning the game from one big splurge into months of continual excitement at new experiences. It's fun the same way early Minecraft was fun, a simple charming game getting more and more complex as content is added. Nintendo is just doing it on purpose. Throw in the Miiverse integration that people went crazy for and the splatfests (that hopefully will happen when they work the kinks out) and Nintendo has deliberately created the sort of community experience that usually needs to happen organically. Now, if the game was crap, and it was just gimmick to get people to play the game for more than 1 week, that'd be criticism. But people are loving Splatoon, people are getting their money's worth (hundreds of hours of gameplay) without half the content, and people are getting excited every time they release a new thing, and that is pretty impressive.

I don't expect ya to follow EVERY piece of news about the game, but Tower Control isn't just "basic king of the hill". According to the Splatoon Direct a while back, it's closer to a Neutral Payload.

The Tower moves along a path toward each team's base depending on who's on it.

Edit: Including a link to the time in the Splatoon direct: Here it is! [26:43]

InsanityRequiem:

So... Nintendo should do what every other company has done and charge $5-10 for each stage, every gun, and each game mode? Because that's a hell of a lot worse than Nintendo making sure the game isn't absolutely shit with unbalanced and unplayable maps and weapons, like Call of Duty/Battlefield and the battle arena games.

Why are the only options "Charge $5-10 for each piece of content" or "Arbitrarily lock away content on the disc unless Nintendo decides to allow people to access it"? The content is already on the disc. It's not DLC, it's already a part of the product people purchased. So why are you making this argument?

Honestly, I don't get the defense of this. If EA or some other publisher had done this, people would be (rightfully) angry about it. In fact, that HAS happened numerous times. So why, now that Nintendo is doing it, is it suddenly 'okay'?

tstorm823:

If it was arbitrarily locked away, the criticism would be justified fully. But this isn't arbitrary. This is an engineered experience. The slow release is turning the game from one big splurge into months of continual excitement at new experiences.

This isn't some grand experiment. It's nothing more than locking away content people have already paid for to arbitrarily 'extend' the life of the product. It's manipulative and lazy.

It's fun the same way early Minecraft was fun, a simple charming game getting more and more complex as content is added. Nintendo is just doing it on purpose.

No, it's not. Minecraft gained content and became more complex over time because Mojang continued development. They didn't keep content already created and present on the users computer locked away from the players until some point in time when they deemed the players worthy of receiving it. The situations are not comparable.

Throw in the Miiverse integration that people went crazy for and the splatfests (that hopefully will happen when they work the kinks out) and Nintendo has deliberately created the sort of community experience that usually needs to happen organically.

There is no reason the staggered access to content already present on the product has to coincide or be affiliated with service integration nor community events. This argument makes no sense in light of the fact that the content is already on the disc.

Now, if the game was crap, and it was just gimmick to get people to play the game for more than 1 week, that'd be criticism. But people are loving Splatoon, people are getting their money's worth (hundreds of hours of gameplay) without half the content, and people are getting excited every time they release a new thing, and that is pretty impressive.

Whether the game is good or bad is irrelevant to whether or not it is ethical to lock away content from the players who have already purchased it. Just as how much enjoyment any given player derives from the available content is also irrelevant. The criticism is on whether or not Nintendo is justified in keeping content from the players after those players have already paid for that content.

I've seen this community lose their collective minds over other publishers doing something like this. Why suddenly are so many defending Nintendo's decision to do it?

Vigormortis:
Snip.

Because unlike everyone else, Nintendo is not charging people for this content. And unlike everyone else, Nintendo is not throwing everything out day 1 to the whole populace to be played in a manner of minutes, creating a stale and boring experience. You keep saying it's been done before, but I want to know. Who has done this before? And remember, released at a price or after a large scale uproar do not count, because they're not the same as Nintendo's slow unlock of content.

You're saying other companies have done what Nintendo's doing, but I've only seen companies lock characters/maps/weapons behind paywalls or they released a bad game in the first place and hastily tried releasing new content months down the line after their game either failed or their practices lead to an uproar.

InsanityRequiem:

Vigormortis:
Snip.

Because unlike everyone else, Nintendo is not charging people for this content.

Yes, they are, because the content is already on the disc.

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be pointed out before people grasp this. This new content is NOT DLC. You are not downloading it. It is already present on the disc you purchased. You have already paid for it, yet Nintendo is keeping it locked away from you.

If EA had done thi...actually, they already have done this. As have Activision, Capcom, and others. And in each instance, the gaming community rightfully spoke up in anger over it. Yet, here's Nintendo pulling the same bullshit, and people are praising it.

It boggles my mind. At best, it's only slightly less egregious than, say, what EA did with Dead Space 2 on PC, if only because Nintendo isn't double charging for it.

And unlike everyone else, Nintendo is not throwing everything out day 1 to the whole populace to be played in a manner of minutes, creating a stale and boring experience. You keep saying it's been done before, but I want to know. Who has done this before? And remember, released at a price or after a large scale uproar do not count, because they're not the same as Nintendo's slow unlock of content.

This is a terrible and lazy way of extending the life of a game, and in a sense can have the exact opposite effect you say they're hoping for.

But regardless, it still doesn't address the issue of Nintendo keeping content locked away from the players who have already paid for that content.

Vigormortis:

Whether the game is good or bad is irrelevant to whether or not it is ethical to lock away content from the players who have already purchased it. Just as how much enjoyment any given player derives from the available content is also irrelevant. The criticism is on whether or not Nintendo is justified in keeping content from the players after those players have already paid for that content.

I've seen this community lose their collective minds over other publishers doing something like this. Why suddenly are so many defending Nintendo's decision to do it?

Whether the game is good or bad is entirely the point. Consider the motive here. They aren't locking content away to make money later cause it costs the same. They aren't locking away content because they haven't developed it yet, it's already on the disk. They're locking the content away because they believe players will have a better experience with the slow release. And players are having a good experience with the game. Which means they did well.

Yes because charging for content is the same as providing it for free after an arbitrary time has passed.

I do wonder if you have had a chance to actually play the game. It inherently needs testing as new maps/weapons are introduced.

The game most similar to this is Destiny - where you need to get to a specific level and have a specific number of friends to play the END game content. There is no outcry about that because that's how some games work.

Splatoon introduces new Weapons/Sub-weapons/Movement Mechanics into the TPS formula and if you release too much content and weapons it would not only be overwhelming but also there is no way to gradually test things out. Right now it feels like most weapons are balanced once you get the hang of them and there is certain maps where certain combinations don't work and you need to figure out different tactics.

It's a Catch 22 where people who don't even have a Wii U - tell the actual consumer what is good for them. Frankly I trust EAD far more than you - you seem pretty biased. Comparing this content rollout to paid on disk dlc is just sad.

If people have a problem with the content not being released - wait till August! No one is making anyone be an early adopter

WolvDragon:
The same question was asked about The Witcher 3 over its content, regardless of the motive, I really don't think you should bite the hand that feeds you. This is free DLC, you're not being charged for it.

If it's on the disc, it's not actually DLC is it. I'm not saying it's dark and terrible, but I don't think you need to be fawning and grateful either.

Vigormortis:
Snip.

So no, there are no games that their dev/publishing company did such practice. Good to know. Because all the companies you listed either brought out content months after major outcry over practices or as paid content. Or the companies locked content on disk at cost to unlock either through preorder, season pass, or straight up buying after buying the game.

InsanityRequiem:

Vigormortis:
Snip.

Because unlike everyone else, Nintendo is not charging people for this content. And unlike everyone else, Nintendo is not throwing everything out day 1 to the whole populace to be played in a manner of minutes, creating a stale and boring experience. You keep saying it's been done before, but I want to know. Who has done this before? And remember, released at a price or after a large scale uproar do not count, because they're not the same as Nintendo's slow unlock of content.

You're saying other companies have done what Nintendo's doing, but I've only seen companies lock characters/maps/weapons behind paywalls or they released a bad game in the first place and hastily tried releasing new content months down the line after their game either failed or their practices lead to an uproar.

Actually, there are a few. Like TF2, for instance. It started out with nine classes with no changes in weaponry and like 5 maps (well 6, but who the hell plays Hydro?). We didn't get any updates until months later that allowed for different weapons, maps, game modes, etc. Oh, how we lambasted TF2 for this clearly...oh, wait. We enjoyed it as well. Huh, apparently the "it's only right when Nintendo does it" thing does hold water after all...

PS, I realize the anger sounds directed at you but its not. Sorry if it comes off that way.

Vigormortis:
I've seen this community lose their collective minds over other publishers doing something like this. Why suddenly are so many defending Nintendo's decision to do it?

Because this isn't just any community of fans defending a publisher... these are Nintendo fans. It's nearly impossible to get them to see that the publisher is doing (and has been for a while) wrong by them. They'll allow staggered access to maps and other various options in a game like this because Nintendo could never do something bad, but fuck EA or 2K, those guys should know better.

It's like a strange, abusive relationship. 'Sure, Nintendo is locking all this content away, but it's for our own good so we won't get bored too quickly!' I decide when I get bored of a game, and with the way Splatoon handles map selection, I'm already pretty bored.

Maybe make informed purchase decisions next time, the amount of content was noted by everyone. The developers themselves explained how the content will be rolled out. All reviews knocked down review scores citing small amount of content as one of the main negatives. If you weren't happy with the amount of content the game would have at launch than I really recommend not to buy the game or wait until August to purchase it.
There is far more things I want from the game personally, but I have found more than enough there at launch to justify the purchase. I was well aware of what I was buying and you obviously weren't. I just don't understand people who purchase games on impulse. Afterwards ending up disappointed by them simply because they failed to read what everyone had highlighted already.
For example I read the reviews of DA:I and even though Orgins was one of my favorite games I decided not to even try DA:I until it's fixed. Its still not fixed in my mind and hence I have not bought the game. Plenty of people have put DA:I as their game of the year 2015 - so obviously they didn't have much of the same issues I was adamant about being fixed.

Splatoon is a game that gets a pass from me because it was made clear from the get go what to expect, and if it wasn't what I wanted I could have easily decided not to purchase or wait till until August.

Wow, Nintendo and Splatoon share a lot with a lot of shitty fucking shooters out there.

"Let's with hold content on disk so we can seem a lot cooler then we really are, instead of making actually new content. Let's cut off... this this aaannnnd this from the whole game, and release it later."

Shitheads.

Chaos Isaac:
Wow, Nintendo and Splatoon share a lot with a lot of shitty fucking shooters out there.

"Let's with hold content on disk so we can seem a lot cooler then we really are, instead of making actually new content. Let's cut off... this this aaannnnd this from the whole game, and release it later."

Shitheads.

But at least we get the full game, even if it's not from the start. Sure, it made Splatoon kinda barren for the first two weeks, but as long as I don't have to pay anything else, I'm fine with it. Basically, if I get a full game eventually, then I won't complain much. Not to mention, unlike many other shooters, knowing every little thing about the maps themselves are essential to doing well in a match. If we had gotten all of them on launch day it would take a long time to get to know each map.

These justifications may sound flimsy, but I probably would not still be playing Splatoon almost one month after launch if they had released everything from the get go. Maybe it's artificial longevity, but this is the longest I've been able to stay interested in a multiplayer game without getting tired of it.

OT: The pictures of the inklings all looking at the camera is both cute, and really creepy.

RJ 17:
33 new weapons? Damn. I don't have a WiiU so it doesn't really matter to me, but that's kinda nuts. How many different ways can you possibly spray paint ink around?

You have no idea...

this is not surprising. When a game that has to be balanced is bieng tested some maps and weapons get rejected as unbalanced that may later be rebalanced and introduced. most gamers do not see it, but often you have 3 rejected maps for 1 that makes it to the game, all in the name of balanced competition. and weapon balance is almost always a point of contention, maybe Nintendo is just being careful here.

tstorm823:

Whether the game is good or bad is entirely the point.

No, it isn't. The point is whether or not Nintendo is making an ethical decision in keeping content locked away from the people who've already purchased it.

Let's say you bought a TV from Target (or some equivalent store), but the store told you, "You can have the TV now, but you can't have the proprietary power cord and remote that come with it for the next one and two months, respectively. Trust us, it's for your own good. You'll enjoy the TV more if you get everything you paid for over time." Would you still sit there and say this is a good idea?

Consider the motive here. They aren't locking content away to make money later cause it costs the same. They aren't locking away content because they haven't developed it yet, it's already on the disk.

And THAT'S the issue. It's already on the disc. The players have already paid for it. Yet, Nintendo won't let them have access to it.

They're locking the content away because they believe players will have a better experience with the slow release.

Which is a nonsensical notion since many other companies have supported their online games and communities with post-launch content and events that weren't a part of the launch title. Many of them for free. So I really fail to see how what Nintendo is doing is admirable or even advisable.

And players are having a good experience with the game. Which means they did well.

Players had good experiences with Diablo 3 at launch. That doesn't mean every decision that went into the game at launch was a good one. Same applies to Splatoon.

InsanityRequiem:

So no, there are no games that their dev/publishing company did such practice. Good to know.

Are you asking if there are any other instances of a company putting content on the disc and locking it from players for arbitrary reasons, only to offer that content later for free? No, I can't think of any particular case. But that's because locking out on-disc content for ANY reason is a fucking stupid and unethical idea, regardless of whether or not it's charged for later.

So as I said, at best, what we have is a mildly less egregious case of bullshit than what we've seen prior.

Yet you're still praising the practice.

It boggles the mind....

And you still haven't addressed that point. All you've done so far is say the practice is "good for the players" (which I've seen no objective reason why it's better than, say, supporting the game post launch with actual free DLC) and that "Well, other companies have done worse!"

That doesn't absolve Nintendo of doing something that is, at it's core, an unethical move. All it means is that they're not quite in the same league of douche-baggery as some of the other publishers.

Sheo_Dagana:

Because this isn't just any community of fans defending a publisher... these are Nintendo fans. It's nearly impossible to get them to see that the publisher is doing (and has been for a while) wrong by them. They'll allow staggered access to maps and other various options in a game like this because Nintendo could never do something bad, but fuck EA or 2K, those guys should know better.

It's like a strange, abusive relationship. 'Sure, Nintendo is locking all this content away, but it's for our own good so we won't get bored too quickly!' I decide when I get bored of a game, and with the way Splatoon handles map selection, I'm already pretty bored.

I mean, I get being a fan of a particular companies output or services. I can even appreciate having an admiration for the minds behind those companies, content, and services. I'm a fan of a number of developers.

But to not only defend but rationalize blatant bullshit practices involving one of their products or services as if they're good and beneficial?

I just....wow....

Strazdas:
this is not surprising. When a game that has to be balanced is bieng tested some maps and weapons get rejected as unbalanced that may later be rebalanced and introduced. most gamers do not see it, but often you have 3 rejected maps for 1 that makes it to the game, all in the name of balanced competition. and weapon balance is almost always a point of contention, maybe Nintendo is just being careful here.

Changes and alterations in the name of balance can be made without locking content from those who've purchased it.

Vigormortis:

No, it isn't. The point is whether or not Nintendo is making an ethical decision in keeping content locked away from the people who've already purchased it.

Let's say you bought a TV from Target (or some equivalent store), but the store told you, "You can have the TV now, but you can't have the proprietary power cord and remote that come with it for the next one and two months, respectively. Trust us, it's for your own good. You'll enjoy the TV more if you get everything you paid for over time." Would you still sit there and say this is a good idea?

Imagine if an entertainment company asked for your money now for a year's worth of content, but then spread that content out over the whole year in weekly increments! What a terrible idea! There is no way I just described a magazine subscription, right? It's just too anti-consumer to possibly be something millions of people gladly pay for.

There's nothing immoral about selling people content released over time.

Hero of Lime:

Chaos Isaac:
Wow, Nintendo and Splatoon share a lot with a lot of shitty fucking shooters out there.

"Let's with hold content on disk so we can seem a lot cooler then we really are, instead of making actually new content. Let's cut off... this this aaannnnd this from the whole game, and release it later."

Shitheads.

Not to mention, unlike many other shooters, knowing every little thing about the maps themselves are essential to doing well in a match. If we had gotten all of them on launch day it would take a long time to get to know each map.

These justifications may sound flimsy

Pfft. You must not play that many shooters. Map knowledge is super useful, especially when it comes down to communication in team play and calling out things...

And, they are entirely flimsy and weak. It's basically apologist about it, not to mention it's a out right lie that it'd take a long time to get to know each map. Anyone who consistently plays will catch onto the maps fairly well, unless they have bad memory on things like that. (Which is fair enough. But even they catch on.)

But, you know, that's experience on my part from when I played shooters a lot. (And my few recent forays in gaming in my off time.)

Chaos Isaac:

Pfft. You must not play that many shooters. Map knowledge is super useful, especially when it comes down to communication in team play and calling out things...

And, they are entirely flimsy and weak. It's basically apologist about it, not to mention it's a out right lie that it'd take a long time to get to know each map. Anyone who consistently plays will catch onto the maps fairly well, unless they have bad memory on things like that. (Which is fair enough. But even they catch on.)

But, you know, that's experience on my part from when I played shooters a lot. (And my few recent forays in gaming in my off time.)

I've played enough. Which is why I talked at length about how most shooters never hold my attention for long. Because of this, I can't say I mind their tactics keeps me interested in the game. Anything that catches my attention this long gets a lot of credit from me, especially a multiplayer focused game.

Also, I never said map knowledge was not important in most shooters, it is. It's just not as important as it is in Splatoon, since the map itself is the key to victory, rather than killing the other players. Maybe I exaggerated its importance in my first post. But it's based on my experience with any other shooter, where combat prowess outweighs map knowledge and traversal.

It has been done with ALL the Main Monster Hunter series, and it has worked well with little to no complaints besides, "I wish they can release it faster".
To the point that Hackers who tries to unlock the "locked" stuff early getting shunned by the community with insta-kicks from the Gathering Hall.

Artificial caps to prolong interest? Yes.
Free? Yes, SO who cares besides impatient pricks.

 Pages 1 2 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.