Thoughts On: The Splatoon Model

By Brandon Sultana July 9, 2015

 

Splatoon was released just over one month ago, and continues to have a thriving community, which is quite a feat, as many Nintendo games go on to be forgotten about within that time-frame. There is no doubt that part of this success is down to the game’s DLC structure, where bits of the game are distributed for free at a constant rate. While his is definitely a strategy that works, it is one that I personally am not a fan of, and I’ll attempt to explain that reasoning over the course of this article.

 

I think everyone can agree that Splatoon is a game that was released as “unfinished”. Weapon variety wasn’t there, and multiplayer was limited in terms of modes, maps, and features. While it is definitely still a bit lacking in my eyes, it is definitely far better now than it was at launch, and there are no signs for the trickle of content to slow down. Multiple times a week, the game is greeted with something new. Usually it’s a new weapon, but occasionally a new map is thrown in, or like the case of a few weeks ago, a brand new multiplayer mode is thrown in. It is very clear why this approach was taken. With such a lackluster summer line-up for Nintendo (aka literally nothing), Splatoon is geared to fill that void. But rather than have people play passionately for a few weeks and move on, this approach is designed to make people play in short bursts, over a longer span of time, which goes against how most Nintendo games release. Most of the time, fans will play through the game within a week, and finish, and likely never touch it again. Using free content, the game can last much longer. This also extends to the rotation system, where not all maps and modes are accessible at all times. The rotation system encourages people to check back frequently to be able to see everything the game has to offer, which ultimately makes the game seem like it has more content than it really does. This could have just been done due to Nintendo's relatively poor servers, but I feel this was a decision made to artifially increase the amount of time people spend playing.

 

So is this a good or a bad system? Well it really depends. I think this system is most effective for kids. Not only are they often times out of the loop when it comes to news, making them excited to check back every day for new content, but they also likely have far less games, so Splatoon can last them much longer.  However I personally am not a fan. While I definitely see the merits in the system, I’m very busy when it comes to games, with a very long backlog. A game needs to be REALLY special in my eyes for it to draw me back and continue playing (Smash and Mario Kart come to mind). Splatoon has quickly left my sphere of interest. It’s a lot of fun, with some of the most unique mechanics I've ever seen, but tons of bad multiplayer decisions have made me lose interest, and I just don’t really feel the desire to come back when stuff happens.  I was excited to reach Level 10 and play ranked, but after seeing the assignin point system, I quickly went back to Turf War, which can only keep my interest for so long. I’ve yet to try the new Tower mode, and I played the Splatfest for around 20 minutes. The large August update is more enticing, but for now, this model doesn’t really suit me, and I’m sure I can’t be the only one feeling this way. I had a blast playing for the first few weeks (I completed the single player in two days because I loved it so much), but I’ve moved on to continue my laundry list of games that I need to finish.

 

The Splatoon model most definitely works, and it was honestly Nintendo’s only option to keep the servers full of people, with the Wii U’s tiny install base, so I’m definitely not saying it’s a bad approach. However I personally came out feeling underwhelmed, and that I had overpaid for the game, especially seeing that other regions got it for the Captain Toad price. It’s hard to complain about content when it’s free, but I personally would have preferred the game being launched with all of it’s content a bit later down the line, than having it given out piece by piece over several months. I was worried that I'd lose interest because of the lack of initial content, and my fears were proven correct. My initial buy gave me a sour taste, that makes me feel that the whole is LESS than the sum of its parts. It really boils down to how the indidual goes about playing games. For some it'll continue to provide engaging content for months, but others will be turned off feel underwhelmed.