Is it unfair for Nintendo to change game mechanics with updates?

[Manah]

Posters were likely never supposed to work this way because none of the other special items do (tools, photos, limited regional items, Pocket Camp promotion...) The game does track them for Harvey's island though which is why they count as catalogued.
As for why they didn't fix it until now, lower priority than, say, hacked items or duplication glitches. The rereleased cards have been out in Japan for months.

Actual changes can be hit or miss (I hate the removal of the flower islands because the variety was already crap) but stuff getting fixed should be expected.

 

[WaileaNoRei]

Last year, I took a class on Japanese popular culture. Our professor's field of study is actually in video games - specifically, SEGA. I think that having an understanding of how Nintendo, as a Japanese company, approaches its work could help to understand why it makes the decisions it does.

Our professor mentioned that the mindset of Japanese game developers is very different than what a western audience might expect. There is very much an idea amongst Japanese game developers that they should be able to dictate how the game works and guide players to play the game as they have designed it. From this perspective, they may not consider updates unfair because they are the creators and controllers of the game who are guiding players to act in a certain fashion. It is their game and the players are choosing to play it.

From the mindset of a western audience however, there may be more of an expectation that the developer creates a product that the player decides how to interact with. Players do not expect the game developer to dictate to them what kind of play styles are appropriate; the developers leave the play style of a player to the player themselves. From this perspective, updates could be considered unfair because the player's voice themselves is much more heavily considered. The developer should not be able to negatively affect gameplay, particularly if it goes against player interests - the player chooses to purchase the game and so they should be given more autonomy to play the game in the way that they wish. To an extent, the developer should not be able to interfere with that to try and get players to play in a 'preferred' fashion (though interference for things like hacks and cheating are much more justifiable).

thank you for writing this. I have experience with Japanese culture too, though not directly with the game industry there, and I thought it was very likely the mindset is very different than that in the west. Japanese companies are also still very hierarchical as far as I understand, so decision making input is likely pretty limited and even the devs themselves likely have little input into whether to make changes like this.

it’s only an anecdotal example, but I have a friend who works for a video company in the us (not Nintendo) and he says when he’s met US Nintendo employees they have expressed a lot of frustration with how little input they get with Nintendo HQ (which was apparently virtually none). He said the US employees were often not even notified ahead of time when big decision or changes were happening. Like I said, it’s based on his own personal interactions with Nintendo US employees, nothing scientific, but it does provide some additional insight I think.

 

[Fenix]

Maybe I'm weird af, but I don't agree with those who say "It's Nintendo's game, they can do whatever". For me, from the moment the game is released and people start buying it, it stops being Nintendo's game and it is everyone's game. What if I bought the game for some specific features and then they decide that's not what they wanted and just take them away? I've spent quite some money for a game that promised me something and I no longer have. I understand adjusting things they did not realised during the following 2-3 months after the release (even though they decided to delay it and had more time to work on those things), but half a year later the game has arrived to quite some people has bought it and changing things that are not "cheating" (like hacking items and those things) will only help to ruin their experience.
In the posters topic, for example, if I wanted the amiibos, I would have bought it anyways, wether the posters were orderable or not, and if I only wanted the posters, now I'll go to Nookazon or some place and buy the poster instead of cataloging it, and I won't buy the amiibo either way. So I think this is not fair and only helps to hurt (more) Nintendo's reputation.

 

[Mezzanine]

Deleted

 

[LittleMissPanda]

I don't think it's fair nor right for Nintendo to do that. They do it in secret in the hopes that people would not even notice any changes but little do they know that these types of things don't just go unnoticed, especially if they're features that we really enjoy, such as visiting Hybrid Island and cataloging posters from friends.

It's messed up. Whether an oversight or not, I believe in the idea that Nintendo, since they are re-releasing Amiibo cards, took away our cataloged posters because they hope we go out and buy the card packs all over again like back when they were new for NL and HHA. They basically don't want us to get the posters from others but rather we pay for them via the Amiibo cards. So essentially it's a ploy by them to increase their business, which is very shady of them to do.

I mean, yes they can do as they will with their games and make adjustments as they see fit but to me they seem to always "take one step further, then two steps back" because yes, they're adding improvements but at the same time messing something else up. Then again, no game company is really perfect and can get it right the first time.

 

[Eureka]

Maybe I'm weird af, but I don't agree with those who say "It's Nintendo's game, they can do whatever". For me, from the moment the game is released and people start buying it, it stops being Nintendo's game and it is everyone's game. What if I bought the game for some specific features and then they decide that's not what they wanted and just take them away? I've spent quite some money for a game that promised me something and I no longer have. I understand adjusting things they did not realised during the following 2-3 months after the release (even though they decided to delay it and had more time to work on those things), but half a year later the game has arrived to quite some people has bought it and changing things that are not "cheating" (like hacking items and those things) will only help to ruin their experience.
In the posters topic, for example, if I wanted the amiibos, I would have bought it anyways, wether the posters were orderable or not, and if I only wanted the posters, now I'll go to Nookazon or some place and buy the poster instead of cataloging it, and I won't buy the amiibo either way. So I think this is not fair and only helps to hurt (more) Nintendo's reputation.

For better or worse, it just doesn't work that way. You are paying them money to play their game, that's it. They still own it 100% and have all rights to it. You just own a copy and pay to have access. They have full control over their creative process and changes. Gaming companies already do what you mentioned. They will roll out nerfs and buffs on characters that completely alter the landscape of the game. These are games that have PvP too so they are actually extremely competitive. In those kind of games you just gotta go with the flow and hope they don't go too extreme with the changes.

Honestly the changes Nintendo has made are tiny in the grand scheme of things and I'm sure they were done for a reason. With that said I completely understand how people would feel frustrated or upset when a game they love changes, even in small ways.

 

[buny]

the ability to make your own tarantula islands

wait, that was removed? wtf

 

[Mick]

wait, that was removed? wtf

Yes, a long time ago! Although I remember a friend posting a picture of a wall of tarantula displays, 2 high, from the left to the right of his screen. They were spawning on his main island in ridiculous numbers. My point is, maybe they tried to patch that, and by fixing the spawn rates accidentally fixed the player made tarantula islands too!

(In my opinion it was way too much effort for the reward anyway, it still took so many laps around a tiny barren island to fill an inventory... Not exactly easy or fun bells to get)

 

[Flygon]

I think whether or not it's wrong is moot. Nintendo has always been resistant to input from fans, I don't know why that would change.

The poster thing is a non-issue to me because it was a bug. I feel sorry for the people that put a lot of work into an aspect of the game that is now patched out, but I think the backlash is an overreaction.

We should be mad we got an incomplete game upfront and have to wait for them to finish it. Although at least they're not charging us for DLC. (For the record, I count myself in this. I'm not mad, but I think I should be.)

 

[buny]

Yes, a long time ago! Although I remember a friend posting a picture of a wall of tarantula displays, 2 high, from the left to the right of his screen. They were spawning on his main island in ridiculous numbers. My point is, maybe they tried to patch that, and by fixing the spawn rates accidentally fixed the player made tarantula islands too!

(In my opinion it was way too much effort for the reward anyway, it still took so many laps around a tiny barren island to fill an inventory... Not exactly easy or fun bells to get)

yeah, i only did it twice myself, way back when the game first came out. such a silly thing to patch though lol o.o;

 

[Dunquixote]

I think whether or not it's wrong is moot. Nintendo has always been resistant to input from fans, I don't know why that would change.

The poster thing is a non-issue to me because it was a bug. I feel sorry for the people that put a lot of work into an aspect of the game that is now patched out, but I think the backlash is an overreaction.

We should be mad we got an incomplete game upfront and have to wait for them to finish it. Although at least they're not charging us for DLC. (For the record, I count myself in this. I'm not mad, but I think I should be.)

I’m sorry. I just put a lot of effort into trying to help people with the posters and not everyone can afford the amiibos; I know I can’t and have to wait to Christmas if they’re still available. I think the least they could’ve done is let us know all the changes a week before update. I would still be mad but not as much as I am. If I annoyed you, I am sincerely sorry. I just feel really bad for the people who can’t afford amiibos, don’t have as many as me or any at all. If they really didn’t want us to order ones we didn’t have, then they should’ve had this taken care of right away. Waiting this long and timing it right before the amiibos are released is really scummy. But, this is my opinion and you don’t have to agree with me . I haven’t played much of the newer nintendo stuff and i had a positive impression until now tbh... :/ I wasn’t surprised, but it sure was extremely disappointed. I was worried I was overreacting or one of the people that was taking things out of proportion, so yeah, sorry for offending anyone ><.

 

[Flygon]

I’m sorry. I just put a lot of effort into trying to help people with the posters and not everyone can afford the amiibos; I know I can’t and have to wait to Christmas if they’re still available. I think the least they could’ve done is let us know all the changes a week before update. I would still be mad but not as much as I am. If I annoyed you, I am sincerely sorry. I just feel really bad for the people who can’t afford amiibos, don’t have as many as me or any at all. If they really didn’t want us to order ones we didn’t have, then they should’ve had this taken care of right away. Waiting this long and timing it right before the amiibos are released is really scummy. But, this is my opinion and you don’t have to agree with me . I haven’t played much of the newer nintendo stuff and i had a positive impression until now tbh... :/ I wasn’t surprised, but it sure was extremely disappointed. I was worried I was overreacting or one of the people that was taking things out of proportion, so yeah, sorry for offending anyone ><.

Oh jeez, I don't think you're a bad person for how you feel. I just disagree, it's okay.

Heads up, I make my own amiibo and it's INSANELY easy and way cheaper. If you look up a tutorial there's a pretty good one that's easy to follow. I won't link it because I don't think I can, due to site rules. That's also why I don't really have an emotional reaction to the change, honestly. Amiibo don't have to be expensive.

I'd understand if people don't want to make their own amiibo because it's an ethical grey area, but you can't even give Nintendo money for the product. You're making something that as of right now you literally can't buy legally if you wanted to. (Except second-hand, which isn't giving money to Nintendo directly anyway.)

 

[rezberri]

Maybe I'm weird af, but I don't agree with those who say "It's Nintendo's game, they can do whatever". For me, from the moment the game is released and people start buying it, it stops being Nintendo's game and it is everyone's game.

i don't think this line of thinking is good at all. Witchy_Trixie is right when they say you purchase a game and the only rights you have are the rights to play it. it's not like you bought a game that was about dressing up characters then it was suddenly and unexpectedly patched one day and now it's an fps. the core of the game is still there, and to say otherwise is just wrong. i get why people are upset over this change, but a statement like this is blowing the whole thing out of proportion. buying a game doesn't suddenly give u creative control over the game. u can demand changes all your want but its up to the people who own the rights to the game make changes they want. sure they could listen to fans, many game companies do take fans' wants and needs into consideration. but as Flygon said Nintendo has a track record of not doing that. in this case, if a company isn't open to suggestions you can only rly vote with ur wallet.

im sorry if i seemed rude in my reply. we're all entitled to think and say what we want, but to me this line of thinking is kinda dangerous. i honestly wish i could explain why, but every time i've tried to type it out the meaning escapes me. i guess u could say in extreme cases it could be used as a form of censorship of ideals, but that's still not really what i mean or want to say.