Should Nintendo Be Allowed to Revoke Features? (Poll)

[PajamaCat]

Am I a little bummed that the spawn rates were decreased? Sure. I was making bank off of peacock butterflies. However, as someone who's been playing since the GC days, I knew that something wasn't right about the number of them I was seeing. I would literally walk by my plaza and like four of them would be flying around at the same time when they're supposed to be rare.

A big part of AC is that some bugs and fish are harder to find, and therefore worth more money. While it was cool to be able to catch so many and sell them, it's not the way the game is intended to be played. Plus, I think the feeling you get when you finally catch that rare bug or fish you've spent days looking for is better than having everything basically being handed to you. Just my thoughts!

 

[Queen Greene]

I have my gripes about this game like anyone else, but it also does a lot of things right.

That being said, EULA exists for a reason. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[PikaPika19]

I think they should be allowed to patch things like spawn rates (that's not "revoking a feature", per se). But I voted no for things like straight up removing an important/major feature. Like, let's say they one day decided to completely remove Nook's Cranny or Able Sisters' from the game, I'd be against that completely. (I'm still a little salty over the fact that Re-tail isn't in the game. But maybe they'll add it in a future update!)

Also, I think the whole decrease in "interest earned" was kind of a poor choice on their part. It's nerfed to a point where it's really not useful anymore.

 

[Xara]

it’s not fair but unfortunately, they can do whatever they want.

but, i’d like to point out something that i’ve said before - while peacock butterflies and tarantulas were a reliable source of income, i’d like to remind you that they are rare bugs and their spawn rate being decreased to what it should’ve been from the beginning is not nintendo trying to force you into anything or ruin your game.

their spawn rate was never that high in any of the previous games, why do you think that should change now? the stalk market has always been a huge source of income for a lot of players and nintendo isn’t necessarily trying to force you into it. nerfing the spawn rates of expensive bugs and fish is not nintendo robbing you of anything - it’s them making the game as it’s always been and for the record, you should not be able to obtain a pocketful of a bug that sells for 2,500 bells (more if you sell to flick) in a matter of minutes.

 

[tajikey]

I believe the word you were looking for is "refine," not revoke. And absolutely, Nintendo has every right to refine their game to best fit the style of play they intended. This isn't Minecraft after all.

 

[Red Cat]

There's a difference between patching glitches and changing game design choices. The old interest rates and bug spawn rates were not "glitches" or "mistakes". They were intentional game design choices good or bad. Abusing interest has been a thing since WW; were the developers born yesterday and didn't realize this could be exploited until over a month into the game? The old bug spawn rate was also by design. Did the developers not play-test this game and realize "Damn, there are a lot of tarantulas and peacock butterflies spawning"? (Given the amount of glitches in this game, maybe they didn't actually play-test NH very much.)

For an analogy, can you imagine if Game Freak had regular updates that modify and nerf Pokemon stats, types, abilities, moves, etc. to make the games more "balanced"? People would be outraged. Even though Game Freak makes a lot of bad design choices with Pokemon games, they are intentional and once the games are released, players expect things to stay the same. Patching glitches that harm the playing experience is one thing, but developers trying to have "do-overs" on design choices because they didn't play out the way they intended is another.

The whole point Animal Crossing is that there is no intended way to play the game. Why the hell does Nintendo care if people abuse interest or bug spawn rates to make bells quickly? They don't seem to care much at all if people time travel. People abused the island in NL to make tons of bells and that was never changed in an update. So it's confusing why they are all of the sudden intervening and trying to get people to make bells a certain way (such as paying for Nintendo Online to buy/sell turnips).

Nintendo can make modifications to the games via updates, and we can voice our displeasure at some of the changes made in those updates. The interest or bug spawn nerfs are not going to make or break the game for me, but if Nintendo makes a habit of modifying game design elements, this may be the last AC game I buy.

 

[Koala92]

This isn’t a new thing in gaming, at all. Yes they can patch, nerf, and buff the game as they please. Also as many people have said, it was way too easy to catch rare bugs and rare fish.

 

[Zura]

It's their game and they can do whatever they please with it. I wouldn't come into your home demanding you to do certain things with the design/furniture. Let them own the game they own

 

[Sheando]

I don’t mind that they nerfed the spawn rates, but I wish it hadn’t been so extreme. I literally haven’t seen any peacock butterflies since the update. Not even one during hours of daily gameplay. The rates were initially unbalanced, but it would be nice if bugs were still a viable method of income acquisition. I ENJOY catching bugs. I don’t want to obsess over turnip purchases to make money.

 

[aibo]

I think the bigger issue is a lack of an update timeline so you know what you’re buying when you purchase the game rather than post-launch patches- which have existed in the video game industry for decades now.

Games as a service is the world we live in today. It is what it is. You can buy into it or you can skip it. I’m not happy about it it either.

 

[Red Cat]

I don't know why people here keep saying it's Nintendo's game like they're the landlord and we're the tenants. They may be legally be the landlords of their game, but I don't understand why people would be okay or happy with that relationship as consumers.

Maybe I'm old-school, but when I buy a video game, I consider it my video game, not the developers' game. I know there are legal restrictions like I can't copy and sell the game as my own, but as a consumer I feel like it's my right to play the game however I want or even take the disk or cartridge and smash it with a hammer if I want. I can also sell my copy of the game to someone else. So in most ways, my copy of the game is my game once I purchase it.

When the OP asked "Do you really want to succumb to their power and hand over that freedom?", I didn't expect so many people to answer "Yes, please!"

 

[aibo]

I don't know why people here keep saying it's Nintendo's game like they're the landlord and we're the tenants. They may be legally be the landlords of their game, but I don't understand why people would be okay or happy with that relationship as consumers.

Maybe I'm old-school, but when I buy a video game, I consider it my video game, not the developers' game. I know there are legal restrictions like I can't copy and sell the game as my own, but as a consumer I feel like it's my right to play the game however I want or even take the disk or cartridge and smash it with a hammer if I want. I can also sell my copy of the game to someone else. So in most ways, my copy of the game is my game once I purchase it.

When the OP asked "Do you really want to succumb to their power and hand over that freedom?", I didn't expect so many people to answer "Yes, please!"

I get the sentiment here, but I’m not sure I understand. What about Animal Crossing: New Horizons inhibits you from playing it however you want, selling the cart, or smashing it into pieces?
I think you might *really* be complaining about the content not being included in the game from the get go and instead being filed out later in updates, perhaps? But that’s not what you or OP said, at least not directly.

Post-launch patches have existed for decades now- there were even patches for cartridge games like Pokémon FireRed and LeafGreen.

 

[Stil]

I vote YES<<<<<<<<<<<<<
They made the game. If the developers wanted lower spawn rates and they realized they messed up, then oh well.
Games need balance. Have you ever played a game when it was broken and if it would have never been fixed, the community would suffer tremendously?

You might as well be against them patching the duping glitch a few days after release.
Im not saying that lowering spawn rates will fix anything because I doubt that it was broken in the first place, but what I am saying is that the devs have their reasons to make changes that people might not see.

They have employees that specialize in game mechanics and coding that get a paid a lot of money to do so. Let them do the work and If you dont like it, well, tough.

Also "succumb to their power", "Hand over that freedom"? We are paying for a video game. Basically, somebody else's project. This is not your project nor is it mine. If I create a game and I decide something is a better fit a certain way, then of course I am going to change it. Every gamer knows how it works in this day and age. Patches are common and almost everything is subject to change. Its not like you bought the game knowing the bug spawn rates, nor they were advertised at that specific rate.

 

[R. Planet]

I had to catch two 1000 bell bugs instead of one 2000 bell bug.

I'm throwing my Switch in the trash, pooping on it and then filing a lawsuit against Nintendo.

 

[tanisha23]

Not gonna lie, I was kinda confused at the frequency in which peacock butterflies would spawn. While I did make bank off of them, it just didn't really make any sense for them to be spawning that often. They're supposed to be a butterfly that's closer to the rear side of the spectrum, and I think that's probably why Nintendo nerfed their spawn rate.

 

[Lady Timpani]

I feel like I must be doing something wrong now haha because I never noticed an abundance of peacock butterflies or tarantulas before. Typically I’d see about three a day which seemed about right to me, but I’ve been playing less here lately so I can’t say whether I’ve noticed a difference in spawn rates.

If it was done to balance the game as people are saying I see no problem with it. I’d rather the rare creatures actually be rare.

 

[ThePondGirl]

I feel like you see this attitude come up a lot more with animal crossing, for example, and a lot less with games like Splatoon. Yes, it’s true that due to the online nature of Splatoon, balance patches are more expected, but we’ve never had an animal crossing economy as big as this one. I've never seen an animal crossing game as connected as this one, so I think it’s natural to see more balance patches as you go further and further online. And I don’t think that letting Nintendo do this is going to lead them to remove integral parts of the game- I mean, there’s literally no point to it. They already coded it. The way I see it, this is no different than them patching out the dupe glitch.

 

[Zander]

It doesn't matter much if it was supposed to be a "fix" because the fact stands that the spawn rate has been the way it is since the game came out. They shouldn't be able to reach into my game and just take whatever they want. The little control freaks they are should not have the ability to force people to play the game the way THEY want them to.

And just because they are currently allowed, does not mean they should be. It may be a video game but I shouldn't be forced to change my game play on their account.

It isnt your game. You dont own it. You own the right to play it, and that is it.

 

[myow]

Is this a serious question or is op trolling?

like.....yes they have every right to release updates and patches to fix things. thats kind of how it works in every game ever lol...

if this is for real I'm shocked you are so ticked off about it.
I'd be far more mad at a game if the devs didn't care enough to continue to release patches and updates when needed.

And I'm not quite sure what you mean when you refer to us handing over our "freedom."
Our "freedom" is to be able to play their game the way they present it, and if we don't like it, we are "free" to stop playing

 

[Red Cat]

Is this a serious question or is op trolling?

like.....yes they have every right to release updates and patches to fix things. thats kind of how it works in every game ever lol...

if this is for real I'm shocked you are so ticked off about it.
I'd be far more mad at a game if the devs didn't care enough to continue to release patches and updates when needed.

Are you trolling? There was no such thing as downloadable patches or updates in games from the early 2000's going back, and some of those games were among the best ever. Even NL didn't have many major patches or rolling updates other than WA, and that game was released less than a decade ago. At least for AC games, Nintendo is being a lot more paternalistic with NH than any of the previous AC games. The idea that Nintendo forcing us to wait for holidays or work harder to get bells is a blessing that we should be praising them for is laughable. In all of the previous AC games, if you didn't want to have Toy Day in July, you could just, you know, not TT to Toy Day in July. Now you don't even have the option to TT to Toy Day in July. Given the precedent set in the the previous AC games, you should have the freedom to ruin your own playing experience by TTing to all of the major holidays right away. Developers should not treat their players like children and try to save people from themselves.