Talk:List of post-release content in Splatoon: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
As 99.99% of us know, the content so far has all been on disc, and it doesn't even need to be downloaded making it completely wrong to call it DLC. I'm not saying we should delete the page, as it's possible that future DLC will be added, and technically the future patches adding the Japanese costumes count as DLC. My only guess for why it's called DLC is that a better alternative was not found, so everything's just called that. Any thoughts on alternate, more appropriate names? [[User:PPLToast|PPLToast]] ([[User talk:PPLToast|talk]]) 04:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | As 99.99% of us know, the content so far has all been on disc, and it doesn't even need to be downloaded making it completely wrong to call it DLC. I'm not saying we should delete the page, as it's possible that future DLC will be added, and technically the future patches adding the Japanese costumes count as DLC. My only guess for why it's called DLC is that a better alternative was not found, so everything's just called that. Any thoughts on alternate, more appropriate names? [[User:PPLToast|PPLToast]] ([[User talk:PPLToast|talk]]) 04:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
:That's pretty much why. "On-disc downloadable content" is both limiting and demeaning. In a way, the content is still downloadable – you download the flag that tells the game "ok, this weapon can be un-hidden now". It might be easier to keep it as-is. a) People who search for it will likely search for this term. b) When actual DLC comes, the page will make more sense, so no point bothering about a temporary problem. c) There's no better name. – '''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>''' 08:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | :That's pretty much why. "On-disc downloadable content" is both limiting and demeaning. In a way, the content is still downloadable – you download the flag that tells the game "ok, this weapon can be un-hidden now". It might be easier to keep it as-is. a) People who search for it will likely search for this term. b) When actual DLC comes, the page will make more sense, so no point bothering about a temporary problem. c) There's no better name. – '''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>''' 08:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC) | ||
==Repeated Information== | |||
Why is it that there's a table that has all the existing DLC, and then a part of the page further on that discusses existing DLC? There's really not enough of a difference to warrant it being discussed two different times (in my opinion). It should be one or the other, and I prefer the non-table part of the article. [[User:IanMS00|IanMS00]] ([[User talk:IanMS00|talk]]) 19:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 19:11, 15 July 2015
Rename page to something else
As 99.99% of us know, the content so far has all been on disc, and it doesn't even need to be downloaded making it completely wrong to call it DLC. I'm not saying we should delete the page, as it's possible that future DLC will be added, and technically the future patches adding the Japanese costumes count as DLC. My only guess for why it's called DLC is that a better alternative was not found, so everything's just called that. Any thoughts on alternate, more appropriate names? PPLToast (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- That's pretty much why. "On-disc downloadable content" is both limiting and demeaning. In a way, the content is still downloadable – you download the flag that tells the game "ok, this weapon can be un-hidden now". It might be easier to keep it as-is. a) People who search for it will likely search for this term. b) When actual DLC comes, the page will make more sense, so no point bothering about a temporary problem. c) There's no better name. – EspyoT 08:10, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Repeated Information
Why is it that there's a table that has all the existing DLC, and then a part of the page further on that discusses existing DLC? There's really not enough of a difference to warrant it being discussed two different times (in my opinion). It should be one or the other, and I prefer the non-table part of the article. IanMS00 (talk) 19:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
