That's incredibly wrong. Because you get money from a partner to make a game doesn't mean there's no risk in making it.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
That's incredibly wrong. Because you get money from a partner to make a game doesn't mean there's no risk in making it.
Nintendo's first party line up on Wii U was horrendous, actually. Nintendo started with a one two combo of mediocre 1st party games (Nintendoland was built around a gimmick that fell flat and NSMBU failed to make a compelling argument: Why buy a new console for a game that feels identical to the Wii game?), this was followed by a huge gap of nothingness until Pikmin 3 released more than half a year after launch - and Pikmin isn't exactly one of Nintendo's most popular IPs. It took Nintendo a year to finally release an important "blockbuster" game (Mario 3D World) - and even 3D World suffered from being conceptually too similar to 3D Land.
By the time Nintendo slowly turned the wheels around, Wii U has already lost all of its mindshare and stopped even being a glimpse on anyone's radar.
3rd party support is obviously important for the health of a plattform, but in Wii U's case Nintendo's lacklustre support was hugely responsible for the absolute catastrophic sales of the system -- and Nintendo releasing Zelda, Mario Kart, Splatoon and a new 3D Mario in Switch's first year is a direct answer to the failures of Wii U's first year.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
That game shipped over a million. They also made games like Fatal frame etc. They were arguably the Wii u'a biggest third party supporters.
Why do you think FE warriors even exists. They tried to make SF warriors but Nintendo said no. Nintendo had the leverage in this team up no doubt.
That risk is miniscule. Nintendo will be covering all the costs so at worst they'll break even. Sure they might have been able to spend that time working on their own game but that would have cost them money and whatever work they do on Fire Emblem Warriors can be reused for their own stuff anyway.
The Switch already has more games from KT than the Wii U got lifetime both exclusive and multiplat. They've also said that they are working on more Switch exclusive titles other than Fire Emblem Warriors in addition to multiplat titles.
One of the biggest third party partner and still not put their flagship titles on WiiU, sure it says a lot.
Platinum Games wish that logic was reality when Microsoft cancelled the project they were entirely funding and thus, by your reasoning, shouldn't have bothered them since they didn't invest money.
Spoiler : that's not how that works.
TheLegendaryN
Member
I don't consider Fire Emblem Warriors "third-party support" and Nintendo will probably pay the lion's share of the costs (and thus also will take the lion's share of the profit), but what I'm trying to tell you is that both labor (developing, marketing, publishing, and distributing) and financial input are split - whether that's 30% vs 70%, 20% vs 80%, or even less, I don't know of course. But Koei Tecmo has financial interest in games like these. It's not like they get paid upfront and the rest is the publisher's problem.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Hygiene was one of their most profitable games of their past few years which is why they'rd doing it again. Just because they tried and failed doesn't mean they dudn't actually support the Wii u.
TheLegendaryN
Member
Platinum Games is an independent developer who relies on outside funding and Koei Tecmo is not. Those are two entirely different circumstances.
They're not in this situation. Platinum Games shows how you can be impacted by a project's failure even if you weren't funding it in the first place. The same is true for any developer or publisher. There's a reason Koei Tecmo had sales expectations for Hyrule Warriors or Dragon Quest Heroes, even though they didn't invest funds in it. They're betting on these games, and a failure would damage them.
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Yeah these companies aren't fools. Do people honestly think there isn't a few dozen clauses that insure the contractor in question gets paid fuck all if the project goes tits up? Including sales underperformance.
Come oooooooooooon. How naive can you guys be?
Kresnik258
Member
Yeah you've just pretty much summarized my point while completely missing it lol.
They both had a similar amount of support pre-launch, where expectations were unknown (I'd say Switch's was better since there was a MonHun game in there vs. two late port fighting games), but since then Vita stumbled out of the gate and Switch has gone from strength to strength.
And from that, Capcom announced more games for Switch at the first opportunity and didn't touch Vita again... unless you count Frontier I suppose.
So all this worry-trolling about Switch support just doesn't make sense to me, at all.
1. Useful gimmick =/= useless gimmick. I don't like Joy-Cons but I cant deny that they are useful for a lot of innovative uses. WiiU gamepad was an old-fashioned tablet, heavy, bulky and often used in bad ways (aka replicate main screens, destroying battery life)
2. Switch is not a bad name because it allows to identify the console immediately (no confusing parents at stores deciding between Wii or WiiU) and it symbolize a change of pace for Nintendo.
3. Playing BC is acceptable only if doesn't require other investment for accessories, especially if they are priced. Better not having at all. But this is debatable depending on the user, I know.
Neither were old ports when announced and released just a few months (at most) after the main versions. A port from a several years old XBLA game that is a version of a decades old one and a rushed port, announced several months after the game release, that isn't even releasing internationally, is not comparable. Something comparable would be the announcement of Marvel vs. Capcom: Infinite at the Switch unveil conference, launching in November/December.
And Capcom has barely announced more support. Just a tweet mentioning ports of two years old games, and we are very light on info on that. Are they really coming of this year? And all that happened after the system exploded.
The difference is if Nintendo cancelled Fire Emblem Warriors Koei Tecmo would take a short term hit whilst they rebooted it to Kusoge Anime Musou 7 whereas Platinum ceased to have cashflow when MS cancelled Scalebound.
Yup, UMVC3 was a late port on Vita simply because they had to wait for Vita to actually release, it was a launch title that had launched a month earlier on PS3/360. Not only that Capcom redid the UI for all versions to make it more suitable for Vita.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
You do know that Nintendo could probably own the assets or the game code itself, right?
Principate
Saint Titanfall
Why are we still having this consrrvation. It's litterally the most pointless ever, even more so the the usual MH ones. In other news NIS has pledged future switch based on Disagea's success supporting implying a focus on the PS4 and Switch.
The art assets in terms of models and stuff? Sure.
But Musou games reuse the same the exact same animations between franchises all the time, including Hyrule Warriors.
Kresnik258
Member
Which again, is the bloody point I'm trying to make.
But you know what? S'fine. You're probably both right and Capcom clearly aren't on board because rushing to announce the first viable games they can for the platform isn't a sign of their future direction. It's certainly not what any other companies from old Nippon have done recently, right?
Minsc
Gold Member
People are satisfied with a very vague statement about Pokemon and the Switch, would they be satisfied if Capcom gave a similar statement? Why couldn't they do that, that is what is preventing the from announcing an upcoming game in a manner similar to Pokemon (or Metroid for that matter)? Or has Capcom already basically done this, and it's not enough for people?
Principate
Saint Titanfall
They haven't but then they run into the same problem they faced with MHXX. A portion that maybe interest in getting world or buy a PS4 in order get world (which is a tough propersition in itself), upon seeing a future handheld entry (what they really want) and decide not to get it.
Which is why we likely won't seeing an announcement until MHW has long finished selling the majority of it's sales.
Capcom's problem is that they're not clear with their usebase. If they intend to support both system they should say so off the bat not leave it to a per game basis. No one knows about the future of the franchise on the switch so why should they invest in buying the same game twice on a system that may not even get a future entry.
I predict you'll see a MH Switch announcement by next summer.
frankie_baby
Member
Its capcpom, they'll announce it the week before world launches
Smiles and Cries
Member
which version of MH?
Does MHXX become a better game if Switch also gets MHXXX: Return of Xander Cage?
They haven't
Probably Fforest two reasons
They are not going to develop such game
They are but it is far away and their focus obviously is World and don't want to split the fan based before the very last minute
Herb Alpert
Banned
You mean like they did for XX switch?
edit : I kid, I know double dip, courtesy game, etc
d5c is just under 200k. d5 ps4 is a bit over 200k. overall d5 sales should reach 500k with time.
Mother of God. Will D5C actually overtake the original version?
There is definitely some degree of question on fanbase maintenance. 2+ years of no maintenance or even good spirited attempt at a transition is a great way to atrophy an audience.
Someone else eating their lunch? Audience churn with most out and few in due to a long gap? A lot of possibilities exist. Remember, there won't be a title for the Switch effectively from launch until well over 2+ years into it's life cycle.
It's as Chris said, they've shown a complete inability to change strategy and smaller (and bigger) pubs/devs have shown nigh infinitely more flexible planning and movement. When your only response to a system's and your own software's successes is undated ports of ports after the initial release of said port, you are clearly in a bad place with a new market. Is that because of incompetence or being strapped to the wire on resources? We don't know. Probably a mix of both.
Ultimately it's Capcom's loss to be unable to establish themselves in a hungry market both short and long term.
lwilliams3
Member
I especially agree with the last part. We are already seeing a huge range of graphical "tiers" on the Switch , and will likely get wider as some developers takes more advantage of the hardware. Nintendo is not forcing devs to be reach a certain level. There are even two games that are strictly designed for portable mode.
It's been 5 years since Dragon Quest X and 8 years since Dragon Quest IX, the last single-player RPG in the franchise. Miracously, the series didn't die.
Monster Hunter is one the strongest gaming brands in Japan, even with a gap of two to three years between portable entries the series will be fine. The amount exaggeration surrounding MH is frankly ridiculous.
MH World is going to outsell MH Tri in Japan and - even if it won't be the big runaway hit Capcom hopes it'll be - it's going to be the best selling Monster Hunter in the west by quite a margin.
Even if World flops, it'd nevertheless be an important entry in the franchise. It marks the first time Capcom tries to substantially reinvent the series and it's also the first time Capcom seriously experiments with reaching the western markets in a big way. It might not pay off, but it's something they haf to try sooner or later.Yes, it likely would have been a good idea to bring World to Switch as well, but Capcom likely didn't expect Switch to sell as quickly as it does. If World fails, they'll retool it MHP3rd style quickly enough.
Monster Hunter is one the strongest gaming brands in Japan, even with a gap of two to three years between portable entries the series will be fine. The amount exaggeration surrounding MH is frankly ridiculous.
MH World is going to outsell MH Tri in Japan and - even if it won't be the big runaway hit Capcom hopes it'll be - it's going to be the best selling Monster Hunter in the west by quite a margin.
Even if World flops, it'd nevertheless be an important entry in the franchise. It marks the first time Capcom tries to substantially reinvent the series and it's also the first time Capcom seriously experiments with reaching the western markets in a big way. It might not pay off, but it's something they haf to try sooner or later.Yes, it likely would have been a good idea to bring World to Switch as well, but Capcom likely didn't expect Switch to sell as quickly as it does. If World fails, they'll retool it MHP3rd style quickly enough.
How long was it between remakes/remasters? How many other JRPGs exist to foster audience growth? How much did SE talk up Heroes and Builders about bringing a brand to PS4?
This stuff doesn't exist in a vacuum of major releases only. Audience and IP maintenance are never something to be taken for granted.
What makes you think there won't be anything Monster Hunter related on Switch for the next couple years? Even if there's nothing, MH will hardly fall from the face of the Earth - MHW might not be on a portable, but people will nevertheless be curious about the new direction MH is taking. The Japanese audience isn't running away. A 3 million franchise isn't going to vanish into thin air because of a 2-3 year gap. Heck, arguably giving the franchise a bit of a rest might even be a good thing to combat franchise fatigue.
Even investors are largely not going to be bothered by MHW's total sales declining compared to MHG/MH4 as long as Capcom achieves significant growth in the west, because they are fully aware that western growth is important for the long term future of the franchise.
Astral Dog
Member
Not really, there were FAR more problems with Wii U than Nintendo's support, they did as well as they could considering a lack of HD experience and having to support the more viable 3DS at the time
Nintendo themselves admutted they had trouble releasing the games in time.
doubtful. d1 ps2 did 300k+ between the us and japan alone. toss in digital sales on ps3, the psp and ds ports, and the steam release and it's probably around 1m at this point. should be a pretty easy second place though.
Anecdotal thought but I've yet to see anyone playing a Switch on the train, while I see a 3DS or Vita every day. The user base just isn't there yet, or is it a different beast in terms of use from traditional handhelds I wonder?
Personally for me playing in handheld mode in my bed etc or while TV is on is great, but it's a little unwieldy to take out anywhere and use on the go. Maybe a revision will fix this.
Personally for me playing in handheld mode in my bed etc or while TV is on is great, but it's a little unwieldy to take out anywhere and use on the go. Maybe a revision will fix this.
I think he means D5 vs. D5C.
SinCityAssassin
Member
Y'all gotta chill for a second.
oh well probably. japan is a big handicap.
What are you saying?
It is obvious that KT is not supporting the Switch because they are developing FE warriors
:/
Hero of Legend
Member
Worldwide or just the west alone? I assume the former.
foxuzamaki
Doesn't read OPs, especially not his own
You even lost aostia, oregano. Your too pessimist for even him
What would really help these threads would be if people would actually read what I typed instead of just making up their own version.
Looking at Japanese sales for the game these days, does it matter? Japan is just statistical noise at this point. Lmao.
If NIS shipped 10k more units since launch, then it means the game is constantly selling at low volumes, but selling anyway. For a game like Disgaea this is an interesting change compared to its front loaded nature of the past.
MatrixMan.EXE
Member
Don't do this Kyoufu. You're destroying the narrative that Capcom are assholes who are trying to dick over Switch owners.