RE, as with nearly all multiplats is subsidized by the console holders via a sourcing down payment. That's not unique to Capcom, that's now most AAA multiplats are funded. Sony and MS play ball. Nintendo doesn't. Thus a key reason Nintendo doesn't get many multiplats. I imagine they DID pay into Skyrim since Nintendo approached Bethesda, for example.)
[citation needed]
+1
Especially since historically the publishers have paid the platform holders to be on the platforms. This has been one of their main revenue streams.
EDIT: Btw, Sony doesn't need to pay developers, they are the platform to be on at the moment. They have the biggest install base, if you are going to concentrate on a platform it would be either PC or PS4 to maximize potential sales.
@NEStalgia Again, with no source whatsoever for something that supposedly not a ''secret, rumor, or speculation'', I find it very hard to believe. Like @Therad said, it used to be the other way around, and the platform holders still earn royalty fees from third parties. I don't see any reason why they would pay for games to be on their platform. Logically it should be the other way around. See it as a ''privilege'' that third parties can sell their games to a bigger audience on other platforms apart from PC.
I understand that a game like SFV was funded partially by Sony, and therefore ''console exclusive'', but I don't buy the idea that the platform holders pay for every single third party game.
@Octane
I agree, but they do pay for marketing rights, they pay to keep games off other platforms (be it a full exclusive or just keep off one specific platform), they pay to suppress knowledge of other versions... probably any kind of deal imaginable has been made.
For example, just look at Yakuza Kiwami box art. "Console exclusive" right on the cover, from a 3rd party SEGA game. How would they KNOW it's not going to be released elsewhere? Surely they don't just slap "exclusive" willy nilly without knowing 100% for sure they're the only ones getting the game. And if they are, there's likely a reason for that.
I think there's an entire department at Sony with a pretty large budget which does nothing but pay for games to skip other platforms (estimates potential sales lost and makes an offer), pays for exclusive content, pays for marketing rights and the suppression of information about rival versions.
They're a cut throat company. As much as people love their game consoles they are a cut throat company through and through. And let me not neglect MS in this. They're no different, although lately they've been far more passive.
Psalms 22:16 (1,000 yrs before Christ)
They pierced My hands and feet
Isaiah 53:5 (700 yrs before Christ)
He was pierced for our transgressions
I Want that Sonic Forces for Switch.
Ill get a 10$ gift from BB so add that to the discount plus $5 BBGift i have already i can get the game for about $20 after tax.
The assertion was that Sony/Microsoft pay for games to come to their platform, whether that is Resident Evil, FIFA or Call of Duty doesn't matter. I find that hard to believe without a source.
NBA 2K18 has the same features as the XB1/PS4 versions, with the exception of a custom logo editor for ProAM. It runs on the same engine, and amiibo support is confirmed.
@Octane I'm not rjejr, I don't have a clipboard full of references, for things. If you want details troll around RPS, Polygon, where the industry speaks openly, and GAF, where the industry clandestinely speaks through anonymous leaks. But the first two cover it enough. Specifically search for older interviews with MS execs, particularly pre-Spencer, but even Spencer's discussed the issue. EA interviews particularly in the Moore and Richaleto (sp?) eras.
Again, it's not clandestine, it's just a fact of business. Sony paying for a game to NOT arrive on a certain console would be clandestine. Platform holders funding/co-funding/co-sponsoring AAA dev isn't. heck, do you honestly think Aiden Pierce made it as the #1 character on the PS4 launch box art if Sony didn't have that right through funding? Or the fact the game was showed off at the PS4 show? Or why Square Enix unveiled FFXV gameplay footage at Microsoft's show, or why EA saved the footage of the new Bioware GaaS for Microsoft's show instead of their own conference? These things aren't done for free or kind gestures. They're part of funding packages.
For Skyrim Switch, notice the marketing angle is being handled by Nintendo's people, not Bethesda's, including the trailer which was presented in Nintendo's framework, not Bethesda's. Again, none of that is free.
This isn't 1997. You don't just crank out a game, publish it everywhere, and hope people buy it. Indies do that. AAA with $200M+ budgets don't have that cash laying around. Not even EA. Multiple parties are funding, including outside investment.
And what do you know, Sony's biggest business is insurance and financial services.....not consumer electronics....
You're not wrong about royalties, that's still the bulk of the platform holder's income after all after online subs. Consider the subsidy an advance that doesn't always pan out as a return.
Forward investment doesn't always have to be raw capital. They can extend credit, loans, or cash, sure. They can also extend soft money. Advertising resources, publishing/production capability, staff services. All these things provide a considerable monetary value. At this point, as #1, Sony likely doesn't have to do this very often unless they want exclusivity, full or partial. But early PS3 era they sure did.
@JaxonH MS more or less pioneered that whole system. They're passive now because they're the ugly unwanted stepchild of the Microsoft umbrella, and they're losing their shirts. Were the One stomping the PS4, they'd be a lot less forgiving. Though I do believe Phil Spencer is a lot more ehtical in how he operates the division than his forebears.....he doesn't seem to apply "the Microsoft way".... FWIW, that term was coined to me by someone on the inside
@UmniKnight oh, I don't think they're taking it per se, I think they legit don't care. They have a very different business model in mind, and it seems to work out for them very well, WiiU aside. Only gamers that want "all the games"on one platform seem to care. But they have their own library crafted the way they think will make them money, and it overall seems to be an effective strategy. It's a fairly intentional situation I think.
@NEStalgia So the idea of Nintendo rowing in their own waters is still a factor here. But surely they're not very happy about the whole World situation?
@UmniKnight I'm certain they aren't! If Sony paid for that, it was a blindside. And if the rumors are true, that's why XX exists. We'll see what Capcom does. If there isn't a follow-up MH on switch, Nintendo isn't going to be thrilled with that situation. If World doesn't sell great in Japan, and I don't think it will, and neither does Capcom given their meager sales estimates for it, either they're being paid a bundle by Sony, or they'll end up rectifying that. Though the fix might be for Japan only...
@UmniKnight - Direct competition for Nintendo would offer them to the "Power Pissing Race," something third parties want simply because it maximizes THEIR return. Make a game, hit the lowest common denominator, drag the version across and call it good. In the end, Nintendo would lose the pissing contest, and in turn, potentially themselves in the end. The one who releases first, finishes first. But let's not get started on how this practice can essentially doom the industry as a whole.
So Nintendo attempting their own image is actually what is setting themselves apart enough for people to notice the Switch. So this practice is obviously serving them better.
As for Worlds; I think people are too eager to assume how Worlds is going to pan out. Mind you, the major market for Capcom's MH series is in Japan. And looking at how the market responded in comparison to the two announcements the Switch version of XX got both Nintendo and Capcom stock to experience huge spikes. However, Worlds didn't even move MS nor Sony's. The Lion's Share of the market has spoken they want it portable, and Worlds may not make as big a splash as people are predicting. The biggest sales of it will be on PC, and will pale in comparison to Switch's XX.
I will wager Switch XX will be a bit more supported (IE: DLC of various promotions) than Worlds in the long run. Both will essentially be successes.
That goes without saying that Capcom will not learn from developing Worlds. In fact, I believe Switch's initial XX release is merely capitalizing on the momentum with minimal effort, but also bridge the 3DS market to the Switch, establishing a market before they can get something more... Solid on the platform. And whatever Cappy learns from Worlds the first go around we will see reach Switch in full. Be is Worlds Ultimate, Worlds 2 or something spiritually different, it will more than likely reach Switch.
@UmniKnight
I don't think anyone is "happy" seeing a good game go to another system that's not theirs, but with Nintendo there are so many hundreds of games that don't go to their system this is just another drop in the bucket for them.
If they were that bothered by it they would've saw to it that they secured exclusivity to keep the franchise on their system. But just because the last couple games released on Nintendo doesn't suddenly mean it's theirs. So I can't imagine them being too upset. Especially when they'll likely get the next one
Besides, it's not like Nintendo's handhelds don't sell on their own. They don't need any other person's game for their systems to sell
@Paraka "And whatever Cappy learns from Worlds the first go around we will see reach Switch in full. Be is Worlds Ultimate, Worlds 2 or something spiritually different, it will more than likely reach Switch." You'll have to forgive me that after being more than 100% convinced of XX reaching our shores, I won't be taking anything Capcom's for granted, until it's so very much confirmed, that going back on it will tarnish their reputation irrevocably.
When it comes to World, I think it has the potential to do great, but it can also fail to succeed in it's goal, that being get more Western people onboard with the franchise, entirely. It'll be a an interesting game to watch (and give a shot) as one who enjoys MH, that's for sure.
@UmniKnight - Well, look at the previous actions with MH and Capcom with localisations. Almost always have had the "Ultimate" version of the game shipped overseas except for Tri. Even then, the localizing and the news of it, were always given at last-minute news drops from Capcom.
So, if we're to actually see XX Switch (as opposed to the tradition of Capcom "Ultra-ing" their installments, but that's pretty much Switch ver. already), we'd literally hear about it a couple months prior to it releasing. Cause literally every game localized by Capcom since hitting Nintendo followed that pattern thus far.
So to be honest, I'd be more surprised that it wouldn't come. But we won't hear squat about it til even after it releases fully in Japan.
That said, even without the localization, Japan's market is pretty much the deciding factor of how the future of the MH series is dictated. And as we all can see, as of now, the market wants it portable, it wants it accessible, and it wants it anywhere. Though World may be enticing, Switch will see continued focus further on. Whether or not we see XX first before another on the western side is more the debate than -IF- we're getting more Switch MH games.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 16,601 to 16,620 of 69,786
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic