Nintendo's got to do something, with so few online multiplayer games on Switch the paid online subscription may just lead to people doing without online multiplayer rather than buying the subscription.
@Therad The original rumors came from supposed inside memos. We can't confirm the memos, but they appear to be substantially prophetic enough to bear interest. Moreover, it's a behavior pattern that suits Sony's overall history of hardball business tactics. The reason it's discussed isn't because it fits a magic belief about anti-Nintendo behavior as much as it's a very believable contract offer specifically from Sony, in addition to other leaks and anonymous industry hints that Sony has been doing this. It isn't proof that it's happening, but when there are multiple different accusations of the same behavior from unrelated sources, which matches prior behavior by an entity, and the largest rumor comes from a memo leak that proved very accurate in the rest of its content, it's worth considering as likely.
It's not a far fetched idea that Sony approached them about exclusivity as it was a core franchise to winning Japan in the hands of their competitors, but Capcom repeatedly rebuffed the offer, fearing too limited an audience without the ability to expand, and not wanting a full Sony lock (a wise decision if so looking at SFV), and having been screwed over by Sony before on the series. And it's not a far fetched idea that a compromise was offered of console inclusivity, where "the following platforms" can be supported in exchange for payment, and looking at the state of Nintendo's consoles, it seemed an acceptable risk. Nor would such a deal really be at all workable in court for Nintendo.
Of course as it turns out Switch happened, took Japan by storm, and is the only truly relevant console there leaving a vacuum of MH's core audience for World. They couldn't have known that, and neither could Sony. And X1 is still selling a dozen or so units.
@Grumblevolcano If that MH portable rumour is true, I believe the two may or may not be linked. Possibly by way of starting the online, then announcing said MH.
@NEStalgia "supposed inside memos". If someone had them in their possession Nintendo would have a strong case against them. But nothing like that has happened.
But still, Nintendo didn't even have a platform for Capcom to put world on. Wii u was a failure, no one knew what the next thing from Nintendo would be, or if it would ever come a new console from them. We don't need to apply a conspiracy to realize ps4 was the best choice for Capcom at the time.
@Therad The best choice is to have a scaleable game engine...soon (apparently) DOOM will be able to run on anything from Switch to Xbox One X - and any flavour of platform in between if they want! ..big fail on Capcom's part in that respect (and any other third-party that tries to use this excuse for that matter)
@Therad If you ran a chain of steakhouses and your Seattle location represented 60%+ percent of your customer base, would you close your Seattle location and open new ones in Cleveland, Dallas, and Tokyo? Nintendo represented the bulk of MH's customers, and they walked away from it based purely on the assumption that Nintendo, the company CURRENTLY (at the time) leading their market wasn't going to have a successor? Without any financial prompting to do so? Meanwhile Capcom was at least plugged into Nintendo enough to actually affect the HARDWARE design of the Switch in terms of memory capacity while World was still heavily in development, and was instrumental in the N3DS and the preceding Circle Pad Plus, expressly for MH. Even if they didn't know what Switch was, it's absurd to believe they didn't have at least an "off the record" guarantee at high levels that the next platform would suit MH.
Their claim that they made their decision in the dark about Nintendo and for the other platforms is a half-truth at best. It's certainly true, but they're certainly omitting other factors in that statement. A company doesn't just abandon the location (in this case read: platform/locale) of their primary market for their key product. Yes they wanted to grow MH in the West, and yes they rightly believed that other platforms were the best chance to do so. But abandoning the bulk of their existing market isn't a decision they'd have jumped at readily, nor would they have reasonably believed that either A) Nintendo would not have a successor to the 3DS, MH's home platform, regardless of what WiiU did, and B) That home consoles would suddenly surge in Japan despite a decade long trend the opposite direction, knowing they'd be releasing World as a niche foreign title without satisfying its core market. Their own sales projections showed they didn't expect it was going to sell great, while the game itself would cost considerably more to produce than the 3DS entires, meaning it would likely be less profitable overall. Where does the money gap get closed in abandoning the existing market and not expecting watershed new sales in another market?
The main focus here is that, World, as it is, with that thin, partial, explanation they gave does not make substantial business sense. Artists with a vision may go for that. The business leadership that controls Capcom would not. A cash backing for a "console exclusivity agreement" with Sony on the other hand makes tremendous business sense with what, at the time, would have seemed low risk.
The memos themselves, if someone had them in possession not anonymously, COULD have given Nintendo a strong case. However the information in them would have had to have been a high level person within Capcom or the MH team. Moreover it included the description that Capcom panicked, realized Switch was going to be successful, and ran to Nintendo, admitting what happened, and hastily put together the XX for Switch deal (screwing Sony slightly.) If true that would mean they basically settled out of court voluntarily a way to mend the situation to at least partial satisfaction via XX and the well timed announcement that gave both companies a stock boost (and/or anything else in the works we don't know about yet) meaning no litigation and a continued hush hush situation from all parties.
FWIW, I'm not looking at it as a disgruntled MH superfan etc. etc. I'm a casual MH fan at best. I played the beta on PS4....it's a great game. Looks great, plays great, does a lot of great things. I don't intend to buy it full price...I'd consider it on a sale in the future. Not because the game's not worth the price but because that kind of grindy skill development game just doesn't work as a TV strapped game to me, it works better on a portable device. I wouldn't play it nearly enough on PS4 to get the most out of it as a full price game, where on Switch I would. Which makes sense considering the entire series kind of bombed in it's console debut on PS2 and only started becoming a cult hit once it moved to PSP. It's a format that works to its advantage.
Am I alone in thinking they might scrap the online subscription and just go with the free option and make up the money they'd have made by selling us VC again? I don't know how they can introduce it now unless they still have a handful of unannounced games that will support it. We're coming up for the year anniversary and the last big online 1st party game released in July last year. I think the best approach is to leave it free for this gen but still slowly introduce the features they planned to and make up the deficit with a VC platform.Then next gen they will be better prepared to charge from the beginning. Things are going too well for the Switch, if they just forced the subscription on us now with no new games to justify it, things could go rapidly downhill. Of course I don't think they would just begin the subscription without any new game to support it, but will 1 or 2 be enough?
@SLIGEACH_EIRE Kinda ironic how low budget that ad was for a company that made ''billions''. Let alone the fact that they need to crowdfund their crap mobile game.
Anyway, this ain't RollerCoaster Tycoon, don't buy into this kids.
@OorWullie Completely agree. I don't think many people will pay for a subscription if Nintendo doesn't give us more to use with it. I see it as a win win, either we get more online capable games or we don't need to pay for an online sub. In my eyes, at least
I think the only way the paid online wouldn't happen is if Switch's 3rd party support isn't as good as Nintendo had hoped. There's never going to be many 1st party online games, that's just the nature of Nintendo's IPs. You'll get the odd few like Mario Kart, Splatoon and Smash as well as some new IPs like ARMS but the vast majority of online multiplayer games will always be 3rd parties so if the 3rd party support isn't as good as Nintendo had hoped then the total number of online multiplayer games will by default be limited.
@Therad True - I just think that it's bad P.R. for any company in this 'post-DOOM' era to use that as an excuse.
I'd have thought that they'd have tried to put a different kind of spin on it, that's all...but if they are just being honest - and that is the real reason - I don't think it looks great on them really.
@NEStalgia if I owned a steakhouse in Seattle and people started to move away from Seattle at a rapid pace I sure as hell wouldn't start up another steakhouse there. I would probably try and set up a new store in the neighboring city, since that seemed to expand at a rapid pace.
When they started development on world switch was still a twinkle in Iwatas eyes. There was no specs, no nothing. Even if they knew about the concept (which I very much doubt), there is no way to know if it would be a success. It is highly risky to be early on a console, especially as an exclusive. if it tanks, the same happens with your game. And not only that, even if it is a success, the install base is low. This means thst if the game is expensive to make, you might not get a return on your investment. Far better to release it on a console that has hit it's stride.
The conspiracy theory in your post I won't bother with until you provide proof.
@NaviAndMii it has always been a bad excuse if you do your own engine. But the reality is that Capcom isn't the healthiest company around, they will cut corners. It is quite possible they will look at porting it to the switch, but we have no way of knowing if their engine is scalable.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 22,741 to 22,760 of 69,785
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic