Topic: Samurai Warriors 3 for PS3.

http://www.andriasang.com/e/blog/2010/11/02/flying_get/

So yeah, Samurai Warriors is getting an enhanced port on the PS3 with bonus content.

Now I'm sorry if this sounds like a rant but this really grinds my gears. People say Nintendo needs to do more to help third parties if they want third party support but here Nintendo helped develop the game, allowing them to use a character and setting from a Nintendo IP, localised the game for Tecmo Koei and published it for them in the west and yet the game is still going multiplatform... and with more content on the PS3.

This is the kind of thing that makes the whole 'Nintendo fans only buy Nintendo games' true because this is ridiculous.

But I suppose it's good for the PS3 owners who are fans of the series and I'm sure Waltzy will be happy, I'll probably just wait for the update if I get the game now but I don't know if I want.... * sigh *

Well, the PS3 has a stronger processor and Blu-ray stores a heck of a lot more than DVDs, so it's only natural it would be enhanced and with extra content.

But I'm not quite sure what you expect Nintendo to do. It's up to the third-party publishers to promote their games, and it's their own fault if the message doesn't get out. It has nothing to do with Nintendo's "support". As far as Nintendo's job is concerned, they're done. They built a great platform, showed the potential of the system with some excellent first-party titles, and managed to create a massive install base for developers to use. They even have the Nintendo Channel to help promote games through the console itself. Bending over backwards for other publishers because of their own incompetent marketing is not their duty.

The notion that "Nintendo fans only buy Nintendo games" is not Nintendo's fault. What should they do, make worse games? Stop releasing games? That would be senseless.

Look at how well Just Dance has done, and that's an Ubisoft game.

I think you missed my point... Nintendo did bend over backwards for this game, Nintendo actually published it themselves in the west and yet the Wii is ending up with the beta version(as people said about Tales of Vesperia). I'm saying I don't know what other people expect Nintendo to do when even if they help the development of the game, localise it, publish it and allow the third party to use a Nintendo IP then the game isn't exclusive, if that's what they have to do for an inferior version of a multiplatform release(and not just from the inevitable visual standpoint) I dread to see what Nintendo would have to do to keep it exclusive... develop it internally and give it the same budget as Zelda?

and I'm saying it reinforcing the meme that Nintendo fans only buy Nintendo games because this puts people off the game, I was planning on picking the game up at some point but I probably won't now.

If Nintendo localised and published the game in the west, then they were doing Tecmo Koei a big favour. But Tecmo Koei aren't obliged to Nintendo to keep the game exclusive to the Wii unless they signed an exclusivity deal. Nintendo doesn't tend to do that, nor is Musou a big enough series in the west for it to make business sense.

Also it wasn't what they "had to do for a multiplatform release" because it wasn't a multiplatform release at the time. I think you're reading too much into the situation. Tecmo Koei originally never intended to release it in the west. Like I said, a big favour from Nintendo of America.

For all we know, the PS3 game may never come out in the west. I don't really see the big deal, whether it does or not. Exclusivity is overblown. It's not like Tecmo Koei abandoned or betrayed Nintendo. The game is out in its entirety and it's moving units.

Besides, I'd still hardly call SW3 a "beta" for the PS3 version. If it was, it would be buggy and incomplete.

Well I think the idea behind localising and publishing the game was that the game was exclusive in return and especially the fact that they put Nintendo owned content into the game definitely shows that it was supposed to be exclusive. Nintendo aren't a charity. Also the game is only a year old, and only just came out in North America so they've been working on it since before Nintendo actually published the game in the west and obviously it isn't the complete version considering it doesn't have all the content.

...and the term betrayal is probably too strong and has the connotation of me being a fanboy if I said it but I think if you tried to argue that Nintendo is getting a fair deal out of this then that argument is an extremely weak one.

EDIT: I don't know if you necessarily meant this but I agree with your implication that Nintendo should make them sign exclusivity contracts because this is bordering on abuse. This isn't like NBA Jam where it just happened to be a Wii game, Nintendo was directly involved with this game.

Well, "bonus" content is just that: bonus.

No one said Nintendo was a charity, And if you want to speak about fair deals, they got their fair share of sales in Asia. That is the one and only region the game would sell any significant amount. It was a risk to bring it out in the west, albeit a small one, and one they clearly deemed worthwhile. I highly doubt Nintendo expected to make huge sums out of localising SW3 for the west, so the game being released on the PS3 won't have much of an impact on their business.

Their actions show that they can see the value of bringing hardcore Japanese titles to the west. They chose Samurai Warriors 3 to do it. It shows they understand their customers. If anything it strengthens my respect for Nintendo of America. Really, you should be glad it even got a western release at all.

I don't think it's much of an issue - especially considering the problems all of the console developers have had with exclusivity deals. Just look at what happened with MGS2: Substance for example (a much more significant release than SW3, no less). That had "Only On Xbox" plastered all over the cover and it still came out on other platforms.

Either way, you can think about the matter however you want. I'm just glad I don't have to buy a Japanese Wii or PS3 to play the game.

Again, I'm not sure if you're arguing against me here. Of course Nintendo didn't localise it intending to make money in the west, the whole point was that it was exclusive in exchange and that's why it doesn't make a difference whether the PS3 version is localised or not because as you said it's only in Japan that it will get worthwhile sales.... which makes it an even worse deal for Nintendo... Nintendo may have lost money on the localisation and yet the one place where the exclusivity matters it's not exclusive!

It's not my respect for Nintendo that has changed, it's my respect for Tecmo Koei(sorry Waltzelf but respect -50 right now).

Well I'm sort of arguing against you. I think that exclusivity isn't much of an issue. AFAIK it was only NoA which was actively involved in the game, correct? NoA dealt with localisation of the game, but NoJ had no hand in its original development? I'm not sure of the details.

Also is there a source confirming that it's an exclusive? If not, releasing it on the PS3 is perfectly fine. If there really was such a deal, then Nintendo could sue the hell out of Tecmo Koei for breaking their contractual agreement.

There's a Nintendo character in the game and a mode based on a Nintendo game, the mario club helped and they localised and released the game in Europe as well. Nintendo was well and truly involved, the only way they could be more involved is if they developed it themselves.

There isn't going to be a source for any exclusivity contract because they don't disclose that information. It was debuted at Nintendo's fall conference and promoted as a Wii exclusive though. I don't think arguing that Nintendo didn't legally bind them to it so it's okay is a good argument though... because then we're saying that third parties can't be trusted and that doesn't speak well for third parties or their relations anyway.

Related to that though... if the PS3 version isn't localised it's likely because Nintendo owns the localisation. I don't know if Nintendo would do anything though, this is the second time Tecmo Koei has screwed them over(Fatal Frame debacle) and yet Nintendo still worked with them for Other M and now with the Fatal Frame 2 remake. But again if anything this just says that Nintendo is perhaps too lenient with third parties and should actually stand up for themselves.

Hmm, I see. It seems like Nintendo licensed Tecmo Koei to use the character and mode. Mario Club is a Nintendo QA team, so if they were involved they would have been doing game testing.

Yes, it's surprising that Tecmo Koei would release a PS3 version if Nintendo had that much involvement in the game's development. :/ Although I don't think it speaks about all third parties so much as Tecmo Koei specifically. I wonder if Nintendo will respond in some way. They may be just fine with it, who knows.

Yeh, Nintendo were heavily involved. I wouldn't say it's surprising though(it was rumoured a while ago)... it's more disappointing that even when Nintendo does bend over backwards for a third party that they still get a raw deal and also that only a legal contract can actually guarantee exclusivity.

As I said though, it's good for the PS3 owners who are fans of the series and missed out on it due to Wii exclusivity.

And Nintendo got what it wanted out of this game - an exclusive (at the time) hardcore title on the Wii. Like Monster Hunter Tri, Samurai Warriors would have sold Wiis by itself in Japan, and Nintendo had a mature game to offer the west and a relatively new IP for Nintendo consoles to offer its faiithful.

I'm not sure what you expect of Koei. This is business, not super happy land where businesses hold each others hands and promise to love one another for ever and ever. Koei actually owes a lot more to Sony than it does to Nintendo, anyway, as Sony has been a reliable business partner for Koei in Japan far longer than Nintendo has been.

And if Koei irritated a lot of its faithful customers by not offering a HD version of this game. When you're a niche genre player like Koei, you can't afford to do that. Keeping customers > keeping another business happy.

So yes, Nintendo and Koei knocked out a deal, where both companies won, and now that deal is over, and Koei has every right to port own game to a platform that is better suited for it than the Wii.

As for me, day one purchase. HD Samurai Warriors is just what I need to wash the taste of Samurai Heroes out of my mouth.

I would also like to point out that Nintendo is not going to feel "screwed over" by any means. In fact, I think they'll be quite happy by what happened. SW3 sold a few Wiis by being exclusive for a time, and by the time the PS3 game comes out, the game will have finished its sale cycle already.

It won't hurt nNintendo at all, and no doubt they will partner with Tecmo Koei in the future.

That was my point. I doubt exclusivity was ever part of the bargain, so Tecmo Koei has every right to port the game to another console. The deal is complete, the game has been successful, the risk of western release paid off - all is well. Oregano's betrayal sentiment is overblown.

It obviously will hurt Nintendo though, because the message this sends out is that you can just wait to get the games elsewhere, and better. If Samurai Warriors 4 was announced as a Wii exclusive how many people would buy it? If Samurai Warriors 4 was announced as a Wii2 exclusive, how many people would buy the Wii2? Nintendo knows that, and Koei knows that.

...and Nintendo only just published the game in America at the end of september, it could/should still be getting sales so yes this will effect the sales of the Wii version and the sales of the Wii version that Nintendo is taking the risk with. I never said betrayal either, I've already established that.

Also, I understand the keeping the fans happy angle to some extent but this will alienate the fans who did buy a Wii and the game. This exact thing was seen with the Tales of Games and they've effectively alienated half of their audience at this point.

Who exactly would lose out if by some miracle Samurai Warriors 4 was announced as a Nintendo exclusive? Nintendo? No, I don't think losing some sales from one niche game is going to hurt them. Tecmo Koei? No, because even if no one buys the Wii version, it's just going to encourage them to hurry up and release the PS3 version.

Nintendo is taking no risks releasing Samurai Warriors 3. The strategy in releasing Monster Hunter, Dragon Quest and Samurai Warriors was not to make sales (though there were sales targets), it was to introduce three specialized Japanese games to Nintendo's new core demographic (casual gamers). It worked. For many people, myself included, Samurai Warriors 3 was my first Warriors game.

Nintendo's interest in doing this is not for these three games, but a longer-term strategy of bringing more Japanese developers (hello, Monolith) out west.

How does Koei upset its fans? It doesn't. Koei fans are rabid, I am as guilty of this as any. They happily buy new Warriors games because of the addition of a single character, or a quirk like online play. Few, if any, Koei fans are going to stop supporting the publisher because one of their favorite games is ported to another console. Remember, these are the guys that enjoy games that regularly get review scores of 4/10 or lower.

So no one loses. Nintendo got to play with its strategy of bringing Japanese games to the west, Koei gets to sell the same game twice to an audience that will lap it up. Everyone wins.

As I said before, this is business, not school yard politics. Both Nintendo and Koei have reputations for doing right by their fans, and they know what they are doing.

@Oregano You've been pretty steady on the betrayal theme, even if you didn't consciously consider it that way. I never labelled you a fanboy, but you have been overreacting a little.

What Tecmo Koei does with the game isn't under Nintendo's jurisdiction. Without an exclusivity contract, they can do anything they want with the property and Nintendo has no right to complain. And really, like WaltzElf I don't see this being a situation that Nintendo has qualms about.

Sales in Japan have died down so a PS3 re-release will not be competing with themselves from the sales front. As I said before, Nintendo wasn't planning on a blockbuster release with SW3 in the west: it's there to appeal to hardcore Japanophile gamers. It's all good business strategy. I didn't read backstabbing or betrayal at all when I read your first post, which is maybe why you were puzzled at my responses lol.

Those in the know will get the game for what it's worth. Far from being alienated, I think they'll be glad a good niche game is getting this kind of attention from NoA. I'm still perfectly happy with my purchase of the game. Hopefully it means more will be on the way.

That's not what Nintendo's strategy is though, Nintendo wants to improve their standing in the Japanese market through good, exclusive 3rd party releases. Localising, publishing and advertising the games in the west is what they give the publishers in return for the games, it's taking on the risk of the western releases for series that typically do quite badly. Nintendo clearly don't care about bringing Japanese games west considering they've left a lot of games in Japan.

There's also the hope that the franchises will become associated with Nintendo platforms. Nintendo doesn't want to be making these series big and then having the other platform holders reap the benefits, that would be dumb dumb dumb. Koei, by making Samurai Warriors 3 multiplatform, is completely undermining Nintendo's strategy and their platform too because now in the future people won't buy the platform for the game, they'll wait for a port.... and yes Nintendo loses out if the sales of a game on their platform are undercut.

Also you may be right about the difference between Koei fans and Namco fans but have you seen the photos? They didn't just stop buying the games, they cut the games up! They are crazy.

EDIT: I'm just wondering what your guys reactions will be if Nintendo blocks a western release of the PS3 version on the grounds that they own the localisation? Would you still be taking the 'it's a business' standpoint then?

Also it will be competing with the Wii version because they'll be releasing it on the same day they release the expansion on the Wii. The PS3 version of course having the expansion included though, which means it will be cheaper than the Wii version as well.

@Oregano

If they wanted good 3rd Party exclusives, they would've gotten Koei to sign an exclusivity contract. I still don't see how any harm was done? Koei put the game on the Wii, and it was exclusive for a time. It sold well enough, and now that sales have died down, they're selling the game on the PS3 with a little extra content. It happens on the Xbox 360 all the time, and all it means is that now people who own either system will get the chance to purchase those games, while the extra content might entice some fans who own both consoles to buy them twice. If they hadn't gotten that temporary exclusivity, the Xbox 360 might not have gotten the games at all. Same with the Samurai Warriors 3 on the Wii. Trust me, I'd say that far more good has been done here than you'd think.

@Mickeymac: I don't see how it's a good thing though, to get inferior versions of multiplats Nintendo has to help the development of the game, put in content that they own, do the localisation themselves and publish it in regions where they'll probably lose money. Does that not sound messed up to you? And the Wii(and Nintendo) are missing out on all the other Musou game? Also the extra content is because Sony demands that their late ports get extra content.... which really shows how messed up it is, Sony gets to make demands!

...and of course Nintendo wants the games to be exclusive, it's in their interest that only they get the game and yes it is Nintendo's fault for not getting an exclusivity contract.

EDIT: I'm glad we got a discussion out of this but I can't see how you can even begin to suggest that Nintendo has been given the short end of the stick here.