Topic: Samurai Warriors 3 for PS3.

oo a big arguement Ill watch

Your reasoning is the complete reverse of how events happened. Nintendo wasn't putting loads of effort in to get an inferior version of a multiplatform title because it wasn't a multiplatform title at the time - ergo it was not inferior to anything. As far as we know, the PS3 port wasn't even conceived during the development of the Wii version.

You also over-credit Nintendo's involvement with the game. Mario Club is only the quality assurance department of Nintendo. They do game testing. NoJ did not get hands-on with the development of the game, only with QA. I think credit for coding and asset creation should go to Omega Force - you know, the development studio who made the game.

The only reason you could call SW3 Wii inferior to the PS3 version is because the Wii itself is inferior to the PS3. But the console's lack of hardware power and HD output is Nintendo's fault, not Tecmo Koei's.

I also imagine the bonus content of the PS3 version will be replacing the Nintendo character and mode, since those would definitely be exclusive to the Wii release.

Also I notice you're putting a lot of words in Nintendo's mouth, so to speak. Nintendo doesn't strike many exclusivity deals with third parties, so that's obviously not a major part of their business plan.

Whether Nintendo gets the other Musou games is irrelevant, we're talking about Samurai Warriors 3 here.

I don't expect that to happen... but if it does, I don't really have a reaction. It doesn't affect me at all lol. It just proves NoA somehow wrangled an exclusivity deal with Tecmo Koei for the western release. The "it's a business" statement still stands under that unlikely circumstance.

Why didn't you mention there was going to be an expansion of the game of the game for the Wii? That shows how much Tecmo Koei supports the Wii version of the game. It also shows the PS3 port is being made because that there is demand for SW3 from Japanese PS3 users and they decided to meet that demand. So they don't abandon the Wii version, but they also cater to PS3 owners. It's a win-win situation. Sounds good and fair to me.

Where is your evidence that Sony made demands for more Samurai Warriors 3 content? Where is your evidence that Sony always demands more content for games on the PS3? Or is this more overreacting?

The way I see it, Tecmo Koei saw a chance to expand on an already completed game and they took the opportunity to do so. This is not uncommon. And if you say the Wii is getting an expansion, then this new content is obviously not because of Sony's demands.

I look forward to a western release of the Wii expansion.

Skips over all the - tl;dr

I didn't buy SW3 for the Wii because of the whole dual-layered disc not working on the Wii garbage. I really wanted the game but I am not running a lens cleaner disc 5 times everytime I want to play. I am also not going to send in my Wii and have thousand+ hours of save data wiped for it. I do reaaly want it though.

So I am most pleased there will be a far superior version for the PS3. _{if it comes out in the west}

The Mario Club don't just play a game and 'That's alright, it works.' They actually give feedback on the game to make improvements and they are there for internal use primarily, any assistance for third parties is an extra from Nintendo. I never claimed Nintendo made the game did I? and the port was obviously conceived either during or immediately after the initial release, it's only a year old and it was definitely conceived before Nintendo had actually published it in the west.

The game's inferior because it's lacking content that the PS3 version has and the PS3 isn't just replacing the one mode it has 'two new modes, three new generals, 10 new stories and more new elements.'(was in the original article) and of course the other mode is exclusive, Nintendo own it! That's a poor justification, the other mode's aren't owned by Sony!

Of course Nintendo does exclusivity deals, they did it with Capcom last gen(Which fell through), Crystal Chronicles, Dragon Quest, Monster Hunter, Fatal Frame(which Tecmo Koei screwed up) and they wouldn't have published the game if it was multiplatform, that's pretty obvious.

Why is it irrelevant about the other Musou games, Nintendo had to do all that for just one game that they don't get to keep anyway and they miss out on all the others? That's not fair...like at all.

How is that sour grapes as well? The Wii version being the only one on the market benefits Nintendo because people who want the game have to get the Wii version and they did do the localisation so if not it means their direct work will be used for another platform.

The expansion is going to be a full price game, and still doesn't have all the content of the PS3 version.... the PS3 version is the price of one game and has more content than both of the Wii versions put together, how is that fair?

It's been noted that for late ports Sony demands extra content to compensate for the fact that the game comes later, this was said in relation to Star Ocean 4 International but it will be true in this case as well.

EDIT: To put what I'm saying another way, just look at what Nintendo and Sony gained and gave:

Nintendo Gained: Earlier Release, Murasame Castle mode
Sony Gained: SW3+XL content and extra content on top of that
Nintendo gave: development assistance, promoted the title, Nintendo owned content and character included, localised the game, published the game in the west.
Sony gave: Nothing(that we know of, they may have given some incentive)

How is that fair?

@Oregano

That's very fair, actually. Those who missed out on the Wii version who own a PS3 now get a version on their console that also includes the expansion so they don't have to buy the PS3 version a year after the Wii version and still have to purchase the expansion for full content. If you already have a copy on the Wii, now you don't have to buy a full priced PS3 copy to get the Expansion pack, losing all of your precious progress, and that's assuming you even have a PS3. If you don't, now you won't miss out. If you've waited this long to get a copy of Samurai Warriors 3, now's the best time, since you can get the full experience no matter what the console for the same price (by the time the expansion comes out, the price should've dropped to maybe $40 or even $30, or the Yen equivelants, rather) while still giving the developers money somehow. Seriously, dude, how does anybody lose out in this situation??? It seems to me like the smartest move they've made in a while.

Also, the only Additions in Star Ocean: The Last Hope International is the inclusion of a Japanese Language Track and some Anime art in the menus. While that may be enough of a reason to intice someone like me to buy the game twice, I'd hardly call that an unfair deal (or even a major improvement). Eternal Sonata is a very different story, but in the Xbox 360's case, I'm just glad it has a good JRPG in the first place. The fact that the PS3 version is improved just means it was worth the wait.

From the sounds of it though the Xtreme Legends update doesn't include all the content of the PS3 version and it will be a full priced release which means it's two full priced releases on the Wii or one full priced release on the PS3. That's not fair and the Wii version is still full priced here despite being released earlier this year(April?). And factoring in price slashing after release isn't right anyway because a day 1 adopter will be paying full price either way and that's less on the PS3. I may be proven wrong in the near future but it seems like the PS3 owners are getting everything except the part that Nintendo actually owns AND more, for a lower price.

It's also not so much about getting people to buy the game a second time though, it's about swaying any potential buyers. There's also the fact that some of these early releases have been incomplete, that's been mostly Namco with Tales though.

EDIT: Also my concern is that the third party lineup for the Wii is just getting worse after this because not only are Koei skipping the Wii with the other Musou games, but then taking the one Wii Musou elsewhere, Nintendo is also less likely to invest heavily in the third party games if they're getting the short end of the stick and not keeping them exclusive and that means less games for me.

sigh this argument's gone silly. Oregano, either you're a fanboy, or you simply don't understand how business works. Either way I can categorically promise you you are on the wrong track here.

I've yet to see an actual counterargument to my claim that Nintendo is getting the short end of the stick here, the sentiment that's been expressed is that Nintendo is lucky to have got the game at all and it only came about because of how much they invested in the game.... in which case that's just as messed up.

Guess it's good to know Ad hominem is still a popular logical fallacy though. So yeah if that's what this is devolving to it's probably better this was locked(or we just ended it here).

I've yet to see an actual counterargument to my claim that Nintendo is getting the short end of the stick here,

But you have. You're just ignoring it because you're determined to turn Nintendo into some kind of poor kid that's being bullied by the big and nasty Koei.

Again with the ad hominem, stay classy and what's this argument then? You seem to have ignored everything I said and just tried to belittle me, as did HolyMackerel.

I explained my points, you resorted to a logical fallacy.

No. I explained to you how Nintendo is not going to be harmed, or upset in any such way by Koei releasing Samurai Warriors 3 on PS3. It wasn't Nintendo's strategy to have it as an exclusive title, as 1) Koei would never sign an exclusive license to take the Warriors franchise away from the PlayStation and 2) Nintendo didn't sign an exclusive agreement with Koei.

Nintendo got what it wanted. End of story. It's not hard done by, it's not betrayed by Koei, it's not being bullied by a (much) smaller corporation. I'm not stating an opinion here, it's fact.

If you still don't understand this, than again, you're either a fanboy, or you simply don't understand business.

If you think that putting forth my reasoning for my differing stance and asking you to give proof of yours is a personal attack, then I've been wasting my time this entire thread.

Reading back over this thread, people's responses have been calm and considered. I see no mud-slinging or name-calling. We have been discussing your points almost exclusively, not ignoring them. You don't need to take it personally when someone disagrees with you.

..and I provided a counter point that of course Nintendo wanted it as an exclusive, that's why they published it(in the west) and implemented content they owned. Nintendo clearly wanted control over the game and took measures to restrict it to their platforms. Whether or not Nintendo legally bound Koei to exclusivity is not in question, they did not, whether it was intended to be an exclusive is another issue. To draw a comparison to another franchise, Nintendo directly funded the development of Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles specifically to get Nintendo exclusive FF games but they don't have an exclusivity contract.

Also legally right =/= morally right.

What do you think Nintendo wanted by the way? I posit that the intention was to get the game as a Wii exclusive, along with other third party games, to make the Wii looks more valuable, in which case it's a disaster for them as it's directly undermined the value of the Wii. If the intention was just to get the game on the Wii in the first place(as MickeyMac seemed to imply) then they did get what they wanted but that doesn't mean that they didn't get the short end of the stick because the Wii version is going to have less content and they sacrificed a lot to get it.

EDIT: You continually implied that I was a fanboy by continuing the betrayal rhetoric which has pretty clear connotations and directly accused me of overreacting. You were belittling me and Waltzelf definitely ignored my counterpoints and clearly went with an ad hominem fallacy and you've just gone with another logical fallacy there because nowhere did I say disagreeing with me and asking me to validate my points was a personal attack. Nice strawman!

This.
Also, I guess I'll be getting the ps3 version instead if I ever do decide to get it

Wow, you haven't read a word anyone else has written.

Nintendo did not ask for an exclusive agreement, nor would Koei grant them one. A year's lead time is a massive headstart, and the Japan market is all that counts for Musou games.

Nintendo licensed out one of its most obscure characters from one of its most obscure back catalogue games. Stop pretending Musamane Castle and the samurai in it (I can't even remember his name after playing the game for 60 hours) is somehow significant. It is not Mario in there bopping on people's heads. It cost Nintendo nothing whatsoever to give that character away. And they got a year's lead time in Japan, as you have now been told 100 times.

Nintendo clearly wanted control over the game and took measures to restrict it to their platforms.

No they didn't. Nintendo exercised no control over Samurai Warriors 3. It plays the same as every other Mosou game. Stop acting like Nintendo was involved in the development, beyond a very light touch to help make sure Nintendo got a year's lead time in Japan (101 times).

Whether or not Nintendo legally bound Koei to exclusivity is not in question, they did not, whether it was intended to be an exclusive is another issue.

It wasn't. Nintendo didn't sign an exclusivity agreement with Koei. If you don't sign one of those, you can hardly be surprised when a game goes multiplatform.

To draw a comparison to another franchise, Nintendo directly funded the development of Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles specifically to get Nintendo exclusive FF games but they don't have an exclusivity contract.

That was an exclusive agreement, though. A better comparison is Resident Evil 4, which was "meant" to be GC exclsive. Huh. I guess Capcom "betrayed" Nintendo as well.

Also legally right =/= morally right.

And this proves you don't understand business. Business has an moral obligation to its shareholders. Koei was not doing right by its shareholders keeping a Musou game off the PlayStation 3. Therefore Koei is now acting with moral integrity.

What do you think Nintendo wanted by the way?

As I already explained, and you didn't read, Nintendo wanted to introduce its new casual audience to three very Japanese games, and open the door for more Japanese goodness down the track (such as Monolith's game).

I posit that the intention was to get the game as a Wii exclusive, along with other third party games, to make the Wii looks more valuable, in which case it's a disaster for them as it's directly undermined the value of the Wii.

No, what I posit is correct, and I've actually spoken to the various Nintendo senior staff at press events. You're just guessing, and then igoring the evidence against that.

If the intention was just to get the game on the Wii in the first place(as MickeyMac seemed to imply) then they did get what they wanted but that doesn't mean that they didn't get the short end of the stick because the Wii version is going to have less content and they sacrificed a lot to get it.

Testing and Marketing are two of the least intensive parts of the development process, so stop acting like Nintendo lend Miyamoto to oversee the product of this game. They didn't. Nintendo didn't sacrifice anything. It made an investment, and given the fact that Samurai Warriors performed better than expected on the Wii (at least, iirc), the investment paid off.

And Nintendo got a years lead time on one of the most important franchises in Japan, in Japan (102 times).

Now, I have dismissed your argument for the final time. You have said the same thing over and over and over again in this thread, and ignored any evidence that anyone has presented to you.

But Koei is providing compensation to Sony for giving the Wii a year headstart through exclusive content.

Nintendo was under no obligation to include that IP though and that's clearly a promotional point for it, they even had Miyamoto appear at the event to announce that. It provides no benefit to Nintendo to include that IP other than to actually own part of the content in the game.

I never once claimed that Nintendo took creative control, they took publishing control. As you said Japan is the only region that matter for Musou, they could have introduced the franchise to their casual audience, as you suggest, without directly localising it and publishing it themselves.

It wasn't. Nintendo didn't sign an exclusivity agreement with Koei. If you don't sign one of those, you can hardly be surprised when a game goes multiplatform.

I agree, it was foolish on Nintendo's part.

These is no contract on the franchise though, Akitoshi Kawazu has said they can go multiplatform but they haven't because Yamauchi asked them not to. As to Resident Evil example well Resident Evil was announced for the PS2 with extra content right before it was released on the Gamecube directly undermining that release... if that's not a 'betrayal' then what is? They actually undermined their own product.

That is certainly a different perspective that I can't completely disagree with but then the question goes to the other Musou games are they doing right by their shareholders by ignoring the Wii and the Musou fanbase they established there.

I did read that and I disagreed with that assessment, to further elaborate on what I said(and you don't seem to have replied to that point) Nintendo has left a whole lot of games in Japan including Monolith's game(s) and Zangeki no Reginleiv which is even in a similar genre and which they have complete control over.

No, what I posit is correct, and I've actually spoken to the various Nintendo senior staff at press events. You're just guessing, and then igoring the evidence against that.

You didn't say that previously so you can't say I ignored that, and that does add some validity to what you say but they're still not going to disclose their strategy and deals with you and if they actually told you the nitty gritty of it all then you'd be under NDA.

Nintendo had no obligation to supply either testing or marketing and marketing is a massive part of it and it's silly for you to even dismiss it. As for the second part I have no idea.

That's kind of ironic considering this post and I haven't ignored anything, I've addressed it all but you definitely ignored a lot of what I said because in this post you repeated a couple of points that I had already addressed without replying to my counterpoints.

EDIT: Anyway I've got to go, it's late here. Still make a reply but can you stop with the accusations and patronising attitude?

No, but me reading into your posts' implications of betrayal and saying you are overreacting somehow counts as a personal attack. Those were signals to you to temper your emotions and reconsider the situation from a more rational standpoint, not an attempt to discredit your stance by belittling you or calling you a "fanboy" which I never did. There was no belittling going on, and you took them way too personally. I don't think any less of you because of your opinions on the matter.

But if you'd rather argue logical fallacies and have people make personal attacks on you, you should make a new thread about that. Last time I checked, we were discussing Samurai Warriors 3.

When one party starts taking a debate too personally and brings out the logical fallacies, it's time the discussion died. We're retreading old ground repeatedly, so reasoning from either side of the discussion clearly does not work. Nothing more can be gained. All cards are on the table. All parties are too stubborn to change their opinions.

Knowing tbd, thread lock may be imminent.

Yeh, it's probably better if it locked because there's enough hostility as it is and I am partially to blame. I'm going to report this post to get one of the mods attentions.

i see this thread has begun chasing its tail. thanks for the heads-up, guys.