andrewclear

Honestly, when you are making money off of not only their IP, but their product, and giving them a portion of that money....then you kind of have it coming.

The baseball game is the only good one in this mix. It was fantastic back in the day, and it is so utterly crazy, that it will probably be fantastic still today. I used to play the crap out of that game.

You know it is a bogus rumor when they are talking about ray-tracing support in a portable console. We know Apple has expensive hardware, but I doubt even they would opt for selling a portable console for 800 to 1000 dollars.

Maybe, just maybe, they have the Switch on the shelf because they have a few games on the Switch. Maybe, just maybe, they don't have any plans beyond that.

They are working on the BoTW sequel, I wonder if they are doing the majority of it, of all of it. As far as another Xeno game, or new project, I am sure they are working on something there as well. But, considering Xenoblade 2 was mostly outsourced, I do wonder if they would do the same for the next Xeno game, and make a new IP in house.

I never believed the rumors to begin with. Let's start off by asking, who has the money to purchase SE? SE would cost a lot more to purchase than what MS paid for ZeniMax. SE has more franchises, more studios, and generates more revenue than ZeniMax. SE publishes more games than ZeniMax. Also, people tend to forget that SE bought Eidos, so all those studios and properties are there as well.

I could see a company like Capcom, or Namco Bandai being bought, but not SE. SE is one of the largest game producers / publishers out there at the present time. Their only real peers in that department are MS, Sony, Nintendo, and possibly The company that owns THQ Nordic (and all the other studios it acquired recently) as well as Ubisoft. All other publishers are smaller.

I would just like to see them ditch the crappy online services they have been using with the Wii U and Switch and just have Microsoft run their online services.

@GamingFan4Lyf I I liked VII Remake, but I prefer the Xenoblade battle systems (specifically 2). Kingdom Hearts 3 was fun. It was the only game in the series that I enjoyed the battle system on.

@GamingFan4Lyf

I don't mind the turn based, Dragon Quest and Persona nail that system. I don't like the direction FF has taken, and I really do not care for action rpgs as there isn't much depth, just a lot of button mashing.

Xenoblade, Dragon Age, etc, I don't consider to be action based. They are more of a hybrid Action / Turn based system, and they provide more depth than an action rpg, while providing more action than a turn based rpg.

@VoidofLight I love Game Pass. I am not really into Microsoft Exclusives that much, but they have brought a lot of games to the service that I do like. Square Enix has a huge presence on the service. There are some other JRPGs, and regular RPGs, that I enjoy on there as well. Also, they have some pretty good strategy games on there (I love Frost punk, I put enough hours into that in a few months to justify the sub). It is a shame that Sony and Nintendo haven't caught on to this model, but maybe they aren't as willing to throw around the cash in order to get something like this up and running (or maybe they don't have the type of money to lose like Microsoft has).

After sleeping on this, I am torn on what they could be working on. Since they are splitting the money with SE, but funding the development themselves, the franchise has to be popular enough to support that kind of risk.

Also, since they said the are going with a new graphical style, but the game play and story (scenerios) will be the same, then I would assume that the source code for these games might still be around for them to use. If not, then the undertaking of rebuilding the systems, as well as building the levels and creating all the graphics ups the budget of the project, which would mean it would have to sell a good number for them to recoup expenses on a split revenue plan.

I am guessing they pitched this to SE, and the projects are games they love, because they got the short end of the stick in the negotiations. There is no downside for SE, other than the remake being bad, which if that is the biggest concern then SE surely isn't letting them touch the FF franchise (unless it is the tactics series).

@JeanPaul They have said, multiple times that they wont remake Chronotrigger because the creators no longer work for them. That type of honor / respect just doesn't exist in the business world outside of Japan (and I wonder how many other industries / companies are even like that in Japan). Maybe when SE gets a new president, or one of the creators dies, they will actually do something with that property.

@nhSnork Would be nice to finally get VI with new graphics. They should just have the studio who made Octopath make VI with those graphics. But, since it is FF, remaking VI would mean remaking it with much better graphics than that.

@Vortexeo I wish it would be, but that isn't a series, just one game. Though, it would be smart to remake it and capitalize off of the success of the Xenoblade series. But, since it is a Japanese company, they are less likely to do that without the permission of Monolith, since they have a thing for honor. If it was an American company, it would've happened already. Money is thicker than blood...lol.

Maybe the Parasite Eve series? FF is out of the question, unless it is the tactics line. I also doubt Star Ocean, and the Saga series. There are some Mana games they could do. Xenogears isn't a series for them, so that is out the question. There are the Mushasi games, as well as Front Mission. Those are the big ones on the square side.

Enix side we have Star Ocean, which is doubtful since there were remakes of them already. Early DQ is possible, but they did remakes of most of them for the DS. Grandia, which Enix published, would be a great series to do, but I don't think SE has the rights to any of them except Grandia 3. There are the Actraisers, but only the first one is good, so doubt they would bother. Now, for another long shot, the Illusion of Gaia, Soulblaze, and Terranigma series. But, I think from the Enix side, the Valkyrie Profile series would be the most likely suspect.

@sikthvash Nah, it mostly revolves around a difference between Eastern and Western development strategies. In the East, they tend to budget accordingly, and they do not like to go over budget. They have a realistic sales goal in mind, and anytime you go over budget that goal has to be raised. Most Japanese titles are not going to sell a great amount in the West, and in the East, the console market is shrinking, so that also impacts the budget. So, they have to play it safe for a lot of their titles. The Eastern developers are also more prone to make smaller budget titles, and throw in a big budget here and there.

In the West, the major developers focus almost exclusively on big budget titles, that have to sell millions, and rarely do they take a chance on new IP (or new IP that isn't generic garbage that mimics established IP). Indie developers are the go to for the smaller and mid level budget titles in the West, but they don't typically have access to established IP.

So, that is why they go with the safe bet in the East (as well as the West).

@Flangela

If Microsoft made a bigger push toward getting the Japanese developers on board, and especially with a good Japanese Game Pass option, they probably would compete better with Sony over there.

Damnit, 133 series X sold in Japan, and I still can't get one. Maybe I should travel there and buy one, probably got a better chance of getting one than waiting for the scalping market to die.

So, what held the record before this overtook it?

It has been over 3 years since Xenoblade 2 was released (4 years since it was announced), so it would be nice to get a new game from Monolith.

I wonder if Square Enix is number two on the list of top 3rd party publsihers? Or would an indie publisher be in second?

I agree that games are more than books and movies, as they do have the game play aspect. I also do not watch streams of games. I might listen to a let's play of a game that I have already beaten while working (which is rare), but I prefer to actually play the game.

Now, I have to say that life isn't fair, never has been, and never will be. You don't think copyright law is fair, and that is your opinion. The people who produce these works of art also do not believe it is fair that other people can profit off of their work without them getting any profit from that profit.

Think about being a game developer, who works long hours on these projects and makes a decent to good wage depending on your position, but once the game is released you have streamers that make way more than you do by capitalizing off of your work. Now, think about the fact that stability in your industry is iffy, as budget overruns, under performing games, or even publishers not liking how the game is turning out and cancelling it, can cost tens, to hundreds their jobs.

So, my opinion on the issue is that the streamers and content creators who profit off of other people's work are really lucky. I believe that if the company wants a cut, they should get it, and if they don't want a cut, then that is fine too. I believe if a company doesn't want their product used commercially, then that is their right (under the law), and if people don't like the law, get it changed. Until then, it is what it is.

Streamers who don't earn any money off of their streams (or even content creators who do not earn money) can even have their stuff shut down under copy right law, but most companies wouldn't actually go after them.

Also, you need to stop hating corporations. Hell, most people work for corporations. Most small businesses are even corporations (as it is more beneficial to incorporate than not, due to legal liability reasons). Corporations are not evil. People who work for them can be, but people can be evil no matter if a corporation is involved. Also, we, the consumers, are the ones who pick the winners and losers, in terms of businesses. We buy the product. Amazon wouldn't be what they are without us choosing to buy from them (they have had and still do have competitors). Same with game publishers, restaurants, retailers, etc.

@MortalKombat2007 I would tend to agree that it isn't worth the money to go after one streamer. But, say, sales of your games (like RE) start to take a big hit because the stories are online and people want to watch them instead of buying and playing the game, then Capcom will go after the streaming service (not the streamer) and the service will either fight back, or cave and settle.

@arty77 I can see you don't understand COPYRIGHT law. The farmers, furniture/water/power companies do not have any laws protecting their product from being used commercially.

Furniture companies can get patents for their designs and if someone infringes that patent (creates a piece of furniture with that design / feature / etc) without a license, then they will have a lawsuit filed against them and they could settle or take their chances in court.

Streamers could be taken to court, if the companies want to go that route. Some do, but don't want the negative PR, while some don't because they believe the streamers are advertisers for them.

Games like Fortnite is a prime example where streamers are free advertising and bringing potential paying customers to the game.

But, there is a dark side to streaming as well. Companies like Tell Tale went out of business because of streaming and let's plays. Many other single player story games have to deal with this problem, and thus, multiplayer is being embedded in almost all these games now to counter the sales they would lose from the story being out there.

People who stream movies and talk about them while streaming does affect the income of some of the cast and crew, who took a minor salary in exchange for a percentage of royalties.

Music is more tricky. Many radio stations have been getting away with playing the music and not paying a dime for it, while others paid. Music has to be liscensed to be used in movies and games. Now, I believe that there is a certain time amount you can play, without infringing on the copyright, and many movies / tv shows / radio shows take advantage of that loop hole.

Books are also covered under copyright. You probably would agree that a movie studio should not be allowed to take your book and make it into a movie without giving you money for the right to do so. That is, in essence, what streamers are doing. They are taking someone else's work, and making money off of it, without giving them credit. Sure, you can argue that they bought the game, so they should be able to do whatever they want with it. But, the movie studio bought a copy of the book, does that mean they can do whatever they want with it?

The government will get involved one day (because governments these days can't stay out of people's business), and I would guess that it will be a messy fight, as the rights holders will be fighting against the streaming platforms and not the streamers.

Digital makes the publisher / console makers more money, as the retailer is no longer involved.

The real reason we have collectors editions is they are trying to make more money, due to the increased expense of making and publishing these games. Gaming has become a very risky endeavor, like movies, with how much money is invested into making and marketing them.

Imagine predicting that a game will sell 4 million copies, and it barely sells 1 million. The company would've eaten 60% or more of the development and marketing costs for that product.

The price of games has stayed steady for decades (NES games were 59, 69, 79, based on the cartridge size), but the price of development has increased exponentially.

People don't tend to work for free (I am pretty sure none of us on this site does). We need to realize that the gaming industry is a business, and they have to make money or we will have no more games.

@TheFrenchiestFry

Honestly, I would argue that Microsoft caters to all gamers now more than Sony. Nintendo does cater to the younger crowd more than the other two, and they have been trying since the Wii U to cater to adults as well, but with only a handful of products. Fortunately for Nintendo, a lot of Adults like the products designed for the younger audience.

Sony has gone all in on the mature and adult orientated products, while Microsoft has been branching out to all ages. They have a lot of games they have published that is for all ages, like Sea of Thieves, Cuphead, Minecraft Dungeons (wont count original Minecraft as it was developed before they bought the company), Ori, and many more. Hell, look at the game pass lineup and you see games for all ages and genres.

@nerdface Why do people have such a problem with companies making profit (or even record profits), and not give a damn when they are scrapping by, or losing money?

I don't know about you, but I prefer that companies make profits, so they can stay in business and provide jobs. While anyone can start a business, it is risky to do so, and most of them fail within 7 years. The ones that survive provide more benefit than the perceived wrongs that our society wishes to place on them.

Also, for the record, I believe the streaming is violating copyright laws. The streamers didn't make the product, but they are using the product to make money, without liscensing it. They should have to provide a portion of their earnings to the company that makes the product. This is especially a thorny situation when it comes to movies, tv shows, and music, where a lot of the cast / crew / artists get royalties from the sales and licensing of the product. Games do not provide royalties to individuals, generally, but if it was an indie studio that made the game and it was published by a big publisher (who most likely financed the game), then the studio will get royalties after the publisher recoups their expenses.

What I see in this is Capcom actually being nice. Many gamers and streamers have an unrealistic sense of entitlement. The only people entitled to make money off of Capcom's products, are employees and partners of Capcom, as well as retailers.

@Ryu_Niiyama And, I am sure there are thousands of people like you and I. Still makes you wonder how it is only 8.0 attach rate. Maybe they are only referencing physical sales?

Only 8.0 attach rate? I have easily purchased over 50 games so far for the switch. There has to be a lot of people with 1 or 2 games to be bringing this average down.