Support NeoGAF

[test_account]

Edit:
As for Vita, I think a big mistake was the jump they made to get the price down to $250 at launch to match 3DS, instead of going for a higher initial price. That initial $250 announcement made a lot of people hyped up on the Vita prospects, but if left no wiggle room if sales started off poorly, and early adopters are the least price conscious. Compare a $250 announced Vita, followed by a price dropped 3DS making Vita seem more overpriced to a $350 Vita with room to drop the price a few months in to help spark. It'd be hard to imagine a $350 Vita doing significantly worse than the current system.

Just a thought.

I dont think that Sony priced the Vita after the 3DS actually. The japanese price (which was the first price announced) for the 3DS was announced in late September 2010. The Vita was first announced, and showed off playable, about 4 months later.

Unless Sony has some inside information within Nintendo knowing the 3DS price long in advance, i think that the developement of the Vita started long before Nintendo announced the 3DS price. And i think that a ballpark price was set before they started developing the Vita.

The only thing that could happen the way i see it is that Sony first planned to sell the Vita with a big overhead, but then decided to drop this after seeing the 3DS price. From the Vita components teardown, and estimating the cost of assembly and shipping etc., it is estimated that the Vita's developement costs is around $250. I'm not sure that Sony would have tried to sell the Vita with such big overhead.

I wonder what would have happened if the Vita was $350/$400 (3G model) at launch though. I think that Nintendo would have gone into panic mode regardless, so then the difference in price would be even bigger. I also think that the launch week would have had lowered sales at $350. The PS3 only opened with ~81k in it's launch week. I think this was mainly due to its high price.

 

[frankie_baby]

I must have missed the announcement. Link?

A 2013 release for mh4 is a pretty safe bet, capcom is gonna want to milk sales of tri g for as long as possible (probably a best release this xmas) and will want a sizable enough 3ds userbase so 4 can pull in similar numbers to 3rd

 

[DCharlie]

I must have missed the announcement. Link?

Not officially announced - it could very well be 2012. It doesn't change too much in terms of the theoretical imaginary existance of a Vita MH game. Just changes the timing.

Again though - we're dealing in imaginary games and their schedules for the Vita version. It's not really a discussion worth having as it's all going to pulled from up my arse because no one knows whats going on outside of Capcom, Sony, and possibly play.com!

 

[jesusraz]

Good to see Resident Evil still hanging in there, but it's disappointing that Spirit Camera and Love Plus dropped away so quickly...

And hooray for Theaterhythm. Now to just see if it will have enough legs to get SE to consider bringing it over to EU and NA

Already being considered.

 

[Nekki]

I guess by now we can say the 3DS is on a pretty steady path to being profitable. Probably the software sales are balancing the losses made on hardware (if there truly are any, which I think there are).

We can all agree the 3DS ecosystem is a healthy one and one that 3rd parties are surely going to be eyeing from now on.

On the other hand, Vita.. man, this is going to be a tough battle. I've never really cared for Sony that much, but the picture that is being painted is quite interesting, and I can only say that whatever they bring on the 9th... well I just hope it's good announcements.

What are the odds of them doing things that will change Vita's fate? I believe the chances are quite slim, but the chance is there, and I'd be happy to be surprised.

For the rest, what can be said, overall I'm very happy with Revelations sales, since (of the games that just keep selling) it was the one that cast more doubts among people, but it seems to be holding its ground well, even if it won't have a life past 300-350k. Those should be quite good sales!!

Also surprised at HM, is it on it's way to beating A Wonderful Life?

 

[Box of Bunnies]

Are the standalone Great Battle Full Blast and the Twin Box with Battle Dodgeball 3 being tracked together or separately?

 

[Dash Kappei]

There's no sign of any levelling off - this is only statistical noise away from last week's drop.

It's really not statistical noise anymore when the platform has been dropping circa10% of its previous week's sales with each new weekly sales tracking without ever gaining some, it's a trend.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Whoa, just north of 10k...

 

[Dash Kappei]

The game PSV needs the most it's actually coming for it's major competitor:

God bless you Captain Hindsight!!

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

I guess by now we can say the 3DS is on a pretty steady path to being profitable. Probably the software sales are balancing the losses made on hardware (if there truly are any, which I think there are).

The 3DS becoming profitable is totally interdependent of how well it's selling. It's just a matter of the components becoming cheaper. Unless you're talking about Nintendo recovering the overall losses by selling each system at a loss, in which case I'd say that was never even a question given that the 3DS will be sold at a loss for roughly one year of it's presumable 6-7 year lifetime.


Also, would someone be willing to give me some sales data for previous entries in the persona franchise? I'm curious about what kind of bump I can expect when June 14th rolls around.

 

[donny2112]

I wonder what would have happened if the Vita was $350/$400 (3G model) at launch though. I think that Nintendo would have gone into panic mode regardless, so then the difference in price would be even bigger. I also think that the launch week would have had lowered sales at $350. The PS3 only opened with ~81k in it's launch week. I think this was mainly due to its high price.

Yes, it probably would've launched less, but the reasoning for the higher initial price is more psychological. A $250 Vita 6 months after launch with it launching at $350 could seem like a pretty good deal compared to a $250 Vita 6 months after launch at the launch price. Price it too high to start off with and then lower the price a few months in to make it seem like a better deal. Sort of like those "50% off!" sales, where no one in their right mind would've bought it at the full price, in any case.

I don't think that was Nintendo's intention with 3DS, but it worked out that way. The price drop to $170 made it seem like it was a good deal, even though it probably should've been that at launch. A $250 Vita price reduced from $350 seems like a better deal, in that case.

 

[Principate]

The 3DS becoming profitable is totally interdependent of how well it's selling. It's just a matter of the components becoming cheaper. Unless you're talking about Nintendo recovering the overall losses by selling each system at a loss, in which case I'd say that was never even a question given that the 3DS will be sold at a loss for roughly one year of it's presumable 6-7 year lifetime.


Also, would someone be willing to give me some sales data for previous entries in the persona franchise? I'm curious about what kind of bump I can expect when June 14th rolls around.

Actually it is dependent on how well it's software is selling which are being sold at a profit. If it sells a lot of software in proportion to it's hardware then it will have a very large effect on it's profitability. Hardware sales also increase the potenial number of software sales.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Vita

didn't it have a few titles in the top 10 games in the last Media Crate thread?

 

[perfectchaos007]

Any notable Vita titles releasing this week that could spur sales?

 

[TreasureHunterG]

God bless you Captain Hindsight!!

Fine, then tell this to EVERYONE, not just me, who's saying "PSV needs Monster Hunter", "PSV needs games". I find funny everyone overreacting about my commentary when what was being discussed in this thread was about this and MH for Vita was even mentioned before me. Oh, please, excuse me.

 

[frostbyte]

Vita just hanging in there by a sliver. Hopefully, Sony's Game Heaven thing will announce some games that will spur sales.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Any notable Vita titles releasing this week that could spur sales?

Unless the March 9th announcement leads to Sony announcing a game that is going to launch in the very near future, the next title for PSV that is expected to move significant units is the Persona 4 port releasing on June 14th.

 

[MasterSheen]

Vita

didn't it have a few titles in the top 10 games in the last Media Crate thread?

Nope, not even top 20. Only 3 games in top 50.

 

[charlequin]

Judging by the shift in PSP and DS/i sales post 3DS launch... I don't see it.

That isn't a good metric to judge the position he's proposing. PSP and DS sales in 2012 are more or less purely driven by actual software; PSP is still getting it and DS isn't. If we're talking about "successor" in a sense that doesn't include BC (which it couldn't here, since neither new system plays retail PSP games) measuring the direct dropoff of predecessor sales isn't going to be helpful since those will still mostly be driven by new software.

Instead, probably the best way to judge which system(s) 3DS is "succeeding" in Japan is to watch what franchises it's acquiring and their performance relative to preceding entries. I think if KH does well, MH grows on its next entry, we see more PSP franchises see 3DS announcements, etc. that would solidify the idea that 3DS is taking over portions of the PSP's market.

Like, the best example I can think of here is the PSX, which was clearly eating Nintendo's lunch and actually saw a huge number of franchises go SNES -> PSX, but which I doubt very much had its unit sales correspond to SNES declines the way you're suggesting here.

I am still surprised and confused that Sony allowed Monster Hunter to go to the 3DS. Granted Capcom can do what it wants with it's franchise

Again, strategic considerations are way more important than moneyhats. No platform-holder can actually afford to pay the amount of money that would make up for turning an awesome-selling franchise into a crappily-selling one; in order to sway a really popular franchise to your system, you probably have to pay money and make a compelling case that you'll deliver an equal or greater amount of sales compared to the competition. If Sony is having trouble making the latter part of that case, the former part is basically irrelevant.

It's really not statistical noise anymore when the platform has been dropping circa10% of its previous week's sales with each new weekly sales tracking without ever gaining some, it's a trend.

That's what he meant -- that the difference between this week's drop and last week's drop was just statistical noise.

 

[donny2112]

Also, would someone be willing to give me some sales data for previous entries in the persona franchise? I'm curious about what kind of bump I can expect when June 14th rolls around.

The original games on PS2 sold higher, but it's probably best to compare to the PSP re-releases.

PSP Persona - 95K / 156K
PSP Persona 3 - 108K / 209K
PSP Persona 2 - 62K / 89K

Persona 2 (2011) came out after Persona 3 (2009), so these are arranged in chronological release date.

 

[Kazerei]

Yeah ... kind of sad that Persona 4 is the next "big" release for Vita. It's not that big :\

 

[AranhaHunter]

Again, strategic considerations are way more important than moneyhats. No platform-holder can actually afford to pay the amount of money that would make up for turning an awesome-selling franchise into a crappily-selling one; in order to sway a really popular franchise to your system, you probably have to pay money and make a compelling case that you'll deliver an equal or greater amount of sales compared to the competition. If Sony is having trouble making the latter part of that case, the former part is basically irrelevant.

I don't think that's 100% true. It really depends how big the moneyhat is and what it consists of. MS' early JP exclusive big titles kind of imply that you don't need the latter in your scenario if you have enough of the former. I also don't think the "No platform-holder can actually afford to pay the amount of money that would make up for turning an awesome-selling franchise into a crappily-selling one" is necessarily true. If MS, for example, wanted they could get DQXI exclusive on their system and I'm sure you know that. Obviously it would be a horrible business move on their part as they would never get a return on their investment. There's a difference between being able to afford and not over paying to get a game on your platform.

Your assertion is interesting though, so let me ask you, do you think Nintendo offered a moneyhat, of any kind, to Capcom for MH exclusivity or do you think that was just a business move on Capcom's part with no moneyhat involved?

 

[guek]

Isn't the term "moneyhat" pretty insufficient though for describing business deals of this nature? I'm sure some games are outright bought and sold in terms of funding for exclusivity, but isn't it often times publishing deals, help with marketing, etc.? Honest question as I'd like to know what moneyhats usually entail.

 

[AdventureRacing]

I don't think that's 100% true. It really depends how big the moneyhat is and what it consists of. MS' early JP exclusive big titles kind of imply that you don't need the latter in your scenario if you have enough of the former. I also don't think the "No platform-holder can actually afford to pay the amount of money that would make up for turning an awesome-selling franchise into a crappily-selling one" is necessarily true. If MS, for example, wanted they could get DQXI exclusive on their system and I'm sure you know that. Obviously it would be a horrible business move on their part as they would never get a return on their investment. There's a difference between being able to afford and not over paying to get a game on your platform.

Your assertion is interesting though, so let me ask you, do you think Nintendo offered a moneyhat, of any kind, to Capcom for MH exclusivity or do you think that was just a business move on Capcom's part with no moneyhat involved?

The early MS JP exclusives are nothing like the sort of games being discussed though. Games like FF, DQ and MH are just massive company defining games. The sort of moneyhats required to secure them would be so large that they aren't even worth discussing.

I have no doubt that nintendo offered incentives to secure MH. However the only reason they would have been able to do so is because taking the game onto a nintendo platform was something that would have offered benefits anyway. So it's more of a deal sweetener rather than 'here's 100 million dollars make us an exclusive monster hunter'.

 

[SlipperySlope]

Vita just hanging in there by a sliver. Hopefully, Sony's Game Heaven thing will announce some games that will spur sales.

Your avatar is how I picture Sony's executives:

 

[Pureauthor]

First we need to define whether 'moneyhat' means 'we will pay you X amount of monies if you put game A on our system' (which is frankly a stupid way of going about things), or 'if you put game A on our systems we will offer you printing and publishing benefits Y and Z'.

 

[AdventureRacing]

First we need to define whether 'moneyhat' means 'we will pay you X amount of monies if you put game A on our system' (which is frankly a stupid way of going about things), or 'if you put game A on our systems we will offer you printing and publishing benefits Y and Z'.

Well if it's the latter it kind of makes the whole discussion pointless as i'm sure that happens for pretty much any big exclusive game. Generally when people refer to sony/MS/nintendo money hatting a company for a game i think they are referring to the former.

 

[charlequin]

I don't think that's 100% true. It really depends how big the moneyhat is and what it consists of. MS' early JP exclusive big titles kind of imply that you don't need the latter in your scenario if you have enough of the former.

When you actually look at these titles, though, almost none of them were actually exclusive (for example, Vesperia and Star Ocean got better-selling PS3 releases later on.) When you look at it, Microsoft wound up paying a huge stack of money for timed exclusivity on a few titles that weren't all that significant and had little real impact on their platform.

If MS, for example, wanted they could get DQXI exclusive on their system and I'm sure you know that.

This is a terrible example. I am confident there is literally no amount of money that would lead to DQXI being exclusive on a Microsoft system.

Even so, though, plug FF in there instead. The revenue in Japan alone for a new FF title (well, in the past anyway) is upwards of $100m. The PS3 revenue worldwide for FFXIII was upwards of $250m. And that's assuming no strategic relevance to the choice (i.e. that it won't affect future franchise releases.) When you get into this kind of territory, I think you're well outside the realm where it's actually plausible for any publicly-traded platform-holder to actually write a check that's guaranteed to have zero direct return.

Like, I mean, yes, technically, it's possible for Microsoft to cut someone a check for $100m, but you don't just find that in the couch.

Your assertion is interesting though, so let me ask you, do you think Nintendo offered a moneyhat, of any kind, to Capcom for MH exclusivity or do you think that was just a business move on Capcom's part with no moneyhat involved?

I've talked about this a lot. I think Capcom weighed the options and legitimately thought the 3DS was a better choice but they always had PSP and Vita in their back pockets as potential options if it came to that; I think they held out for "moneyhats" (specifically, in all likelihood, a Western marketing partnership like the one DQ has now) anyway to try to extract as good a deal as possible for the platform switch, but took a payment that in cash dollar equivalents would never have been sufficient to get them to move if they actually preferred the Vita straight-up.

 

[Man God]

They advertised the hell out of DQ IX and MH Tri in the US.

Tri had quite a few tv spots during fairly popular programs and while I don't remember ever seeing DQ IX on the television it was literally the only ad Hulu played during every show I watched that summer.

 

[charlequin]

Well if it's the latter it kind of makes the whole discussion pointless as i'm sure that happens for pretty much any big exclusive game. Generally when people refer to sony/MS/nintendo money hatting a company for a game i think they are referring to the former.

As best I can determine, the latter is almost completely non-existent. Co-marketing isn't actually that common normally, so it's a very effective way to essentially offer $X million dollars to another company without actually making a direct payment.

 

[BishopLamont]

When you actually look at these titles, though, almost none of them were actually exclusive (for example, Vesperia and Star Ocean got better-selling PS3 releases later on.) When you look at it, Microsoft wound up paying a huge stack of money for timed exclusivity on a few titles that weren't all that significant and had little real impact on their platform.



This is a terrible example. I am confident there is literally no amount of money that would lead to DQXI being exclusive on a Microsoft system.

Even so, though, plug FF in there instead. The revenue in Japan alone for a new FF title (well, in the past anyway) is upwards of $100m. The PS3 revenue worldwide for FFXIII was upwards of $250m. And that's assuming no strategic relevance to the choice (i.e. that it won't affect future franchise releases.) When you get into this kind of territory, I think you're well outside the realm where it's actually plausible for any publicly-traded platform-holder to actually write a check that's guaranteed to have zero direct return.

Like, I mean, yes, technically, it's possible for Microsoft to cut someone a check for $100m, but you don't just find that in the couch.



I've talked about this a lot. I think Capcom weighed the options and legitimately thought the 3DS was a better choice but they always had PSP and Vita in their back pockets as potential options if it came to that; I think they held out for "moneyhats" (specifically, in all likelihood, a Western marketing partnership like the one DQ has now) anyway to try to extract as good a deal as possible for the platform switch, but took a payment that in cash dollar equivalents would never have been sufficient to get them to move if they actually preferred the Vita straight-up.

Yep, big exclusive always have other factors that matter more than just money hat for it to become a reality. Companies want franchise growth, simply throwing a game on any system without proper thinking leads to franchises declining or stabilize rather than growth. Ofcourse money hats still exist because it helps third parties support the platform even more, and if they already decided it was the proper platform for the franchise, the money hat just means extra income.

The 3DS becoming profitable is totally interdependent of how well it's selling. It's just a matter of the components becoming cheaper. Unless you're talking about Nintendo recovering the overall losses by selling each system at a loss, in which case I'd say that was never even a question given that the 3DS will be sold at a loss for roughly one year of it's presumable 6-7 year lifetime.


Also, would someone be willing to give me some sales data for previous entries in the persona franchise? I'm curious about what kind of bump I can expect when June 14th rolls around.

Nintendo already told us that the more 3DS they produce the cheaper it is overall for them to manufacture it. Thats why slow sales of 3DS is unwanted, giving Nintendo more reason to drop the price so early.

As best I can determine, the latter is almost completely non-existent. Co-marketing isn't actually that common normally, so it's a very effective way to essentially offer $X million dollars to another company without actually making a direct payment.

Yeah and at times it can be even better than just money, since the value of co-marketing by Nintendo doesn't have a monetary value.

 

[AranhaHunter]

When you actually look at these titles, though, almost none of them were actually exclusive (for example, Vesperia and Star Ocean got better-selling PS3 releases later on.) When you look at it, Microsoft wound up paying a huge stack of money for timed exclusivity on a few titles that weren't all that significant and had little real impact on their platform.

They were exclusive at time of release. I distinctively remember Bamco and Squeenix not talking about PS3 version and saying only on 360.

This is a terrible example. I am confident there is literally no amount of money that would lead to DQXI being exclusive on a Microsoft system.

No amount of money? So, hypothetically, if MS put an offer for $500 million + cover development costs + marketing expenses for DQXI exclusivity, you think SE would just say no?

My point is not whether or not they would (they would be pretty stupid to even offer a fraction of that for DQ exclusivity), the point is, everything has a price, and I find it hard to believe that SE would not accept that offer.

The example was extreme on purpose.

Like, I mean, yes, technically, it's possible for Microsoft to cut someone a check for $100m, but you don't just find that in the couch.

Agreed

I've talked about this a lot. I think Capcom weighed the options and legitimately thought the 3DS was a better choice but they always had PSP and Vita in their back pockets as potential options if it came to that; I think they held out for "moneyhats" (specifically, in all likelihood, a Western marketing partnership like the one DQ has now) anyway to try to extract as good a deal as possible for the platform switch, but took a payment that in cash dollar equivalents would never have been sufficient to get them to move if they actually preferred the Vita straight-up.

Just so I get what you're saying in black and white, IYO, you're saying there was no moneyhat from Nintendo and it was a calculated business move on Capcom's part, correct? At most, I think you're saying there was a western marketing partnership deal between the two companies that swayed Capcom's to go to the direction they were, according to you, already leaning towards.

 

[Lord_Byron28]

I don't think that's 100% true. It really depends how big the moneyhat is and what it consists of. MS' early JP exclusive big titles kind of imply that you don't need the latter in your scenario if you have enough of the former. I also don't think the "No platform-holder can actually afford to pay the amount of money that would make up for turning an awesome-selling franchise into a crappily-selling one" is necessarily true. If MS, for example, wanted they could get DQXI exclusive on their system and I'm sure you know that. Obviously it would be a horrible business move on their part as they would never get a return on their investment. There's a difference between being able to afford and not over paying to get a game on your platform.

Your assertion is interesting though, so let me ask you, do you think Nintendo offered a moneyhat, of any kind, to Capcom for MH exclusivity or do you think that was just a business move on Capcom's part with no moneyhat involved?

Considering most of 360's were timed exclusives and the likes of Mistwalker likely lacked the funding to properly create and market the game well; I don't think it's so black and white. Not too mention the 360 had good sales in the west(compared to PS3 which wasn't selling well anywhere for a time) which is what allowed Microsoft leverage for timed exclusives and/or taking away exclusivity from PS3 titles. I highly doubt Microsoft could have DQ11 no matter how much money they offered unless their next system can sell decently in Japan and WW is the largest seller. It is of no benefit to S-E to risk destroying their only mega franchise and source of massive income for a long time for an intial good amount of money up front.

I don't think Nintendo had much convincing to do to have Monster Hunter games on the succesor to one of the best selling game systems of all time. However, I think Nintendo did do some convincing in the form of showing off dev kits to Capcom early, reacting to Capcom's feedback of the 3DS and keeping in communication in the early parts of the 3DS lifetime. It's quite clear Capcom was fully behind the 3DS by the time of its E3 reveal. I'm also more than positive Nintendo has proven themselves to be a strong force when marketing/localizing products look at how succesful Nintendo was with Proffesor Layton, Dragon Quest 9 and MHtri in the west and how succesful they were with Just Dance and Goldeneye in Japan.

Edit:

No amount of money? So, hypothetically, if MS put an offer for $500 million + cover development costs + marketing expenses for DQXI exclusivity, you think SE would just say no?

My point is not whether or not they would (they would be pretty stupid to even offer a fraction of that for DQ exclusivity), the point is, everything has a price, and I find it hard to believe that SE would not accept that offer.

The example was extreme on purpose.

Okay if we're talking crazy hypotheticals than yes that would be a possibility. However, it's a crazy hypothetical that I don't see Microsoft making.

 

[BishopLamont]

No amount of money? So, hypothetically, if MS put an offer for $500 million + cover development costs + marketing expenses for DQXI exclusivity, you think SE would just say no?

My point is not whether or not they would (they would be pretty stupid to even offer a fraction of that for DQ exclusivity), the point is, everything has a price, and I find it hard to believe that SE would not accept that offer.

The example was extreme on purpose.

With the userbase that the 360 has? Never.

Would have Konami accept a 500 million dollar moneyhat to make next MGS4 with the graphics it has as an Wii exclusive?

There's many factors stopping a game from appearing on a platform, money hat or not. There's games that can be moneyhatted and those that be can't if the request doesn't make sense for the company. They DO want to protect their IP's popularity you know.

 

[Pureauthor]

No amount of money? So, hypothetically, if MS put an offer for $500 million + cover development costs + marketing expenses for DQXI exclusivity, you think SE would just say no?

My point is not whether or not they would (they would be pretty stupid to even offer a fraction of that for DQ exclusivity), the point is, everything has a price, and I find it hard to believe that SE would not accept that offer.

The example was extreme on purpose.

Considering the damage it would do to the DQ brand if it came out on the XBox? No, 500 million isn't going to cover it.

 

[Box of Bunnies]

No amount of money? So, hypothetically, if MS put an offer for $500 million + cover development costs + marketing expenses for DQXI exclusivity, you think SE would just say no?

My point is not whether or not they would (they would be pretty stupid to even offer a fraction of that for DQ exclusivity), the point is, everything has a price, and I find it hard to believe that SE would not accept that offer.

Sometimes when people say that something couldn't happen they don't actually mean that it's literally impossible, but rather that it's something that just wouldn't be done.

 

[AranhaHunter]

Would have Konami accept a 500 million dollar moneyhat to make next MGS4 with the graphics it has as an Wii exclusive?

That's actually impossible and that's not even debatable.

Considering the damage it would do to the DQ brand if it came out on the XBox? No, 500 million isn't going to cover it.

What about $3 billion?

Sometimes when people say that something couldn't happen they don't actually mean that it's literally impossible, but rather that it's something that just wouldn't be done.

Charlequin said as much afterwards, but when someone says something like "no amount of money..." then I interpret that exactly as was written. The business sense of it is another matter, and yes, it wouldn't be done because multibillion dollar companies are not usually run by dumb people.

 

[charlequin]

They were exclusive at time of release.

To the public, sure, but the alternate platform versions released so quickly, and with so much additional stuff, that they were obviously planned and in development before the first releases hit stores. Much like the numerous XBLA -> PC/PSN timed-exclusives we've seen more recently, these are games where whatever incentives are changing hands upfront are built around the knowledge that the "exclusivity" will be quite limited.

That's kind of the point here -- even when a company is throwing basically unprecedented amounts of resources at forcing their way into a hostile market by tossing money at anyone that'll take it, they don't manage to buy any real exclusives or any generation-defining franchises, just year windows on B-tier RPG franchises. If buying complete exclusivity was actually plausible for games like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, etc., Microsoft would have just done it.

No amount of money?

The decision on this sort of thing ultimately rests with Yuji Horii, who has been pretty clear over the years about his desire to release DQ games that reach a broad audience. I am pretty confident that even a sneering, cartoonishly evil Microsoft waving a giant novelty check at him would not actually convince him to labor away on a Dragon Quest game destined for a platform that no one in Japan owns. This has got to be the single worst possible example, specifically because there's an actual, individual dude with a significant say over the franchise's fate and a stated desire for how the franchise should evolve.

Just so I get what you're saying in black and white, IYO, you're saying there was no moneyhat from Nintendo and it was a calculated business move on Capcom's part, correct?

I definitely think the expected performance of the 3DS vs. the Vita and the ability to continue developing the franchise with PS2-ballpark graphics were much bigger factors in their platform choice than what Nintendo specifically offered them.

 

[Vic]

Alright, sorry for being so pessimistic but I'm calling it now: Vita will never recover from the downward slope it's been going through since launch. It might perform better than what we've seeing in a future point in time, but it will be too far too late for any positive sales performance to create an impactful momentum in the Japanese market that could make Vita a viable platform worthy of risky investment promising big returns.

I reserve myself from being stubborn by not taking this post too seriously as a couple of new software announcements could easily change my opinion, but I really believe that the hurt has be done. It's a wrap imo.

 

[donny2112]

Alright, sorry for being so pessimistic but I'm calling it now: Vita will never recover from the downward slope it's been going through since launch.

Based on what we know now, that's a totally reasonable conclusion. GameCube without the first-party hits. What we know can change, though. *shrugs*

 

[Vic]

Based on what we know now, that's a totally reasonable conclusion. GameCube without the first-party hits. What we know can change, though. *shrugs*

My mind still can't graps that we're witnessing a Dreamcast/Gamecube type of sales performance in a modern Media Create thread.

 

[AranhaHunter]

If buying complete exclusivity was actually plausible for games like Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, etc., Microsoft would have just done it.

Just because it's not plausible from a business perspective doesn't mean it's impossible like you had suggested.

The decision on this sort of thing ultimately rests with Yuji Horii

No, it ultimately rests on Square Enix, the copyright owners. Horii makes all decisions DQ because of the relationship he has with SE and SE wants him at the realm of all things DQ.

I definitely think the expected performance of the 3DS vs. the Vita and the ability to continue developing the franchise with PS2-ballpark graphics were much bigger factors in their platform choice than what Nintendo specifically offered them.

So you think Nintendo did offer some kind of moneyhat incentive?

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

The original games on PS2 sold higher, but it's probably best to compare to the PSP re-releases.

PSP Persona - 95K / 156K
PSP Persona 3 - 108K / 209K
PSP Persona 2 - 62K / 89K

Persona 2 (2011) came out after Persona 3 (2009), so these are arranged in chronological release date.

Yikes. So I guess it's fair to assume that the Vita release will sell somewhere in the ballpark of 70-90k first week? That's uhhh... not exactly a big release :/

My mind still can't graps that we're witnessing a Dreamcast/Gamecube type of sales performance in a modern Media Create thread.

Speaking of which, I'd be interested in seeing an updated GC/DC/PSV sales chart. If the Vita were to continue on it's current trend of dropping about 75% of the amount it dropped the previous week (ie. 4,000 -> 3,000 -> 2,250 -> 1,500 etc) then it will hit below 7,000 units in a week before Persona 4 is released.

 

[charlequin]

Just because it's not plausible from a business perspective doesn't mean it's impossible like you had suggested.

This is a really dumb argument. Do you want to actually talk about sales or do you want to engage in gradeschool nuh-uhing here? If you have a real point, make it.

No, it ultimately rests on Square Enix, the copyright owners.

Square-Enix cannot and would not meaningfully make "Dragon Quest XI" in direct opposition to Horii's wishes, on a project that presumably he wouldn't even want to work on. You're just making this whole scenario pointlessly foolish.

So you think Nintendo did offer some kind of moneyhat incentive?

I expect they offered at very least a Western co-marketing deal and possibly more (preferential access to development resources, first shot at hardware bundles, etc. etc. etc.) to help secure the franchise, yes.

 

[AranhaHunter]

This is a really dumb argument. Do you want to actually talk about sales or do you want to engage in gradeschool nuh-uhing here? If you have a real point, make it.

I don't appreciate the childish name calling and condescending tone. If you're gonna resort to that kind of behavior please let me know up front so I can add a mod to my ignore list.

The point is that your assertion that "no money would ever get DQ on a MS console" is wrong as everything has a price. Had you worded it differently or clarified that after I first replied to you, we wouldn't be discussing this point anymore. If you meant something like what Box of Bunnies said, then that's fine, but I just interpreted what you wrote, as you wrote it.

Square-Enix cannot and would not meaningfully make "Dragon Quest XI" in direct opposition to Horii's wishes, on a project that presumably he wouldn't even want to work on. You're just making this whole scenario pointlessly foolish.

Just because they won't go against Horii's wishes and will let him make all DQ related decisions doesn't mean they couldn't overrule him if they wanted to. You're implying that SE cannot take DQ in a direction opposite of Horii's, which is certainly not the case. Your scenario implies that if Apple were to buy SE tomorrow then they could still release DQ on competitor's platforms because the decision ultimately rests on Horii.

 

[OrangeGrayBlue]

Pretending to be victimized, harping on trivial semantics, defending a hypothetical situation with no real world application, and using "ignore list" as a threat. Well played.

 

[InsaneZero]

Insert extreme hypotheticals here

You're arguing for an implausible scenario which, while "possible", is not grounded on any sort of realistic factors that charlequin has already pointed out. We might as well argue that the next iPad will fail miserably because people just suddenly decided that they were sick of them for some arbitrary reason.

 

[AranhaHunter]

and using "ignore list" as a threat.

I don't see it as a threat, more as adding someone to the ignore list if that someone is gonna resort to name calling and talking to me in a condescending manner when I can't do the same to them otherwise I will get banned.

You're arguing for an implausible scenario which, while "possible", is not grounded on any sort of realistic factors that charlequin has already pointed out. We might as well argue that the next iPad will fail miserably because people just suddenly decided that they were sick of them for some arbitrary reason.

The reason for that scenario in the first place is because charlequin claimed that no amount of money could secure DQ exclusively, and before that he claimed that "no platform holder can afford to pay the money that would make up for turning an awesome-selling franchise into a crappily-selling one". I think both statements are untrue. He admitted the latter is technically feasible and we're still debating on the former.

But yes, I now realize that this is completely OT and has gone on for way too long, so instead of derailing the thread further, charlequin and I can take this conversation to PM if he so desires. Based on his last reply, I'm gonna guess that won't happen though.

 

[Dalthien]

The reason for that scenario in the first place is because charlequin claimed that no amount of money could secure DQ exclusively, and before that he claimed that "no platform holder can afford to pay the money that would make up for turning an awesome-selling franchise into a crappily-selling one". I think both statements are untrue.

But as humans we don't conduct conversations where we account for every possible outlandish and ridiculous scenario. We discuss things with an understanding that a certain degree of normalcy and reasonableness is implied. In this particular case, charlequin is operating on the assumption that his comments refer to reasonable and prudent business practices. Not whatever flight of fancy may pop into someone's head.

So if you have some arguments based upon seemingly reasonable and prudent business practices that dispute charlequin's comments - then by all means, initiate the discussion. If you are just throwing out whatever preposterous scenario you can come up with - then really, what's the point?

 

[Kangi]

Pretending to be victimized, harping on trivial semantics, defending a hypothetical situation with no real world application, and using "ignore list" as a threat. Well played.

This can sum up what most forum arguments seem to degrade to, unfortunately.