Remember, this was pre-Call of Duty. Halo was THE multiplayer shooter. Resistance was definitely a reply to Halo (I believe early concepts were a lot more reminiscent of Halo even). Wasn't one of them even advertised at some point as the Halo killer? (probably KZ2)
I'll give you Uncharted since that came out at the same time as gears basically. But the alien/sci-fi FPS push with focuse on online multiplayer was a direct Halo response, no question.
I know, that is why i mentioned Halo because i agree that it was most likely the case with that one game. I just ment games in general. Even Killzone 1 for PS2 was ment to be a Halo killer, at least by the gaming media. I'm not sure about Killzone 2 since it came out relatively late, but maybe Resistance 1?
Have they been making western content at the exclusion of all others since the PlayStation? Cuz up until Gamescon, that was pretty much the case.
Yep, serveral of japanese oriented games have been made since the first Playstation. But this is a bit besides my point. I just wanted to say that Microsoft isnt the leader in making western oriented games. Sony have indeed had much focus on western developement, but i think it is was the way games went in general as gaming become more and more popular in the west. Nothing to do with following Microsoft's footsteps in my opinion.
R&D and funding approvals take time, with a LOT of money already sunk into HD development at the exclusion of all other things, as was already mentioned. And unless someone is there day 1 to build an audience, you're not going to be able to capitalize on a user base. Some developers tried to make games without sinking the funding into really making them work with the Wiimote or lazy efforts to capitalize on the success (read: "test games"), which poisoned the well for everyone else and made it a demonstrably hard sell to publishers.
I partially agree, but i wouldnt say that if you're not there at day one with full force, it is make it or break it. For example, do you think it was a big mistake of Capcom to make Monster Hunter Tri on Wii because it switched developement along the way? It wasnt planned to be on the Wii to begin with, and if they couldnt capitalize on the userbase, why did they choose the Wii?
It was the publishers' own choice to make those "test games". They could have made other games too if they wanted.
The Wii was also a minor upgrade from the previous generation, so reusing PS2/Gamecube/Xbox stuff would have been possible too. No need to start all the way from scratch.
Square Enix's relationship with Nintendo at the moment is pretty self-explanatory if you visit GAF, but okay... Nintendo has worked EXCEPTIONALLY hard at building a franchise that doesn't even belong to them into a viable seller in the Western market, Dragon Quest, by paying all of the Western publishing costs on Dragon Quest content. I imagine this will carry over to DQX, the first console game in the series since the PS2. Nintendo has a few reasons to do so, there is no question of that, but they didn't have to do that, by any means. Dragon Quest on DS was pretty much all wrapped up in Japan without the need for this Western marketing push. But they did it anyways, and you can't think that there isn't a sense of appreciation that comes with that.
As for Capcom, well, again.... SOMETHING has to be going on there for the Monster Hunter franchise to just up and leave Sony's domain in perpetuity. And I get this impression that it goes beyond a moneyhat. I mean, we saw what happened with the Capcom 5, after all, moneyhats don't seem to prevent them from doing what they want.
A bundle is a sales promotion, nothing more. What I am talking about is doing things that foster the 3rd-party development community.
I dont doubt that Nintendo has been good with 3rd party relation in several of cases. The reason why i asked about this is because you said that Nintendo was the only company that does this.
Every system manufacturer (at least Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony) tries to do it easiest as possible for 3rd party to support their system(s), not just Nintendo. All these companies have relation with 3rd parties. And making it easy and lucrative is what fosters 3rd party support. I'm not sure why you think that Nintendo is the only one doing this? Then you also have to make a product that the customers buys of course, otherwise it will be hard to sell games.
Sales promotion is important. Even you mention this with Dragon Quest, that Nintendo did extra stuff trying to promote Dragon Quest in the west
For Dragon Quest and Monster Hunter, Nintendo have been good working with Square Enix and Capcom indeed. But what about all the other IPs these two companies have? Maybe they will support Nintendo more next generation compared to this one, but does that mean that these companies will bring out much big exclusives for WiiU only? That is what i got from what you're saying earlier at least, that Nintendo would get most 3rd party support.
Yes, but why Nintendo? Platinum would have had to reach out to them to make that happen, and NO ONE on GAF would have ever predicted it. That's my point. They did it because they saw Nintendo as a place where they could develop and foster a relationship, something you wouldn't have seen even 5 years ago.
No idea. It could very well be that Platinum presented the P-100 project to Nintendo and they decided to pick it up. Or it could be the other way around, that Nintendo reached out, trying to find a good game to publish. But i see this as no difference than i.e Sega publishing Bayonetta and Vanquish. Good that Platinum found a publisher for their game regardless though.
