Because you'd be relatively future proofing the franchise. If Capcom had made a PS3/360 game they could've ported those assets over for a brand new PC game, a Vita game, an Android/iOS game, a Wii U game, and heck if it was made on Framework - a 3DS game. By sticking with tech comparable to PS2 they're making it so there's less and less platforms they could port that content to and make it look decent.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Nikkei Trendy reports rumor that PS Vita Monster Hunter due for 2012H2
- Thread starter Jonnyram
- Start date
Because you'd be relatively future proofing the franchise. If Capcom had made a PS3/360 game they could've ported those assets over for a brand new PC game, a Vita game, an Android/iOS game, a Wii U game, and heck if it was made on Framework - a 3DS game. By sticking with tech comparable to PS2 they're making it so there's less and less platforms they could port that content to and make it look decent.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Of course by making cheaper games and having them sell this much anyway they can probably afford to fund a HD game when/if they feel they have to too. The money they didn't use this time isn't gone because they didn't spend it when you think they should.
And nothing says that porting those so called PS2 level assets to Vita would yield less sales than a from-PS3-downport either.
Or even porting those same assets to all the systems you mention if need be. Especially in light of the "HD remastering" trend.
Not to mention that by stalling making the jump they will be more experienced and perhaps have better tools by the time they do.
Meaning that a later jump to a given level could be cheaper than a current jump to that same level.
Maybe it's not something you like seeing or think of as "decent" but that doesn't make it a bad business decision in this case.
And nothing says that porting those so called PS2 level assets to Vita would yield less sales than a from-PS3-downport either.
Or even porting those same assets to all the systems you mention if need be. Especially in light of the "HD remastering" trend.
Not to mention that by stalling making the jump they will be more experienced and perhaps have better tools by the time they do.
Meaning that a later jump to a given level could be cheaper than a current jump to that same level.
Maybe it's not something you like seeing or think of as "decent" but that doesn't make it a bad business decision in this case.
AranhaHunter
Banned
Your number is also pure speculation, and your reasoning is poor, i.e. won't sell 4 million again because it's pretty much the same thing. As I have said before, Nintendo moneyhatted Capcom, it was a smart move, there's no way a savvy business will give up 2+ million sales in order to try to do what you're saying. Capcom is in a position where they can wait until the market is more mature and then release their game on their platform of choice.
Why can't an iOS have a real MH game? Because it can have a real GTA game, a real Max Payne game, a real Chrono game, a real Final Fantasy game, a real Mega Man game, and so on.
Changing it to "handheld generation is over" is better and more acceptable than just "generation is over", but I see the iOS is still being ignored, interesting.
Indeed, it is an asset, and Capcom has the luxury where they can choose on how to proceed. I'm sure there were very interesting talks between Nintendo and Capcom because of it. Capcom had the leverage and they knew it. Had there not been any moneyhats, your suggestion of selling 2.5 million on 3DS over selling 5 million on PSP is a poor one from a business standpoint. You would be giving up millions in revenue and profit for "trying to set up your franchise for long term success. You seem to imply that that's the only way Capcom could set up the franchise for long term success and I disagree with that. They chose to go that route, and it probably was the best route they could have taken when all variables were taken into account. That certainly wouldn't have been the case if there was no deal between Capcom and Nintendo, I don't see how that can be argued otherwise. Additionally, you're heavily assuming that they would have trouble migrating the franchise to next generation. IMO that is a very poor assumption as Dragon Quest, for example, has never had that kind of problem. You yourself have said that the fanbase will buy the system, so what changes now?
So now, do you agree that "moneyhats will make a publisher do something they normally wouldn't do" instead of "moneyhats will do something that a publisher was already considering doing and will just push them in that direction"?
I never suggested Sony would pay $300m for an exclusive MH on Vita. That would be a horrible business move. I'm sure you don't think Nintendo paid Capcom $300m in cash for exclusivity on MH and I'm fairly positive that securing a MH game on Vita would cost a lot less than $300m. Maybe Sony does not want to pay, or maybe the price will be too high for what the executives deem worthy, as they could have paid to secure a DQ spin off on playstation over the past decade and didn't. That goes back to Yoshida or Hirai wanting to write that check.
I apologize as I misread that as indie developers. I think this is just as bad, if not worse though. SCE has plenty of western games that would be considered niche in Japan like Uncharted and GOW. Those games and something like Disgaea are not what is gonna sell the Vita in Japan. 360 has plenty of exclusive niche titles in Japan, I'm sure you know how well it's doing there.
I agree that they are in a tough spot, but I will agree to disagree with you here that their best option is niche titles. Besides hardcore fans, who in their right mind would pay $250+$50 MC to play Disgaea and Atellier? Hell I will even include Persona there. The "slim chance" you speak of is fully dependent on the willingness of the executives to pay the price. Admittedly that willingness might not be high, but that's their best option IMO.
I agree, so they would do it because they can. Like Horii and DQ, they have that luxury of waiting and seeing what the best option is for their franchise. They do not have to hurry to ensure success of one platform or another. This paragraph here made the argument on why they would wait for me.
charlequin
Banned
iOS isn't being "ignored," it's just a different thing -- its position relative to the gaming handhelds is basically like PC's position relative to HD consoles, rather than being part of the generational structure.
Comparing the sales directly like this is incorrect because this is a decision about the future of the franchise. Capcom's lower sales on Tri G are an investment in the future and you can't compare the sales numbers without taking that investment into account.
The easiest moment to migrate a fanbase is at the beginning of the generation. No one's bought new hardware yet and you can point your fans towards the right system to play your game. Once people have already invested, you have to fight against their existing purchases (and they might split themselves up in a way that's impossible to recover from -- if half of MH players bought 3DS and the other half Vita, it might be impossible to sell 5m again any time in the next few years because the audience is too split up.) That means moving early is actively beneficial. You could easily wind up with a situation where you try to stick around on PSP and wind up doing something like 5 2.1 2.4 2.9 3.2 on your next releases due to split-up fanbase when an early commitment might make that look more like 2.5 3.8 4.5 4.8 5 due to a clear path for new adopters.
Once you decide to move early it's just a question of where. The obvious reason to choose 3DS here is that it has all the features you need and it's close in power profile to the PSP -- so it would involve no increased costs for development. MH isn't a series that's defined by visual spectacle so it can survive just fine on a lower visual bar, and better graphics wouldn't really improve sales at the top end, so it's simply more profitable to aim lower here.
With all that in play it's not hard to see Capcom preferring 3DS as the development path for the series without Nintendo doing anything, and then just securing Nintendo's Western cooperation as a final extra incentive to lock themselves in.
No, I don't, because it's still not true. There was no moneyhat on earth large enough to get Namco and SE to make ToV and SO4 true exclusives. There was no moneyhat on earth large enough for Microsoft to turn GTA4 and FFXIII all the way 360-exclusive rather than simply get ports tacked on.
Not really the same situation. 360 had a few high-profile RPGs (and later, things like Idolmaster and Cave shooters) but it never had a critical mass. The PS3 is probably a closer example here -- most of its success is based on it being the default home-console for a lot of random stuff (animu RPGs, fighting games, etc.) none of which are all that popular but all of which together give people a reason to buy. It's not great (the PS3 is certainly not an unqualified sales success in Japan) but it's better than complete failure, which is the sort of thing Sony needs to think about for the Vita if they really don't have a lineup of must-have exclusives.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
You have to agree that how DQ is managed is not how most publishers manages their most succesful IPs.
Activision won't wait 2 years before launching his new COD on the next gen consoles.
Ubisoft won't wait 2 years either for AC. Publishers want to be there, the sooner the best, because it's sends a message that "here is where you favorite game is".
You think Capcom will wait 2 years before deciding which portable put MH, let the franchise stay idle and not make money for two years?
AranhaHunter
Banned
The investment made by Nintendo, which made the difference in this case. I admit as much. I was presenting a situation where no moneyhat took place.
We're not gonna agree on this point, so we might as well agree to disagree on this one.
Moneyhat != paying money for true exclusives. Moneyhat can mean paying money for timed exclusives which is what MS did with ToV and SO4 or for exclusive content as MS did with GTAIV. Let us not forget that, at time of release, there was no indication that TOV, SO4, or GTAIV DLC was coming to other platforms. I don't think SE or Namco would ever put TOV or SO4 as a timed 360 exclusive if it wasn't for MS incentives. That directly contradicts what you said as there is no way you can convince me that Namco or SE were considering putting those 2 franchises as a one year exclusive on 360 and MS moneyhat just helped them push them that way. Rather, MS moneyhat made that decision for them.
BTW, I know you were exaggerating but there's moneyhat large enough to turn a franchise into a true exclusive. MS, for example, has enough money to buy all of SE if they wanted to, so they have enough money to secure a true exclusive if they wanted to; the asking price would probably be way too high though.
I don't think the PS3 is a good analogy. It had an exclusive Final Fantasy game, an exclusive MGS game, and an exclusive GT game. All of which helped sell consoles. GT has proven that it's not a system seller on handhelds, and as of right now, FF and MGS are nowhere on Vita except for ports.
I believe the 360 situation is a better analogy as it got plenty of niche titles and, as such, was able to carve itself a nice audience and sell 1.5 mil in Japan and not die abruptly like its predecessor. I wouldn't consider 4x what the 360 sold in Japan to be a success for the Vita, so it all boils down to what their goals are with Vita for Japan. If they are trying to match current PS3 sales in Japan, which are bad, then your solution is feasible, and maybe even the best solution available; however, if they are trying to match PSP's success in Japan then your solution is poor and it won't help them accomplish that goal.
I do agree with you, but Activision and Ubi are not good examples IMO. My point is that MH is now on the same level as DQ in terms of prestige. Capcom has that luxury, if they so choose.
Alexios
Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
His point is they have no reason to choose that since with it's the kind of game they can do frequent releases for and achieve millions of sales with each, including expansions, it's not a massive JRPG that takes 5 years to develop. Why would they choose, while the series remains popular, to skip a few years of profit without any sales benefit at the end of that? Or do you think that one game after five years would sell as much as 5 iterations, one a year, did in total? The only reason they'd have to that is following a series decline that forces them to slow down development and rethink what they can do to increase sales again, if at all possible. And they could probably still do faster than DQ releases even in such a case while testing out what works and what doesn't.
By not releasing often you leave a hole for competitors to come in. With something like CoD/MH where there's a huge number of people that only play that game you run a real risk of losing customers to competing series (BF/God Eater/etc), series burnout be damned.
You also have the issue of "brand name" vs "series." We don't get a DQ game, a 2D Mario, a full-fledged Pokemon, a numbered FF title, every year. What we do get are a metric shitton of spinoffs, some good and some bad. You have titles like Mario Kart and DQ Monsters which became mainline series themselves as well. CoD is selling well as CoD, but the push is to get everyone onboard on the yearly series, not a main title and a RTS/RPG/ADV spinoff. No idea which direction taken is better. Ditto with MH to most degrees, you have the main title (both Portable and not) and only a couple spinoff titles which haven't exactly been smashing successes.
If you could release a MH title only once every 3 years, retain the fanbase, and print money with all kinds of spinoff titles that's probably the best way to keep the series going. I don't think they're quite at that stage yet.
Relaxed Muscle
Member
I choose AC and COD, because like MH they're more or less, similar in the sense, they have very frequent "main" games released with very little presence of spin-off.
And again is not a luxury Capcom executives can take without getting bitten in the ass by investors, because that would mean the brand wouldn't make money until the decision of going to X console, being X the most sucessful one.
Of course, Capcom could take that route while reforcing the brand with spin-off and make money, but I hardly think it would be wise and definetly could hurt the IP.
charlequin
Banned
I'm just saying, I don't see you accounting for how big a "moneyhat" would really have to be here. 2.5m lost sales (by your math) is going to translate to something like $50-75m in lost revenues just on one game -- more if we assume that future games will also lose out on sales relative to the alternative (more PSP releases, then Vita.) Add in the uncertainty/hedging factor and you're looking at an immense monetary payout to incentivize this kind of decision -- again, under your math here. It's implausibly huge unless you allow that the 3DS is a close to equal (or better) choice than Vita in a vacuum.
Lots of publishers were considering doing 360 releases of RPGs because it was the first next-gen system and it was going to be successful in the West. We know at least in the case of ToV they were interested in starting the title on 360 as a way to being next-gen development early even absent the support they got from Microsoft directly; it's likely that all Microsoft really got out of their contributions here was an exclusivity window instead of simultaneous/close-together releases. That's my point -- Microsoft spent a lot and got very, very little out of it. Getting real coups would be dramatically more expensive.
It didn't get "plenty of niche titles" though. It got a smattering of B-list RPGs and then a few extremely small niches that it inherited from Dreamcast (Cave shooters, R-rated VNs) but it never got the kind of stable of 100-200k releases that the PS3 naturally waltzed into.
(And yes, the PS3 had a few big hits to go along with those titles, but that again just underscores the challenge the Vita is facing -- it has no guaranteed huge hits and no obvious routes to get some.)
I submit that there are currently no options available for Sony to match PSP's success in Japan without some set of unforeseen, unpredictable events falling out in its favor.
As others note downthread, while DQ technically waits for an established base to make a move, they start priming the pump early on. DQ11 won't hit (or probably even be announced) for a few years yet, but Slime Morimori 3 and DQ:MR were two of the earliest 3DS titles and the probably-getting-announced-soon DQ7 remake will be the next stage of that. MHtG is that franchise's equivalent -- a less prestigious entry to the series that can safely help build up userbase early on even if it sells less in total than the "real thing" that comes later on.
charlequin
Banned
Whether or not you're serious, you should still knock it off.
pharmboy044
Member
Isn't there a Monster Hunter for PSP on PSN for like $10?
US PSN ? I haven't checked. Will do so when I get a Vita. Thanks !
test_account
XP-39C²
There is one on the EU store at least. I dont know how much it cost in dollar, but going by other prices/conversion rates, it is actually a bit cheaper than $10. I guess maybe $7.99 or so.
This is basically the same situation PSP was in before MH Portable.
No one is saying it can't happen again, but it probably won't be MH that does it!
charlequin
Banned
Right, that's actually exactly my objection. Monster Hunter was such a huge surprise success that it is literally unprecedented in gaming history; no single game has ever had as massive an effect on a system's performance late in its lifespan as MH did on PSP. Expecting a repeat of that kind of black swan event is not really rational.
DocTarHeel
Member
Monster Hunter Portable 3 listed as a Vita game:
http://twitter.com/#!/daegan/status/155484223631917057/photo/1
http://twitter.com/#!/daegan/status/155484223631917057/photo/1
DangerousDave
Member
They are probably talking about the PSP game, Monster Hunter Portable 3rd, releasing it in US, and adding it in Vita catalogue because of the backwards compatibility.
Zoramon089
Banned
Not even Pokemon?
Then it should not be coming soon ? I thought the game is already on PSN ?
A Twisty Fluken
Member
Especially because that literally unprecedented event came as the result of an significant outpouring of top publisher support in the early days based on Sony's previous track record. Capcom was pouring tons of projects into the PSP at the outset and clearly had a great degree of confidence in the platform. The extremely low likelihood of another black swan becomes even more low without that pre-baked momentum.
Portable 3rd was never localised.
I was about to say, the GB wasn't looking all that hot, and showing its age before the pocketable monsters came along.
I remember the PSP ones having free DLC.
lunchwithyuzo
Banned
Tri did as well.
charlequin
Banned
No, Pokemon started off a second wind for a system that had already been outrageously successful; I don't think that's at all as impressive as taking a system that had underperformed significantly (and which was performing very poorly on the software front) and catapulting it to unambiguous success.
Similar threads
- Locked