-
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.
Capcom preparing multiple Switch version software after success of SF2
- Thread starter ksamedi
- Start date
I doubt they do 5/6 on Switch. 4, yes. But they didn't even do 4 on Wii U
I dunno if it'll be 60fps, though.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
Begs the question what they needed that RAM for..
Doubt it imo, game bombed in Japan and it's not going to do much better in the west. Localizing MHXX would be the right choice instead.
I do agree Stories would look wonderful on the Switch though.
They rereleased the Wii version of 4 as VC on Wii U though
The proof is in the pudding. Capcom's Switch support four months after launch is limited to a $40 port of a XBLA game and the announcement of a Japan-only port of a 3DS MH spinoff.
For comparison, four months in the 3DS had a port of the latest console Street Fighter, an original Resident Evil Mercenaries game and the announcement of an original Resident Evil game made when the system was first shown to the public.
TL/DR: I'll believe when I see it.
And if I am remembering correctly, capcom had a ton of success on 3DS, yes?
Makes you wonder what exactly are they waiting for in regards to Switch.
Skittzo0413
Member
It's absolutely true that the support they've announced so far is pretty pathetic, but then why did Nintendo listen to them about RAM? Why did they care enough to provide feedback about it in the first place if they had so little actually planned for the console? It doesn't add up.
I do think we have heard rumors of a Switch exclusive Monster Hunter coming after MH:W, so this could just be a case of Japanese devs being very slow to adopt new platforms, which would be even slower on an HD platform like the Switch than on an SD platform like the 3DS.
Gotdatmoney
Member
Capcom requested more RAM but we dunno if they were the only publisher.
That doesn't explain the lack of the most basic of the ports like the Megaman Collection and Disney Afternoon, let alone RE4.
Skittzo0413
Member
Very true, but they clearly cared enough about the platform to at least give input.
Yeah, and I don't claim that any of this makes sense. It's just possible that they are being incredibly slow to begin supporting the Switch for some reason.
WhiskerFrisker
Member
Why would Nintendo only increase ram due to one company's request? I imagine a couple different ones also saw the need and Nintendo listened.
Markitron
Is currently staging a hunger strike outside Gearbox HQ while trying to hate them to death
It was a different time back then, Nintendo were riding high off the back of the DS and Wii. Can you blame Capcom for being cautious after the disaster that was the Wii-U?
killatopak
Member
Remember Gears of War? I imagine it's kinda like that.
For what it's worth, Capcom has been SLOW AS HELL to adapt to the most recent generation in general. What the heck did they release for PS4/Xbox the last four years that wasn't RE7, SF5 or a ton of hd ports?
Capcom has been behaving like a rabbit caught by headlights for a while now. They have become very risk averse, more than their usual since last gen. So risk averse, in fact, they can't even move properly without stumbling into something, going by their recent blunders.
The more they misread the market, the less confident they become at it and the more haphazardly their decisions become. Like mentioned above, they barely released anything original on the PS4 and XB1, years into the generation. They're shook.
Just like the rabbit, they wait, wait some more, then suddenly rush straight under the wheel.
Arc Christelle
Member
When you're in a shit position and your pockets are looking empty, you do you turn to? That's right.... Daddy Nintendo.
/s
Did they? Outside of Monster Hunter, which declined from PSP numbers, I can't think of any big successes for them. I don't think any of their early support games did particularly well, and Revelations was certainly a bust. The new IP they did try on the platform were also bombs.
Skittzo0413
Member
I'm sure that was actually the case, the point here is that Capcom specifically felt it was necessary to give them that input, and also publicly talk about giving them that input. Yet have basically nothing to show so far.
DrROBschiz
Member
Stories Port
MHXX and MHW port
MVC Infinite
Resident evil stuffs
Get on it Capcom
MHXX and MHW port
MVC Infinite
Resident evil stuffs
Get on it Capcom
killatopak
Member
Revelations 2? Dead Rising 4?
It's not like every team is making a game on PS4/XB1. They had teams on the 3DS and Wii U as well.
Resources were sucked into the failed pantha raid something engine and deep down.
For some reason I forgot about the Xbox games. It seems like lately Capcom has been so strapped they're looking to the hardware companies to fund exclusive games or to get deals so new games can be made. Sony paying for SF5
and the rumor Sony paid capcom NOT to make MHW for Switch but they didn't care about Xbox, which is most likely bogus
It's crazy how badly capcom has fallen. What exactly have they been doing with all that MonHun money?
SSFIV was a million seller, RE Mercenaries beat expectations and they were "happy" with Revelations performance. Ace Attorney did okay too.
The only real bomb for them on the system was Gaist Crusher.
WhiskerFrisker
Member
To have a baseline for when they decided to jump onboard.
They were pretty all in on the 3ds. I think this is simply a case of them betting low on the Switch and now responding to it's success. Pretty much every 3rd party was down on the Switch because Nintendo is coming off the WiiU.
Founded a mobile studio that flopped.
SSFIV is really the only true success I can think of, but it was a launch title on a system that had an awful launch lineup. It's interesting that the game had a million copies shipped right after launch, but if you look at their platinum list it only ended up at 1.2m when all was said and done.
It's hard to believe that either RE game was a real success for them, considering neither cracked a million, and they were the last RE games on the platform. They didn't even bother releasing Rev2 on the 3DS so you can imagine how much faith they had in the platform by then.
Outside of that, EX Troopers and Gaist Crusher bombed, and Ace Attorney sold pretty much as usual. Their attempt at getting the latter to hit it big time with PLxAA probably didn't do as well as they had hoped.
Frankly outside of some of the early years of last gen, and MH, Capcom has had a lot more failures, or middling sales, than actual success.
Ohhh that's right. The dark ages of Japanese development hit capcom real hard. Square Enix is finally climbing back out of that hole but it seems like Capcom lost some limbs in the process.
ProtomanNeo
Member
I'm honestly surprised we haven't started seeing the eshop flooded with more ports to capitalize on the Switch's success. A Strider Collection on the eshop would be on point right about now.
OrbitalBeard
Member
This isn't how PR works. Capcom isn't just going to randomly announce new games at a financial meeting. They have marketing schedules for that sort of thing.
Sorry to drag this conversation back into the sun, but...
And you talk about people putting words in your mouth.
I know you're a junior, so I will just let you know in advance: any thread about a 3rd-party game and a Nintendo console will eventually turn into a referendum about Nintendo's efficacy as a hardware maker to sell 3rd-party games. Every. Single. Time.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=244519516&postcount=53
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=241423962&postcount=27
These took me all of 30 seconds to find. I'm sure someone better versed in searching GAF could yield several more examples for you.
Heck, as a bonus, I searched this very thread:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=244752879&postcount=107
"people needed games to play"? No, they didn't. Or even the example above from Jackstin where people need to "justify their purchase", as though the game itself and its quality were an irrelevance to the purchase decision.
I can understand that this is a pretty big forum and you can't possibly be in every thread, but to say "no one is saying this" as a matter of fact, I would expect that you would have at least completely reviewed the thread you are posting in to ensure this is a fact, have an incredibly diverse knowledge of discussions in a majority of threads or even inquired for samples of the phenomenon before coming to this conclusion.
The post that you seemingly took offence to doesn't argue that point and, I must admit, people aren't communicating the issue very well in this regard. The argument is what motivates that want. The implication that's made is what is taken issue with, that people want these titles merely because they're on Switch and "need to justify their platform purchase" because they're "starving" for games to buy, in spite of there being a viable alternative to them on other platforms for the same game, as though they would mindlessly throw their money at anything on the platform, when there are a myriad of factors not considered.
And considering we're on the internet and I can only assume you know how the internet works, I think it's rather disingenuous to think that people aren't taking the same data points you're using to make a fairly reasonable argument and coming to a less reasonable conclusion. It's almost expected.
Not by you, perhaps, but as I said, it wouldn't be the first time someone took a reasonable bit of data that could make a reasonable argument and twisted it into a negative context.
I was not aware that a high volume of criticism was a necessary caveat to address said criticism.
And lastly, it does not help people see you making reasonable points when you lean on this old chestnut:
To quote you back to yourself:
I agree that defensiveness can get out of hand, but I hope you can see how dismissive language and finger-pointing don't exactly help you make your case seem terribly reasonable.
I don't think it takes a lot of analysis to parse this. Why do posters derail threads? Because they can. And this goes without mentioning how trolls enjoy gaslighting people on the internet by claiming a moral high ground for disguising a post in reasonable language to obfuscate their intention of starting a less-than-reasonable discussion. That's not to say that I believe that to be your intention, far from it. But again, your "those damn Nintendo fanboys" language isn't exactly going to help people think otherwise.
And now to address your main point: while I do agree it is a reason that this game and others like it sold, I won't say it's THE reason, just one of many contributing factors.
For example, since some people seem to be offended and not understand how USFII could have sold well, it could also be attributed to:
- people who didn't own an Xbox 360 or PS3 but wanted this game and were willing to pay the higher price tag
- people who wanted these games on X360 and PS3 but did not feel that such a game justified a console purchase to play it
- people who bought the game on X360 and PS3 but no longer have a console that works, seeing a Switch purchase of the game as a cheaper option than repairing their old console to play it
- people who didn't even know the X360 and PS3 versions existed and got excited about a new release with further tweaks
- people who (potentially) wanted a more robust online player base due to it being a new release
- people who wanted to play an HD version of SF2 away from their house
- people who don't buy digital games finally had a retail option
Any combination of these reasons could also be responsible for its success irrespective of its eShop and retail visibility, but its higher visibility is the only reason that ever gets discussed, which leads to people getting fed up with that being the only reason provided for the sales success. That is where I believe the ire towards your post came from. Is that fair? Quite possible not, but it is what it is.
Also, just for fun, here's a list of possible reasons other than higher visibility that Disgaea 5 outperformed the PS4 version:
- people who didn't own a PS4 and wanted this game but did not feel that it justified a console purchase to get (read: people who expected a Vita release that never happened)
- people who preferred to buy the game with all the DLC included
- people who didn't even know the PS4 version existed (albeit unlikely, due to its niche status)
- people who wanted a portable version of the game (again, people who expected a Vita release that never happened)
And you talk about people putting words in your mouth.
I know you're a junior, so I will just let you know in advance: any thread about a 3rd-party game and a Nintendo console will eventually turn into a referendum about Nintendo's efficacy as a hardware maker to sell 3rd-party games. Every. Single. Time.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=244519516&postcount=53
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=241423962&postcount=27
These took me all of 30 seconds to find. I'm sure someone better versed in searching GAF could yield several more examples for you.
Heck, as a bonus, I searched this very thread:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=244752879&postcount=107
"people needed games to play"? No, they didn't. Or even the example above from Jackstin where people need to "justify their purchase", as though the game itself and its quality were an irrelevance to the purchase decision.
I can understand that this is a pretty big forum and you can't possibly be in every thread, but to say "no one is saying this" as a matter of fact, I would expect that you would have at least completely reviewed the thread you are posting in to ensure this is a fact, have an incredibly diverse knowledge of discussions in a majority of threads or even inquired for samples of the phenomenon before coming to this conclusion.
The post that you seemingly took offence to doesn't argue that point and, I must admit, people aren't communicating the issue very well in this regard. The argument is what motivates that want. The implication that's made is what is taken issue with, that people want these titles merely because they're on Switch and "need to justify their platform purchase" because they're "starving" for games to buy, in spite of there being a viable alternative to them on other platforms for the same game, as though they would mindlessly throw their money at anything on the platform, when there are a myriad of factors not considered.
And considering we're on the internet and I can only assume you know how the internet works, I think it's rather disingenuous to think that people aren't taking the same data points you're using to make a fairly reasonable argument and coming to a less reasonable conclusion. It's almost expected.
Not by you, perhaps, but as I said, it wouldn't be the first time someone took a reasonable bit of data that could make a reasonable argument and twisted it into a negative context.
I was not aware that a high volume of criticism was a necessary caveat to address said criticism.
And lastly, it does not help people see you making reasonable points when you lean on this old chestnut:
To quote you back to yourself:
I agree that defensiveness can get out of hand, but I hope you can see how dismissive language and finger-pointing don't exactly help you make your case seem terribly reasonable.
I don't think it takes a lot of analysis to parse this. Why do posters derail threads? Because they can. And this goes without mentioning how trolls enjoy gaslighting people on the internet by claiming a moral high ground for disguising a post in reasonable language to obfuscate their intention of starting a less-than-reasonable discussion. That's not to say that I believe that to be your intention, far from it. But again, your "those damn Nintendo fanboys" language isn't exactly going to help people think otherwise.
And now to address your main point: while I do agree it is a reason that this game and others like it sold, I won't say it's THE reason, just one of many contributing factors.
For example, since some people seem to be offended and not understand how USFII could have sold well, it could also be attributed to:
- people who didn't own an Xbox 360 or PS3 but wanted this game and were willing to pay the higher price tag
- people who wanted these games on X360 and PS3 but did not feel that such a game justified a console purchase to play it
- people who bought the game on X360 and PS3 but no longer have a console that works, seeing a Switch purchase of the game as a cheaper option than repairing their old console to play it
- people who didn't even know the X360 and PS3 versions existed and got excited about a new release with further tweaks
- people who (potentially) wanted a more robust online player base due to it being a new release
- people who wanted to play an HD version of SF2 away from their house
- people who don't buy digital games finally had a retail option
Any combination of these reasons could also be responsible for its success irrespective of its eShop and retail visibility, but its higher visibility is the only reason that ever gets discussed, which leads to people getting fed up with that being the only reason provided for the sales success. That is where I believe the ire towards your post came from. Is that fair? Quite possible not, but it is what it is.
Also, just for fun, here's a list of possible reasons other than higher visibility that Disgaea 5 outperformed the PS4 version:
- people who didn't own a PS4 and wanted this game but did not feel that it justified a console purchase to get (read: people who expected a Vita release that never happened)
- people who preferred to buy the game with all the DLC included
- people who didn't even know the PS4 version existed (albeit unlikely, due to its niche status)
- people who wanted a portable version of the game (again, people who expected a Vita release that never happened)
Astral Dog
Member
8
To be fair i would be cautious with the Switch too, 3DS was coming off Nintendo's most successful generation! Switch is/was an unproven HD platform.
Well, thats not completely true. They could indicate what their plans are loosely with franchises or genre direction.
I think I have to agree M3d10n, Capcom's general early behavior is that of someone that was very much so blindsided and caught unprepared. EA, of all people, have a very competent FIFA port coming day and date with all others and that's a "big game" for EA even if its not a major AAA tentpole. Capcom misread the market years ago, and they misread it hard. They transitioned their currently "life boat" franchise in a direction that is contrarian to their own market had they had even the slightest iota of positive outlook.
I think its fairly clear that Capcom wasn't expecting success here. And I think the positioning of MH says it all. They either had no idea what the Switch was (unlikely) or they, simply, had no faith in it otherwise there's little reason to not have a full multiplat launch of MHW across all platforms ("no (major) lost domestic sales, strong chance of worldwide growth", rather than the "zero chance of strong domestic sales and hope for worldwide growth"). The fact that they have zero else to show is just further indication of their weak support/forecasting on the device. They very definitely had no faith going into the Switch, otherwise they wouldn't be trying to re-invent the wheel of success for MH.
And, yes, USFII is definitely a port to "fail" if there ever was one, and it succeeded as if to spite that very state of dereliction.
Still coming off of the successes of the 3DS, really its a 50/50 bag if you want to just look backwards on the previous gen.
Its just onerous for Capcom as the 3DS was, effectively, what was keeping them afloat to a large degree.
This is funny to me. Funny because I didn't think anyone would praise EA for an obligatory, watered down FIFA port and to even label it as a "big game".
Explain yourself, Vena.
FIFA is a big game for EA given Nintendo's position last gen. I think that's self-explanatory. WiiU didn't even get a glimpse of a half-decent effort.
Also do note that that was an example of "bare minimum", and still stands over USFII (an XBLA port) and whatever else Capcom has managed to not even manage to put together.
Mediking
Member
I don't think even Capcom is that brazen. Those games were $20 apiece on PS4...
I think it'd be cool if they put all three together in one $60 collection, though.
Call it Resident Evil: The WAR ON TERROR Collection.
With nightmare fuel like this:
And waifus like this:
RE6 is seriously such an amazing-looking game. Gorgeous characters, absolutely inspired monsters.
....
I really should try Resident Evil again.
FIFA is on every platform at least once in its life cycle. It's not even a feature-complete package. It's just as much of a "test" product to gauge the platform's business potential as say, Monster Hunter XX.
Skittzo0413
Member
...which isn't even being given a chance to test viability of the platform in the majority of the world.
MHXX isn't a test product (also not WW), its a last minute port thrown together to try and move some software out after your pants caught fire. USFII was the test product that succeeded in spite of itself or what little effort Capcom put into it.
FIFA is a better "test" product (as in, its a far more robust package even if its missing a mode) than an XBLA port. Its also a competent package given what the early impressions have said of it, in that it was actually mindfully put together.
Also the entire point what to point out how little effort Capcom has put in, when a port of a franchise that sees every platform is a better exemplar of effort.
If only Capcom understood their audience or products, then this thread wouldn't exist.
OrbitalBeard
Member
I agree that Capcom likely had little faith in Switch, but I don't agree that not making game announcements during a financial briefing means they don't have any concrete plans for the platform. It's not really common to announce new software at one of these things. It happens sometimes, sure, but it's not really the norm.
Astral Dog
Member
I agree their support should have better, but its always a risk with Nintendo maybe they didn't feel as confident this time around or they are low on resources 🤔
Capcom on 3DS was a beast that won't be repeated ever again
SSF4 was way overshipped initially, so I do think it's "true success" status is somewhat dubious. It sold through over 550k between US and Japan by the end of 2012 though and that's before the digital release.
Likewise RER sold through over 500k between US and Japan it's first year, so later shipped + digital is probably just under a million. Mercs 3D shipped 400k globally in just a month (only a couple days in the west). Capcom said both games were successful so really that's all we have to go on. The reason Rev 2 skipped 3DS was because of it's episodic nature.
EX Troopers also tanked yeah and tanked even harder on PS3. That and GC were really the only failures on 3DS though. PWVSAA wasn't even Capcom either, Level 5 produced that themselves.
Lee Chaolan
Member
I'd buy Dragon's Dogma for the 6th time if they ported to Switch ;p
Naah, in financial releases like this there's not much space for franchises or genre direction, especially if the statement that is this thread's topic is quite general and speaks of getting more involved with the system on a general level.
Also, I strongly believe USFII is NOT as much as a test game as we've been discussing for the past few days: it wasn't back when the thread with the misunderstood statement happened, it isn't either this time. It's probably more of a case of Capcom having some stuff for Switch already in development (like MHXX and the other, Switch-exclusive MH as stated by MatrixMan.EXE), but USFII did so well that they decided to bring even more games on the system. Not a test, but a further motivation.
Still, this doesn't qualify as an excuse for the bizarre behaviour they've had towards MHXX, between MH:W's announcement and the Western localisation denial, they're not exactly handling things pretty well XD
I don't really see the difference between Capcom's current Switch output and EA's tbh. They're both putting in the minimum amount of effort required. EA should not be praised for a watered down FIFA port just like Capcom should not be praised for a super old game like USF2 and MHXX only in Japan.
As time goes on Capcom's Switch support will dwarf EA's anyway. It'd take a lot for western publishers to take Nintendo platforms seriously in the AAA PS4/Xbox/PC climate.