Support NeoGAF

[JonathanPower]

Oh it's possible to save it. But it requires drastic action that Sony doesn't seem to be willing to do. I'm PRAYING that E3 will prove me wrong.

Well, Vita is a great hardware but one of its problems are the ridiculously overpriced memory cards. They need to release a new model with 32-64GB of embedded flash memory, or seriously slash the prices of the memory cards. Even better, release a model with a micro-sd card port and it would be perfect. This, and supporting the console with great software.

 

[sechsterangriff]

You clearly don't. It means that a company won't necessarily pursue a project they think will be profitable if they think they could use those same resources for a more profitable endeavor, whatever that may be.

The bottom line is the opportunity cost shouldn't be higher than the potential benefits.
Given the current context what you said is just one possible interpretation.
It has already been stated that the perceived cost of developing a Vita version alongside the other platforms is really slim, and the benefits high for the cost involved.
So unless Capcom has some very important project that absolutely needs those meager resources to the point it wastes the opportunity of simultaneous development and almost sure profitability, I'm going with an exclusivity agreement (or bad management).

 

[Shadow Hog]

Funny, I'm used to seeing companies try to weasel their way out of ports to Nintendo consoles; can't remember the last time I've seen one weasel their way out of a port from a Nintendo console.

 

[Aquamarine]

The bottom line is the opportunity cost shouldn't be higher than the potential benefits.
Given the current context what you said is just one possible interpretation.
It has already been stated that the perceived opportunity cost of developing a Vita version alongside the other platforms is really slim, and the benefits high for the cost involved.
So unless Capcom has some very important project that absolutely needs those meager resources to the point it wastes the opportunity of simultaneous development and almost sure profitability, I'm going with an exclusivity agreement (or bad management).

Capcom assumes that the resources they would invest into this project would yield a "meager return."

Porting a game is an ordeal that requires hammering out a licensing and digital distribution agreement with Sony, investing in programmers to work on the project, manufacturing retail cartridges, finalizing distribution deals with retailers, designing ads, and working with advertisers / marketers.

All that work for a Vita version that Capcom assumes will give them a "meager return"? It's not a case of bad management...if I were running Capcom, I wouldn't port it either.

 

[sechsterangriff]

Porting a game is an ordeal that requires hammering out a licensing and digital distribution agreement with Sony, investing in programmers to work on the project

^^ or they could just stop right there.

Now seriously, those are all costs we are aware of and I would agree with you more if this was a sole PSVita release. But the fact is that not only they economize in development costs, but they are already having a multiplatform release, meaning most of the marketing applies to all versions of the game and Capcom has to deal with distribution anyway.

 

[Jamix012]

The bottom line is the opportunity cost shouldn't be higher than the potential benefits.
Given the current context what you said is just one possible interpretation.
It has already been stated that the perceived cost of developing a Vita version alongside the other platforms is really slim, and the benefits high for the cost involved.
So unless Capcom has some very important project that absolutely needs those meager resources to the point it wastes the opportunity of simultaneous development and almost sure profitability, I'm going with an exclusivity agreement (or bad management).

How do you deduce this? The oppotunity cost is probably quite large.
Let's talk theoreticals.
Let's just say porting revelations costs $1000 (This number includes all costs, including time and money spent). As a result they would get back $1300 or so. A profit of $300.

Now let's say they instead spent that $1000 on Monster Hunter 4 for the 3DS. That $1000 increases sales for whatever reason (better assets, earlier release, more marketing) by $1800. That's a profit of $800 on the same amount of money.

As Capcom where are you going to spend your $1000?

Edit: This is not based on real numbers of any kind. The $1000 is an easy place holder. The point is they would rather spend their money elsewhere.

 

[Glass Rebel]

^^ or they could just stop right there.

Releasing a 50$ game on PSN only?

 

[Aquamarine]

^^ or they could just stop right there.

For a retail console title, going DD only at full price on the Vita would whittle down your potential audience considerably, even if it takes less overhead to develop.

Capcom is not stupid. They have financial guys crunch the numbers and project profitability before making these kinds of decisions.

 

[jrDev]

who not just be honest? "it's not selling, it'd be a poor investment of our resources?"

i'm sure the fans would prefer honesty.

That is beyond crazy to expect the fans would even be satisfied with that answer lol...

 

[Father_Brain]

It's not as if the opportunity cost issue only applies to Vita. For instance, a Wii U version of GTAV might well sell enough to turn a profit, but would be much harder to justify if it involved shifting resources away from the PS3/360 versions. Heck, Capcom itself has used this logic in ruling out Wii U ports of some of its current console titles.

 

[Rand6]

Capcom assumes that the resources they would invest into this project would yield a "meager return."

Porting a game is an ordeal that requires hammering out a licensing and digital distribution agreement with Sony, investing in programmers to work on the project, manufacturing retail cartridges, finalizing distribution deals with retailers, designing ads, and working with advertisers / marketers.

All that work for a Vita version that Capcom assumes will give them a "meager return"? It's not a case of bad management...if I were running Capcom, I wouldn't port it either.

They don't have to do all of this with WiiU?

 

[Aquamarine]

They don't have to do all of this with WiiU?

I assume part of Revelations's 3DS exclusivity was a deal with Nintendo to port the game to the Wii U.

Nintendo is probably funding / partially funding the port. I wouldn't expect the game to come to the Wii U otherwise.

 

[Rand6]

I assume part of Revelations's 3DS exclusivity was a deal with Nintendo to port the game to the Wii U.

Nintendo is probably funding / partially funding the port. I wouldn't expect the game to come to the Wii U otherwise.

It'll explains a lot of things...

 

[5amshift]

They weren't happy with sales on 3DS, why would they take time to port it to Vita when Vita as a whole is doing far worse then 3DS?

Exactly this. I'm surprised nobody else even bothered to think about that..

 

[Celine]

Nintendo is probably funding / partially funding the port. I wouldn't expect the game to come to the Wii U otherwise.

No one would develop a game for a new system since it has low install base and relatively slow sales compared to older and more widespread platforms if we apply that logic.

 

[Soriku]

RE did well on the Wii and Capcom seems to have a solid relationship with Nintendo. Not surprised at the Wii U version.

 

[Jamix012]

They don't have to do all of this with WiiU?

Capcom's benefit of putting Resident Evil: Revelations on the WiiU far, far outweighs that of putting it on the Vita.

The WiiU will not set the world alite, hell it might, but it's looking unlikely. Either way it's certainly going to outsell the Vita. Not a fact, true, but I'd be surprised if Capcom thought that it wouldn't, and that's what is important.

Whether it'd sell more on the Vita or the WiiU is a toss up, but over lifetime I reckon (probably Capcom too) that the WiiU version would probably outdo it. But that's not the only thing, Capcom have other benefits of putting RE: Revelations on the WiiU.

A) Getting their fans on the WiiU and buying their future games. If you set a precedent for releasing quality games on a console that will probably at least do modest lifetime numbers is good for future sales on that console. Putting things on a console that has 1 foot in the grave does very little in this regard.

B) Testing the WiiU. The Vita has already been tested, Capcom's games didn't exactly sell well. The Jury is still out on whether Capcom games will sell on the WiiU, and what a better way to do it then a fairly cheap port.

 

[Aquamarine]

No one would develop a game for a new system since it has low install base and relatively low sales compared to older and more widespread platforms if we apply that logic.

It's not like Capcom has particularly gone head-over-heels to support the Wii U.

The new DMC, Darkstalkers Resurrection, their new IP "Remember Me," and Lost Planet 3 have all been unconfirmed for Wii U ports.

 

[duvjones]

Just checked, Amazon.de has PSV + LBP for 199 EUR (PSV + AC:L + 4GB for 219 EUR) and 3DS XL with no game for 179 EUR (SM3DL bundle 219 EUR, though that one is limited I think?) and OG 3DS for 159 EUR. Not price parity but certainly not an ocean between.

Keep in mind that I speak from a North American prospective(being the region that I live in) mostly. Around here things have returned to normal in pricing

Exclusive Assassin's Creed and Call of Duty not trying hard enough?

Considering that AC wasn't a blow out success. And CoD.... the less talked about Declassified the better.
I would have to say yes... they have not been trying hard enough.

 

[farnham]

Capcom's benefit of putting Resident Evil: Revelations on the WiiU far, far outweighs that of putting it on the Vita.

The WiiU will not set the world alite, hell it might, but it's looking unlikely. Either way it's certainly going to outsell the Vita. Not a fact, true, but I'd be surprised if Capcom thought that it wouldn't, and that's what is important.

Whether it'd sell more on the Vita or the WiiU is a toss up, but over lifetime I reckon (probably Capcom too) that the WiiU version would probably outdo it. But that's not the only thing, Capcom have other benefits of putting RE: Revelations on the WiiU.

A) Getting their fans on the WiiU and buying their future games. If you set a precedent for releasing quality games on a console that will probably at least do modest lifetime numbers is good for future sales on that console. Putting things on a console that has 1 foot in the grave does very little in this regard.

B) Testing the WiiU. The Vita has already been tested, Capcom's games didn't exactly sell well. The Jury is still out on whether Capcom games will sell on the WiiU, and what a better way to do it then a fairly cheap port.

Isnt monster hunter tri ultimate out?

 

[Jamix012]

Isnt monster hunter tri ultimate out?

One game in one country isn't really a good test. Also the fact that it'll likely substantially increase it's sales if/when the WiiU begins to sell better means that it's still really undecided whether that's successful or not.

 

[Celine]

It's not like Capcom has particularly gone head-over-heels to support the Wii U.

The new DMC, Darkstalkers Resurrection, their new IP "Remember Me," and Lost Planet 3 have all been unconfirmed for Wii U ports.

Yeah, doesn't mean the only reason to port the game to Wii U is Nintendo funding the job.
The console port was greenlit before the Wii U was even released (and knowing Capcom was always in the card ...).

 

[Aquamarine]

Yeah, doesn't mean the only reason to port the game to Wii U is Nintendo funding the job.
The console port was greenlit before the Wii U was even released (and knowing Capcom was always in the card ...).

I know I know. I just have the feeling that Capcom isn't particularly enthusiastic about supporting the Wii U. Maybe I would change my mind if Capcom had a Resident Evil 6 Wii U port in development.

 

[Saint Gregory]

I know I know. I just have the feeling that Capcom isn't particularly enthusiastic about supporting the Wii U. Maybe I would change my mind if Capcom had a Resident Evil 6 Wii U port in development.

Bleh, they can keep that. If they start announcing day one ports of future games I think that would be all the sign of support that anyone would need.

 

[News Bot]

So... who at CAPCOM actually said this? If it's someone from USA or Europe branches, rest assured that this kind of ridiculous, conjured on-the-spot statement is nothing new. CAPCOM Japan are noticeably much better at spinning things.

 

[AuthenticM]

This is the textbook definition of "bullshit".

 

[Rand6]

I know I know. I just have the feeling that Capcom isn't particularly enthusiastic about supporting the Wii U. Maybe I would change my mind if Capcom had a Resident Evil 6 Wii U port in development.

Wii U support not focused on late ports lol

 

[Aquamarine]

So... who at CAPCOM actually said this? If it's someone from USA or Europe branches, rest assured that this kind of ridiculous, conjured on-the-spot statement is nothing new. CAPCOM Japan are noticeably much better at spinning things.

Mike Lunn, Product Manager of Capcom, replying to a comment on the PlayStation blog where someone asked "Why isn't there a Vita version?"

 

[timetokill]

He really should have just said, "What's a Vita?" in response to the question. Would've answered everything right there.

 

[ragincajun77]

I don't buy the argument that porting the game to the Vita doesn't make business sense.

First, the Vita was developed using an internal architecture that is similar to the PS3 specifically to enable making multi-platform games, or ports, a relatively easy process:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/288500/sony-ngp-porting-ps3-games-simple-and-quick/#null

http://www.videogamer.com/features/article/how_easy_is_it_to_port_ps3_games_to_vita.html

Next, even though the total sales percentage coming from the Vita version would be lower than the console versions, Vita versions of multi-platform games have managed to sell successfully. Take for example Need for Speed Most Wanted. The game was virtually identical to the PS3 and 360 versions except for some graphical concessions. Need for Speed Most Wanted is at #5 on the UK chart and has been there for 12 months. Since that time the Vita version has managed to capture 13% of the total sales in the UK, blowing the PC market share out of the water:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2013/jan/21/top-20-uk-games-week-3

Sonic All-Stars Racing is currently at #13 and the Vita version has captured 9% of total sales.

For comparison sake, look at Skylander's Giants. The 3DS version has captured only 6% of total sales.

On the Wii U Assassin's Creed 3 has a paltry 4% market share and COD:BOPS 2 has a mere 2% market share.

Considering the low development costs of porting the PS3 game to the Vita and the historical evidence indicating the relative strength of Vita version multi-platform sales, it doesn't make sense from a business standpoint to not bring it to the Vita. I guess in a long and round-about way, I am suggesting that it has to be some exclusive licensing deal with Nintendo that is holding them back.

 

[FoneBone]

I don't buy the argument that porting the game to the Vita doesn't make business sense.

It's not an argument so much as a statement that Capcom clearly doesn't think it makes business sense, or else they'd be doing it. Your argument rests on a host of assumptions about the porting process and the ease and cost of doing it in this case.

 

[ragincajun77]

It's not an argument so much as a statement that Capcom clearly doesn't think it makes business sense, or else they'd be doing it. Your argument rests on a host of assumptions about the porting process and the ease and cost of doing it in this case.

They aren't really assumptions when they are based on testimonials from actual game developers who have been through the porting process. Just saying.

Also, if they have a non-compete agreement with Nintendo which prohibits releasing the game on a competing handheld, all the business sense in the world wouldn't change the fact that they won't be releasing it on the Vita.

 

[Father_Brain]

They aren't really assumptions when they are based on testimonials from actual game developers who have been through the porting process. Just saying.

Also, if they have a non-compete agreement with Nintendo which prohibits releasing the game on a competing handheld, all the business sense in the world wouldn't change the fact that they won't be releasing it on the Vita.

Capcom hasn't announced a single title for Vita since TGS 2011. I don't think they really needed a moneyhat from Nintendo to convince them to not support the platform.

 

[VanWinkle]

Exactly this. I'm surprised nobody else even bothered to think about that..

Because its a dumb thing to ask. The cost of developing a game from the ground up for a system and the cost of having a couple members of a team port a previously made game to another system is vastly different. Its far less of a risk.

 

[Phife Dawg]

Keep in mind that I speak from a North American prospective(being the region that I live in) mostly. Around here things have returned to normal in pricing

Considering that AC wasn't a blow out success. And CoD.... the less talked about Declassified the better.
I would have to say yes... they have not been trying hard enough.

Well keep in mind that I live in Germany . It's odd though, I would've thought Europe is a far better market for Sony in general (meaning the need for a permanent price drop is more urgent in the US).

Well other than getting an exclusive GTA that's as big as you can get in terms of franchises. Rockstar is working hard on GTA V, no way could've Sony secured an exclusive for PSV launch or shortly thereafter. It's not Sony's fault for not trying that's for sure. Or what kind of franchise would you consider bigger which Sony should've tried to get another exclusive in?

Because its a dumb thing to ask. The cost of developing a game from the ground up for a system and the cost of having a couple members of a team port a previously made game to another system is vastly different. Its far less of a risk.

I understood it more in line of them not thinking the game is a good fit for the handheld market. Then why port it to another handheld which performs far, far worse hardware and software wise? Don't know if that's what he meant though.

They aren't really assumptions when they are based on testimonials from actual game developers who have been through the porting process. Just saying.

Also, if they have a non-compete agreement with Nintendo which prohibits releasing the game on a competing handheld, all the business sense in the world wouldn't change the fact that they won't be releasing it on the Vita.

Why look at other publishers? Capcom released an MTFM game on PSV, it's not like they don't have any experience either and they got the results. I can't remember any quotes though.

 

[SolVanderlyn]

Vita gets no love.

 

[Phife Dawg]

Vita gets no love.

Well there's always Bioshock, ZoE and FF X to look forward to.

Jesting aside DoA is coming, PSO, first party stuff like Tearaway etc. There's still some lovin'.

 

[Sammy Samusu]

Wii U support not focused on late ports lol

"in general"

 

[mugurumakensei]

Wii U support not focused on late ports lol

What are you talking about? It's not the same game. It's not the same content.

 

[FoneBone]

"in general"

Also, since it's coming out simultaneously with the other console versions, it's pretty clear that that wasn't what he was talking about - rather, say, RE6 or DMC.

 

[Erethian]

Resident Evil REmake and Zero both sold around 1.5 million. RE4 sold around 1.6 Million.

They did pretty good considering the Game Cube's install base was around 10 million at the time.

For comparison, RE4 PS2 sold ~3.6 million with 5x the install base.

RE4 Wii sold ~2.1 million and UC sold ~1.2 million. DSC was more of a disappointment with less than a million sold.

RE4 PS2 sold 2.3 million, not 3.6 million.

 

[Erethian]

Capcom hasn't announced a single title for Vita since TGS 2011. I don't think they really needed a moneyhat from Nintendo to convince them to not support the platform.

Moneyhats don't happen nearly as often as people think they do. It's just a convenient excuse, like turning the focus of discussion onto another platform that isn't performing well to deflect critical discussion away from your own poorly performing platform of choice.

 

[isamu]

They should port Mercenaries to Vita as a "Fuck You".

I would pay full price for a brand new Vita *ONLY* for a Mercs game. I love that mini game that much.

 

[N30RYU]

They sure don't want my money.

 

[sechsterangriff]

It's not an argument so much as a statement that Capcom clearly doesn't think it makes business sense, or else they'd be doing it.

I thought their BS statement didn't even touch the business side? All we can do is speculate.

 

[@MUWANdo]

I would pay full price for a brand new Vita *ONLY* for a Mercs game. I love that mini game that much.

You know they made a Mercs game for 3DS, right?

 

[ari]

It'd be better than nothing, which is what the Vita is kind of facing right now.

Lolololololol perfect.

 

[FGMPR]

I don't buy the argument that porting the game to the Vita doesn't make business sense.

First, the Vita was developed using an internal architecture that is similar to the PS3 specifically to enable making multi-platform games, or ports, a relatively easy process:

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/288500/sony-ngp-porting-ps3-games-simple-and-quick/#null

http://www.videogamer.com/features/article/how_easy_is_it_to_port_ps3_games_to_vita.html

Next, even though the total sales percentage coming from the Vita version would be lower than the console versions, Vita versions of multi-platform games have managed to sell successfully. Take for example Need for Speed Most Wanted. The game was virtually identical to the PS3 and 360 versions except for some graphical concessions. Need for Speed Most Wanted is at #5 on the UK chart and has been there for 12 months. Since that time the Vita version has managed to capture 13% of the total sales in the UK, blowing the PC market share out of the water:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/gamesblog/2013/jan/21/top-20-uk-games-week-3

Sonic All-Stars Racing is currently at #13 and the Vita version has captured 9% of total sales.

For comparison sake, look at Skylander's Giants. The 3DS version has captured only 6% of total sales.

On the Wii U Assassin's Creed 3 has a paltry 4% market share and COD:BOPS 2 has a mere 2% market share.

Considering the low development costs of porting the PS3 game to the Vita and the historical evidence indicating the relative strength of Vita version multi-platform sales, it doesn't make sense from a business standpoint to not bring it to the Vita. I guess in a long and round-about way, I am suggesting that it has to be some exclusive licensing deal with Nintendo that is holding them back.

Are you seriously using PC retail only figures in its weakest region in the entire western world to compare to Vita sales? That's ignorant at best, and disingenuous at worst.

 

[Opus Angelorum]

Next, even though the total sales percentage coming from the Vita version would be lower than the console versions, Vita versions of multi-platform games have managed to sell successfully. Take for example Need for Speed Most Wanted. The game was virtually identical to the PS3 and 360 versions except for some graphical concessions. Need for Speed Most Wanted is at #5 on the UK chart and has been there for 12 months. Since that time the Vita version has managed to capture 13% of the total sales in the UK, blowing the PC market share out of the water:

       PS3	Xbox	PSV    PC
Week 1	51	42	5	2
Week 2	51	42	6	1
Week 3	46	41	13	1
Week 4	44	44	11	1
Week 5	43	41	15	1
Week 6	45	40	14	1
Week 7	44	43	12	1
Week 8	47	42	11	1
Week 9	47	42	11	1
Week 10	45	42	12	1
Week 11	46	42	12	1
Week 12	43	43	13	2

The data begs to differ.

 

[SmokyDave]

       PS3	Xbox	PSV    PC
Week 1	51	42	5	2
Week 2	51	42	6	1
Week 3	46	41	13	1
Week 4	44	44	11	1
Week 5	43	41	15	1
Week 6	45	40	14	1
Week 7	44	43	12	1
Week 8	47	42	11	1
Week 9	47	42	11	1
Week 10	45	42	12	1
Week 11	46	42	12	1
Week 12	43	43	13	2

The data begs to differ.

What am I missing here? Doesn't the data say pretty much the same as the post you've quoted? That looks like a pretty healthy proportion of Vita sales to me.

That said, I don't think Resi should be ported on this basis. I think Capcom believe they made a mis-step putting Revelations on a handheld in the first place and I don't think they're about to repeat that mis-step on a handheld with way less of a chance of shifting units.