-
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.
Media Create Sales: Week 44, 2012 (Oct 29 - Nov 04)
- Thread starter Chris1964
- Start date
frankie_baby
Member
Quite probably, though I've had another thought its quite possible they ordered far more 3g antennas than they've used so far so they might as well use them up
Sammy Samusu
Member
Famitsu First Week:
Monster Hunter Portable (Best Price!) (￥2.079) - 12,314
Monster Hunter Portable 2nd G (Best Price!) (￥2.100) - 19,829
Monster Hunter Portable 3rd (Best Price!) (￥2.990) - 15,113
At this point...sure.
frankie_baby
Member
Will be interesting to see how (if) the bundle will be tracked along with the best price version, really don't understand at all why the Japanese trackers all seem to track budget rereleases seperately from the originals
test_account
XP-39C²
The budget releases got a new barcode as far as i know, so it will be seen as an indivdual game.
EDIT: It could be worth mentioning that limited editions are usually counted towards one entry/SKU in the charts, but i guess maybe they want to see the budget releases as a new release.
slaughterking
Member
Magicpaint
Member
Awesome
electroplankton
Banned
Paper Mario will be one of those games with a lower-than-expected debut, and then a strong demand in weeks 51-52-01, such as Mario Sports Mix and Kirby's Adventure Wii.
[PSP] Monster Hunter Freedom (PSP the Best) <ACT> (Capcom) {2006.08.03} (¥3.129)
[PSP] Monster Hunter Freedom Unite (PSP the Best) <ACT> (Capcom) {2008.10.30} (¥3.140)
[PSP] Monster Hunter Freedom 3 (PSP the Best) <ACT> (Capcom) {2011.09.22} (¥2.990)
The fact you can say (with a straight face) that the PS4 or Wii U supports my point. For HD development in Japan this gen, it was PS3 or essentially nothing.
test_account
XP-39C²
Maybe i wasnt clear, but the PS4 or the WiiU didnt really matter much to my point. It was about why/if people would say "support wasnt earned, the developers had no choice". I could have written "system X or system Y" instead, it would be the same. But i decided to go with PS4 and WiiU instead of a hypthetical system because both the PS4 and WiiU are real and upcoming systems (as a side note, i dont think that it is 100% unthinkable that one of these systems might end up being the dominant one, so i dont quite understand what you mean with "saying it with a straight face"?).
The initial point you and i replied to was not about HD developement, it was about support in general. You mentioned HD developement in specfic to this, so i guess that maybe i shouldnt have replied what i did to your quote, sorry. You're right that the PS3 was the only viable HD alternative in Japan.
But to make things clear about the initial point, what is the difference between "earned support" and "has no choice" support? This is not about HD vs SD developement, but about support in general.
frankie_baby
Member
Does he say if that includes download cards and/or the bundle?
electroplankton
Banned
Thanks for having proved by point with a simple and clear analysis!
On a serious note: I didn't say Sony had bad relationship third parties. I said that it's more than a decade that we've not seeing Sony actively bringing third parties on their platforms; they just took the support as given, and this is straightforward in Vita case. Third parties always developed for Sony platform because they sold a huge amount of units; PS3 got a nice support at the beginning (even just planned) because of PS2 legacy. PSP, instead, because it was "first Sony handheld" and it was supposed to destroy the competition sooner or later (PSP was really hyped back then).
Furthermore, Dragon Quest is lost. No Dragon Quest appeared on a Sony platform after 2006, when Nintendo announced an agreement with Square Enix for bringing the franchise on DS and overseas. You see? Nintendo actively behaved to get a strong third party IP, while Sony just watched behind the scene. And Monster Hunter case is speaking for itself.
Maybe multiplatform titles are irrelevant in Japan, but not in the West. Not only Sony weren't able to keep key franchises of their platforms (Tekken, Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, Devil May Cry, etc.) but they weren't even able to work on the Western side (e.g. MS with Mass Effect, Nintendo with Ubisoft). A mess.
Sony didn't work to actively bring third parties on their platforms simply because they didn't need that: third parties went on PS2 and PSP anyway. PS3 and PSV shown that take that support as given was a really bad, bad move.
And be careful: I didn't say PSP and PS3 weren't able to relaunch themselves because of third parties... Actually I wrote that some posts ago. But that didn't mean that it was Sony to bring them on the platform.
Just the game, not the download cards or bundle.
test_account
XP-39C²
No problem =)
Then i misunderstood you on this, sorry. I thought you ment that Sony had bad relation with 3rd party support because you said that it wasnt true that Sony always had good 3rd party relation.
Yeah, PS1 and PS2 sold good because of all the support. I'm not sure what the biggest reason is for this however, if it is just because of the piece of hardware itself and/or if Sony did a good job getting developers on board.
Is there an agreement between Squre Enix and Nintendo on this? I always thought that it was because of DS and Wii were the most selling systems. Or was an argreement made before this?
Indirectly one could say that it was. It was the redesign of the PS3 and the pricedrop that was a big reason for the relaunch.
frankie_baby
Member
Then we will undoubtedly be looking at the biggest 3ds first week so far
Wow, god damn. Million seller before end of November, possibly two million by end of December.
Will be interesting to see how other software like NSMB 2 gets bumped up from the 3DS explosion.
electroplankton
Banned
You misunderstood because you were not careful to read properly. I didn't say that it wasn't true that Sony had always had good third parties relationship. I was pointing that this: "a firm fact in the past VG industry is exactly Sony's strenght in third party relationships" (wrote by Aostia, so I was focusing on only this part of his post) is not true, let alone a "firm fact"; I mean, every person here is saying it's not true. Sony relationship with third parties got worse and worse over the years (that doesn't mean that it's bad).
We all know how Sony was aggressive with PS1 in getting all the third parties on board. Mid-Ninenties. Almost twenty years ago.
Do you think Nintendo distributed Dragon Quest in the West by chance?
http://media.edge-online.com/wp-content/uploads/edgeonline/oldfiles/Dragon Quest X_0.jpg this is from the Dragon Quest X event, but there was one for the IX event.
By the way, the decision to put Dragon Quest IX on DS dates back before people may known DS would have become the best selling platform in Japan of all times.
Usually it's more than one or two factors.
test_account
XP-39C²
No, i did actually read your post properly, i read it several of times in fact
As you mention here, you said that the 3rd party relation with Sony had gotten worse and worse, and that they were losing a lot of exclusives. Then you said to Aostia "I just focused on your sentence "Sony has always had a great relationship with third parties", which is not true.". I think it is fair to understand this as you were meaning that Sony doesnt have a good 3rd party relationship.But i misunderstood earlier what you ment, sorry, and you're right that "getting worse" doesnt necessarily means that it is bad overall. But i see now what you mean after the last explanation, thanks =)
Yeah, it is a long time ago indeed. It might not apply that much today.
Hm, i guess it is hard to say. Dragon Quest IX was announced in December 2006. We already saw the strong DS hardware sales in December 2005, one year in advance.
No, not by chance, but the Wii and DS was already seeing pretty strong hardware sales before both games were announced. It has always been said that Dragon Quest goes to the platform(s) that sells the most, so i think this is a part of it. It is just my guess of course, but i havnt seen any official source on it telling otherwise.
What other factors do you think played into the role in this case?
Were they really actively aggressive though, courting 3rd parties? Or were they just a much needed fresh air in a back then highly risky and reclusive industry? I think Sony and its relationships actually barely changed since, what actually changed is the competitive landscape within which it is acting. Back with the PS1 Sony was a revolutionary disruption in the closed gaming console market of that time: lower licensing fees, lower and faster production cost for the physical software package production, much more thorough software development tools and support, potential worldwide distribution and support. Since then these attributes simply have become standard in the industry.
I honestly think even PS2 and PSP were not profiting off of the above anymore like the PS1 eventually did. Instead PS2 and (in Japan) PSP sold very well for being the hardware attributes they offered, even during periods of lackluster software releases and sales. I still recall the prolonged PS2 launch period with the lackluster games lineup where it still sold hugely for being also a DVD player. And in Japan PSP while lacking software was always well positioned as a chic multimedia gadget until MH came along and made good use of the then huge install base.
Being also a BR player wasn't as much of a system seller anymore for PS3, and PS Vita is apparently completely missing any attribute anymore that makes people go buy it without any desirable software in sight.
If a developer wanted to release a version of their game made for the international market in Japan, their "choices" were 360 (can't be said without immediately being followed by laughter) or PS3. PS3 "earned" the support of third-parties by being the only system with any meaningful sales presence in Japan for HD developed games. It did not "earn" the support of third-parties by providing a robust sales environment for third-party games as was seen with PS1 or PS2. (Probably even as seen with SNES, but we don't have much data that far back.) PS3 essentially "fell into" this gen's major third-support in Japan by being in the right power at the right time, and it wasn't a particularly good result for third-parties looking at an historical perspective.
If their choice is to release a game on a system that can't sell much of the software (i.e. 360) or not release the game for a reasonable cost (i.e. Wii) or release the game on PS3, they mostly chose to release the game on PS3. The other alternatives for them weren't viable due to power or presence problems. PS3 had to have some base level of strength to even be remotely viable even at that point, and coming off the PS2 with MGS4/FFXIII/GT5 coming, it had that base level. However, it didn't "earn" the support by providing a robust sales environment for the software released on the system. The publishers always had a choice on some level, but with HD development costs so high, they couldn't afford to just not release the game at all in Japan and that was about the only other choice compared to releasing the game on PS3.
electroplankton
Banned
This is very good point. When writing about Sony's aggressiveness to get all the third parties I was really thinking about lower royalties, favourable development condition, agreement to promote titles (as financing Squaresoft's Digicube), etc.
Maybe they became standards over time, but what I was saying is that Sony now is not even trying the get support. I mean, you know your platform mainly depend on one IP... Do everything to secure it for the next platform, instead of just watching what happens.
But that's exactly my point: they actually were never trying to get support! They were simply building the respective hardware, offered the fitting development frameworks and support, and stated the costs necessary to get involved. Back with the PS1 this was more than sufficient to make developers flock to their platform as the competition was way more worse about all those details. Now this is simply no longer sufficient. This would perfectly explain how Sony can be this completely oblivious about the state of the PS Vita for such a long time (still is?), and why Yoshida can state with a straight face that they are surprised and disappointed about developers not showing as much support as they expected. Sony thought the way they handle everything makes them stand out, missing the point that all their big rivals more than caught up already.
MasterSheen
Member
If AC can sell that much in the first day, can it possibly reach NSMB(DS or Wii) first week sales during the weekend? I remember them doing a similar number in their first day.
It all depends from how much Nintendo can ship, at this point.
test_account
XP-39C²
Sony gambled with the $599 price on the PS3. This affected the sales envoirment indeed. But i would say that even on the PS1 and PS2, the 3rd party software developers played a big part in making that sales envoirment. The same goes for the PS3. The 3rd party support was (and still is) a big reason that made the consumers wanting to buy the hardware.
I see your points, but if the PS3 didnt excist, the choices would be Xbox 360 and the Wii (of course, then there might have neen i.e a Samsung console or something instead, but that will just be hypothetical). The PS3 added one extra option for the publishers. Seeing the continued support for the PS3, i assume that the publishers are statisfied with that the PS3 excist (especially when we talk about Japan only). If the publishers are satisfied with that the hardware excist, this is enough to fall under the "earned it" category in my opinion
EDIT: By the way, is there anything in particular you think about that needs to be done by the console manufacturer to make a healthy sales envoirment that isnt already done? Do you mean the console pricetag (this can be somewhat tricky since it depends a lot on if the consumers feel that what they pay for is of great value) and 1st party support? Or is there anything else?
eShop and download card both.
frankie_baby
Member
Under shipped maybe, but still likely enough to set records for a 3ds game launch and records for the the animal crossing series
electroplankton
Banned
No, i did actually read your post properly, i read it several of times in fact
Not having a good relationship with third parties doesn't mean that it must be necessarily bad. It's on average. Are you happy now? Btw, the relationship got worse over years, and this is fact: just count how many exclusives PS2 had, and how 360 changed the situation; on the handheld side, I don't see any reason to say that Sony has some sort of relationship with third parties; for reference, just look how many third parties games Nintendo brought in Europe, and how many bundles they did for them.
You're welcome!
One of the user brought an interesting point about that. It's not that Sony got worse with third parties relationship (I do think this is true, though), but the competitors got better.
When Dragon Quest IX was announced in December 2006, it was already under development since some months. DS exploded a year before, but still no one could see it would have become the highest platform of the generation. Still, a game is not planned overnight, so it might well be that Square Enix made the decision because of other reasons than "the DS is the best selling console".
Said by whom? It is true that Dragon Quest always lands to best-selling platforms but, for example, I clearly remember that VII was on PS1 because "Dragon Quest will go where Final Fantasy is". Btw, in this case Nintendo involvement is pretty clear; pictures of Iwata during the announcement are not something that happened by chance, as well as the agreement to bring the franchise in the West.
Third parties games
The first version of PSP was launched along Crisis Core and Portable Ops+, for example.
If the PS3 didn't exist and the 360 still sold like it has and the Wii didn't magically change it's architecture+power to make porting more feasible, then they mostly probably would not have been able to release their games in Japan and expect sales. So from the option of nothing or PS3, yeah, they're glad they have PS3 instead of nothing. Doesn't make them happy or satisfied with the PS3 after what they had in previous generations, though.
Nintendo stop being dorks and make a console that's easily portable to. Nintendo is the main reason PS3 did so poorly this gen. Nintendo pulled in the masses that a successful console needs to thrive, but third-parties weren't at the party. That shot publishers, Sony, and Nintendo in the foot, all at the same time. Lack of support from industry doomed Wii (happened much earlier in Japan than elsewhere, once again Japan was a harbinger for effects in the international markets), huge success of Wii with mainstream stunted PS3's mainstream audience, and PS3's middling performance limited the audience for HD third-party published games.
Hopefully that porting issue will be remedied with Wii U due to using an actual scalable-to architecture this time around. I suppose another option would be that the mainstream all flock to PS4, but I consider that much, much less likely (after PS3) than the first option.
test_account
XP-39C²
I was always happy. I simply just misunderstood what you ment earlier, i hope that you dont see this as any criticism against you? Because it was not ment as criticism, if we disagree i respect your opinions, i'm not angry about it or anything like that
It happends quite often that people, including myself, have to explain and elaborate on their points, i feel like i see it almost everyday on NeoGAF, it is common. You explained nicely in your previous post (and in this post) what you ment, i no longer misunderstood what you ment, all worked out fine Have there been many 3rd party bundles in Europe?
Yeah, Datschge point about Sony's main focus being on bringing good hardware and royalty fees (and all that stuff connected to the publishers) could be a likely senario, i agree.
Competition has also gotten stronger as well, that is true.
Sure, it was hard to know exactly how popular the DS would be, but it had the biggest hardware week in history (unless i'm forgetting something) in December 2005, with nearly 600k DS units sold in one week. I think this holiday period alone was a very good indicator that the DS was going to continue to be very popular.
I'm not sure if there are any words on when DQ9's developement started. What i know for sure is that it was released about 2.5 years after it was first announced. It is possible that the decition was made and that the developement started already in early 2005 for all that i know.
By many people on NeoGAF. I dont remember specific names unfortunately, but havnt you seen these being said before? Personally i've seen it being mentioned now and then. Probably a few years since i last saw it being mentioned.
I do think that Nintendo was very flexible with Square Enix, trying to work good with them. I have no idea how the whole process went down, but i do believe that the platform choice was made mainly by Square Enix.
Yeah, it was mainly the 3rd parties own choice. But i'm pretty sure that they made the choice partily based on what was done with the hardware and its pricetagThird parties games
The first version of PSP was launched along Crisis Core and Portable Ops+, for example.
Launching a year or more after the Wii U isn't going to help Sony's prospects in that department, either.
test_account
XP-39C²
True, but like you say in the other paragraph here, Nintendo pulled the masses to the Wii, yet the publishers didnt choose to fully support it. This is what i ment earlier regarding "had no choice", it was something that the publishers set themself up to based on previous decisions. And when they were in this situation, finding a viable platform was important. It looks like the PS3 is a viable platform in many cases, that is why i think it fall more under the "earned it" category rather than "had no choice" category (eventhough i know what you mean with this)
Seems like an accurate description of the situation
It shall be interesting to see how the market will go regarding this. If the 1 year head start will mean that a lot of people have chosen the WiiU as their next system.
Took me a minute to get it. haha
Is there a way to combine multiple games into one single line using Garaph? Basically creating up my own software groups on the fly.
Like if I wanted to combine each COD iteration adding all systems and versions:
Looking at the U.S., as the 1-year headstart for 360 in Japan wasn't a #gamechanger, and just looking at PS360 (Wii's historic rise is unlikely to happen again soon, if ever), 360 was at 2.9m when PS3 launched. Not that much really. However after another year on the market, it was ahead by 5.1m. A good bit of that was PS3's price causing really low sales that first year, but it's also reasonable to believe that a system that isn't outright rejected by the public (e.g. Dreamcast) would grow faster in its second year with more games and possibly a price drop than a new system would in its first year. Therefore, the 1-year mark may not be a big amount for Wii U (would expect > 2.9m for Wii U in the first year in the U.S., though), but if that continues to grow in the second year, it'll make a substantial difference.
Kei Hiroya of Bandai Namco, who also served as Tokitowa's producer, says their (as in Bandai Namco's) number 1 point of reflection is that Tokitowa sold less than they had anticipated. He wants the game to continue selling, even if it means just one more copy sold.
Another thing he mentions is that they weren't able to deliver the game within the timeframe that fans were expecting, which he feels dropped hype for the game a bit.
http://www.gamer.ne.jp/news/201211070002/
Another thing he mentions is that they weren't able to deliver the game within the timeframe that fans were expecting, which he feels dropped hype for the game a bit.
http://www.gamer.ne.jp/news/201211070002/
electroplankton
Banned
I was always happy. I simply just misunderstood what you ment earlier, i hope that you dont see this as any criticism against you? Because it was not ment as criticism, if we disagree i respect your opinions, i'm not angry about it or anything like that
No worries, just read more carefully next time, and put the words in their context
For 3DS? Zero. But in Europa Nintendo distributed (and promoted) Heroes of Ruin, Rhythm Thief, Resident Evil Revelations, Kingdom Hearts 3D, Dead or Alive Dimensions, Tekken 3D (yeah, we had Tekken 3D ads in Italy from Nintendo). This means that Nintendo actively collaborated with third parties to bring over their games, and perhaps there were dealings to begin with, as in Dragon Quest case.
In both cases, Sony wasn't able to be competitive in the market.
But deciding to bring Dragon Quest on handheld wasn't a decision made overnight. You know that when you develop a game you have to invest money, to go through a decision process that may take several months, etc.? If the game was announced in December 2006, it's very unlikely that Square Enix decided just few months before to put the series on DS, and it's unlikely as well that by watching 2005 DS sales they said "oh, look how many units the platform sold during the last week of the year! Let's put Dragon Quest on DS!". It's not that easy.
So before all people were aware the platform would have become the biggest thing of the generation? Sure. That's why it's clear that Nintendo did its part.
I don't see any point. Dragon Quest always appear on the platform with the biggest userbase. That doesn't mean that agreement with Nintendo didn't exist to begin with. I think the behaviour of Nintendo in bringing the series overseas spoke for itself.
Probably. That doesn't mean that Nintendo didn't work actively to have the entire series (because, remember, Dragon Quest never appeared on a Sony hardware since 2006) on its platforms.
Yeah, it was mainly the 3rd parties own choice. But i'm pretty sure that they made the choice partily based on what was done with the hardware and its pricetag
Many factors must be considered, as already said.
jimmypython
Member
I don't know much about Tokitowa.but is the game any good?
test_account
XP-39C²
Yeah, that is true. It shall be very interesting to see what will happen
Oh, i always try to do that. But sometimes things can be interpreted in several of ways, so it isnt always possible to know 100% for sure what exactly the other party means. I felt that my pervious misunderstanding was a fair misinterpretation, it would be different if i replied something completely unrelated to what you said. "Worse" and "not great" could easily be concidered as the situation is bad, in my opinion, but it could be interpreted differently as well indeed.No worries, just read more carefully next time, and put the words in their context
If i say "Nintendo will have a hard time to getting the WiiU sales pitch across to the consumers", this can be interpreted like i'm saying that the WiiU will sell bad, but it could also mean that i think the WiiU will sell less than the Wii, but not necessarily bad. That is why i think it was a fair misunderstanding earlier =)
Communication is afterall a mutual thing, both/all parties in a discussion have a responsibility to make sure that there is understanding going on. As i mentioned earlier, it is common that people have to elaborate on their points because there is misunderstanding or misinterpreting going on. You can just check our previous discussions for example, where both of us have elaborated on serveral of our points
3DS, DS or Wii 3rd party bundles.
Yeah, it is good that they do this
With "both cases" do you mean the hardware and the royaly fees? Or do you mean two systems (Vita is one, but i'm not sure what the 2nd one could be).
I have no idea how long these things are set in advance. There are 12 months between December 2005 and December 2006, so it is a good amount of time.
It could be. Besides Dragon Quest 4, that was released 22 years ago, all mainline DQ games have been released a few years after the system launches.
Sure, i didnt say that Nintendo had no saying in it. I said that that i think Square Enix made their decision much on how well the DS was doing. I dont know if that was the only reason, but i think it was a big part of it.
Yep. At least we agree that Sony was one factor to it
electroplankton
Banned
3DS, DS or Wii 3rd party bundles.
Yeah, it is good that they do this
This is an example of how Nintendo tried to speak with third parties, and to agree with them giving incentives of the type "if you develop on my plaftorm, I can bear the distribution costs overseas".
Whether it was Sony to worsen third parties relationship, or they were competing firm to strengthen them, Sony has not be able to be competitive in the market; you know, PS2 got ALL the support from third parties, which was mainly cmade of exclusives. PS3 doesn't have that.
No, it's not, also considering that what was shown during the event was a game under development, not concept arts or just the logo. Basically, you're saying that Square Enix decided to develop Dragon Quest IX on DS just after seeing the sales of December 2005. yeah, very likely... No.
Have you already shown the pictures of Iwata and Horii during the event where Dragon Quest IX was shown for the first time?
By saying that Nintendo had still a small part in the decision, you're basically proving my point: Nintendo worked to secure the IP, in one way or another, while Sony didn't (also Final Fantasy appeared always on the best selling hardware... Until PS3). And that's clear from the fact that after Dragon Quest IX, Nintendo localized also IV and Joker 2.
Yep. At least we agree that Sony was one factor to it
This implies that Sony relationship with third parties has historically been wonderful? No.
test_account
XP-39C²
Yeah, this could be a pretty good thing indeed.
I understand. The $599 PS3 pricetag really hit them to begin with indeed.
I'm curious if the PS3 would have had a chance to become such a dominant console like the PS2 was even if it was priced lower to begin with. This generation was kinda special, with one console (the Wii) offering something completely different, while the two other (PS3 and Xbox 360) offered a more similar experience. More competition for both Microsoft, Nintend and Sony. It could perhaps be even more competition next generation if all three consoles offer something very different from eachother.
There is also the possibility that it could have started as a PS2 or a PSP game for all that i know, then moved to the DS when they saw how popular it became. But it is afterall just a guess. Impossible to know unless some developer confirms it.
Yeah, but it is hard to say for sure if that is related to DQX.
Maybe it doesnt look like it, but i'm actually not really arguing against what you're saying
I'm open to the idea that Nintendo did make a deal with Square Enix before we saw the big popularity of the DS and the Wii. But i'm also open to the idea that Square Enix did a decision based on the systems' popularity, while Nintendo's involvement on top of this would make the decision even easier. The speculation will be about how much influence did Nintendo alone have on the platform decision of DQ9 and DQ10.No, i ment it specifically regarding the PS3 relaunch that you mentioned earlier, that i see the redesign and pricedrop as a good incentive to drive more 3rd party support. Same as Nintendo did with the 3DS pricedrop, a good incentive to drive more 3rd party support =)
electroplankton
Banned
Probably, the fact is that Sony wasn't able to be competitive in a market where basically was dominating.
It's also possible that Dragon Quest IX never existed and we all dreamt about it. But let's try to keep the most likely scenarios. In your case, by the way, it would have been even worse for Sony, because they left a big exclusive to Nintendo without doing nothing.
Sorry, this picture is related to Dragon Quest IX: http://www.blogcdn.com/www.joystiq.com/media/2008/12/dqiwata-nintendo-helping-out.jpg and these are the words Iwata said at that event: "With the release of Dragon Quest IX, there are two things I'd like to make reality. The first is to build a thriving Japanese game market together with Dragon Quest that rivals the West's. The second is to form a strong tag team to promote Dragon Quest overseas. At Nintendo, we were able to popularize the Brain Age series overseas, which was said to be unmarketable. I want to increase the number of people worldwide that understand the appeal of Dragon Quest, which represents all Japanese gaming culture...even if that only turns out to be a single person. I'm looking forward to working together with Mr. Horii and Square Enix.".
Are you still sure that Nintendo's involvement was negligible?
Maybe it doesnt look like it, but i'm actually not really arguing against what you're saying
I didn't say the choice was completelet driven by Nintendo. Never. I just said that Nintendo worked to secure the IP, which indeed never appeared on other platforms after 2006. So, what are you arguing about?
Third parties were already on board on PS3; maybe you don't remember, but before the platform was completely unveiled, Resident Evil, Final Fantasy, Devil May Cry, Koei games, Metal Gear Solid were sure things. Then we all know how it ended, with 90% of them becoming multi-platform titles.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
Afraid not for now.Is there a way to combine multiple games into one single line using Garaph? Basically creating up my own software groups on the fly.
Like if I wanted to combine each COD iteration adding all systems and versions:
electroplankton
Banned
Animal Crossing is 7000 yen on Amazon now, lol
Given the first day sales (around 400-450k), and given how this kind of games tend to sell well during the weekend, if Nintendo ships enough copies, it would be likely to see an 700-750k opening, which would be astonishing. But let's see.
Given the first day sales (around 400-450k), and given how this kind of games tend to sell well during the weekend, if Nintendo ships enough copies, it would be likely to see an 700-750k opening, which would be astonishing. But let's see.