-
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.
Sony quizzed on Monster Hunter's betrayalton - 'You'll have to ask Capcom'
- Thread starter gofreak
- Start date
Bel Marduk
Banned
StuBurns said:
Even though MH3G is out this December, MH4 is a much bigger deal but that'll be out much later. Even if you could argue that a price cut wasn't necessary in Japan (and it is. The 3DS is selling much better now, and they need to build up a userbase for these games which is something a price cut helps with), having an $80 price cut in the rest of the world (where it was necessary) while keeping the JP price the same would've been idiotic.
I disagree, it was a terrible move to cut so much so fast, it gives the impression of a company unsure of their position, and that's exactly how it is. They should have cut less, and at xmas. Add that to the second stick and it seems like they have no idea what they're doing, no idea what price it should be, or what functions it should have.Meisadragon said:
It needed to be a lower price, no question, but I think they fucked up getting the price down.
Sorry yes, I meant Japan specifically. MonHun is worthless to them worldwide.FoneBone said:
OldJadedGamer said:
I don't think any company wants to. I believe Nintendo has also historically said that they'd prefer not to -- or perhaps just their bodylanguage has indicated that -- but as you say, the market dictates what needs to be done.
I personally think moneyhats distort the market, which is a bad thing, but if all my competitors are doing it, I'd have no choice. Keep in mind, again, that "moneyhats" are rarely as literal as Sony or MS or Nintendo giving 10M in cash directly to the third party; it usually means paying for advertising, or helping publish the game, or even waving license fees for each copy of the game.
Every one of those methods ultimately results in the same thing -- a "gift' of money saved or earned -- but is distributed differently. What Sony talks about as "bribing" probably isn't done very often, even with the notoriously open wallet of Microsoft.
Is it possible the major powers that be would just prefer the 3DS be the victor?
Clearly they weren't a big fan of the current generation technical requirements. Not only would a 3DS victory ensure games were cheaper to manufacture, but possibly just as important, it would mean the western publishers stay out of the handheld business.
The major western developers aren't going to develop for 3DS, but Vita certainly has an attractiveness as an HD console that's close in power to the 360/PS3/WiiU. Vita becomes an attractive SKU if successful. Two birds with one stone for the Japanese third parties. 3DS not only keeps costs lower, but it ensures they have the dedicated handheld market to themselves and don't have to compete worldwide with the western big boys.
Clearly they weren't a big fan of the current generation technical requirements. Not only would a 3DS victory ensure games were cheaper to manufacture, but possibly just as important, it would mean the western publishers stay out of the handheld business.
The major western developers aren't going to develop for 3DS, but Vita certainly has an attractiveness as an HD console that's close in power to the 360/PS3/WiiU. Vita becomes an attractive SKU if successful. Two birds with one stone for the Japanese third parties. 3DS not only keeps costs lower, but it ensures they have the dedicated handheld market to themselves and don't have to compete worldwide with the western big boys.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Opiate said:
All of what you said is correct and adding that Jack Tretton isn't the brightest coin in the fountain on top of it. The guy talks out of his ass 90% of the time anyway and it is more comical than factual.
What I meant is that they don't want to is that during the PS2 years they got all these games just because of their userbase. Companies were forced to put games on their system and most times just didn't make financial sense to put them on other systems at the time. I think Sony got too used to this way and are too stubborn to go back to their PS1 way of thinking. I think maybe they feel like they are still in that PS2 position (remember Kaz's winning statement) so maybe they feel that these companies should still be coming back to them.
I see the winner here as Capcom as they are the prettiest girl at the dance right now and have all the boys fawning over them. The series has never been exclusive anyway.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
1-D_FTW said:
There is a 0% chance western third-parties support the Vita. It could take twelve seconds and a quarter to port their PS360 games to Vita and they still wouldn't do it.
They never announced Monster Hunter 3rd for the vita.Cwarrior said:
When they showed Monster Hunter being played on it a while back that was them demonstrating the backwards compatibility and showing that the PSP version would work on the Vita and support the second analogue stick.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
Once the next gen consoles systems come out, I can see Vita getting ports of PS3/360/WiiU games that are still being made.
Auto_aim1
MeisaMcCaffrey
Well, they were under immense pressure, and a price cut is a really good way of building momentum for the hardware. Also sometimes, a late price cut fails to do that. They did completely opposite of the phrase "Too little, too late." Yes, the slider pad accessory and the large price cut reeks of desperation, but the thing is, they really cannot afford to take the 3DS situation lightly. They're taking a loss on the 3DS now, which really shows to what extent they can go.StuBurns said:
They did make some mistakes with the 3DS, and I'm not denying that, though.
It's not just development costs of porting to PSV, it's having to deal with taxing retail. The reason PSP started going DD was not because Sony were ready to go head to head with retail, it's because retail literally didn't give a fuck about the PSP, they didn't want it in there beyond major titles.
PSV SKUs of PS360 games are going to bomb, and no one is going to make them. Exclusives and 'HD' versions of 3DS games will make up most of the library. However Sony still need install base for that to happen.
Another thing they did was plant the idea that the PSV is great value. Which was really stupid. If they'd have launched at $220, dropped to $200 with Mario Kart for Xmas, I think they'd have done far better. Maybe I'm wrong, we'll never know. But I think it's been very poorly managed.
Even with that, I'm not saying I knew they were going to fuck up. I thought the 3DS would do great straight away, I thought people would love the 3D screen and PSV was doomed without one. Turns out no one cares about 3D.
PSV SKUs of PS360 games are going to bomb, and no one is going to make them. Exclusives and 'HD' versions of 3DS games will make up most of the library. However Sony still need install base for that to happen.
I think more than anything, they fucked up by admitting failure. If it was Western company, that wouldn't have happened. They'd have told you stoned faced they knew early numbers would be weak because of the library.Meisadragon said:
Another thing they did was plant the idea that the PSV is great value. Which was really stupid. If they'd have launched at $220, dropped to $200 with Mario Kart for Xmas, I think they'd have done far better. Maybe I'm wrong, we'll never know. But I think it's been very poorly managed.
Even with that, I'm not saying I knew they were going to fuck up. I thought the 3DS would do great straight away, I thought people would love the 3D screen and PSV was doomed without one. Turns out no one cares about 3D.
Zoramon089
Banned
OldJadedGamer said:
When the next gen of consoles is out there won't be any of those games to be ported...and WiiU will probably get Nextbox/PS4 ports leaving Vita...with original titles mostly from japanese devs probably
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
I don't know what exactly it is Sony Japan do all fucking day, but its clearly not working. Taking entire generations to make games, only managing to barely squeeze out PSN or PSP titles and now losing gigantic IP to competitors. If it wasn't for SCEE and SCEA you have to wonder what identity the Playstation would have if any.
ItWasMeantToBe19 said:
If it were successful they'd go for easy ports. Western publishers have proven one thing this gen: They don't like exclusives. And if you have the power for easy ports, they'll do it.
I'm not saying these western games would have sold in Japan, I'm saying they would have been appealing to western gamers. And Japanese made Vita games selling in the west would have then had to compete for sales with those games.
It's much easier to sell these Japanese 3rd party games in the west if you're on a platform the western developers deem "beneath them" and ignore.
SolidSnakex
Member
Boney said:
Funding a title and then letting it go? Activision has done that with several games recently.
When it came to moneyhats capability its very likely it was just a war Sony couldnt win. Nintendo has a scrooge mcduck vault full of cash. Iwata seems sincere enough when he says he wants to help develop certain franchises into bigger hits with certain third parties.
Thats music to the ears of third parties if beyond saying it Nintendo puts their money where their mouth is.
Thats music to the ears of third parties if beyond saying it Nintendo puts their money where their mouth is.
walking fiend
Member
from the other thread:
Though maybe it was because cost of development for 3DS is lower, maybe they didn't want to pay for PSN, maybe they thought PSV is just not going to succeed anyway, so why not go with 3DS which at least has a chance, maybe they thought Nintendo is more suited for internationalization of the brand, maybe they thought they have had already milked 3rd ports enough, maybe Nintendo's strategy of releasing cheap and behind the curve hardware is inherently more successful.
Well, I can see some logical reasons for them not wanting to do so. But when I think Iwata admittedly said that they were ready to invest in 3rd party, and the new add-on, I really can only think of money hat.ShockingAlberto said:
Though maybe it was because cost of development for 3DS is lower, maybe they didn't want to pay for PSN, maybe they thought PSV is just not going to succeed anyway, so why not go with 3DS which at least has a chance, maybe they thought Nintendo is more suited for internationalization of the brand, maybe they thought they have had already milked 3rd ports enough, maybe Nintendo's strategy of releasing cheap and behind the curve hardware is inherently more successful.
Sgt.Pepper
Banned
That's right. However, if Capcom had published Tri on the west instead of Nintendo, it wouldn't have come close to the numbers Tri with Nintendo backing it up.Bel Marduk said:Good thing MH3G and MH4 are on the 3DS then
That's why I'm glad the series is on the 3DS, at least there's a chance for them to come here.
Sony has made it very clear though that they jus't don't money hat for exclusives anymore. And apparently, loyalty to a platform owner that made the immense success of Monster Hunter possible in the first place is nowhere to be found at Capcom, which is weird imo. Obviously, Nintendo's incentive must have been quite big or Sony actually pissed Capcom off, but it's a weird move to say the least.Pie and Beans said:
SolidSnakex
Member
antonz said:
I'm pretty sure that Sony could hold their own if they wanted to. They pay out 20m+ to fund games like Heavy Rain. They need someone in the company to be as ruthless as they were in the PSOne and PS2 days.
There's Brutal Legend and what else?SolidSnakex said:
And well not necesarilly letting them go mid development because of it being troubled, but also cancelled games or flat out mediocre or bad games after huge investments.
In a way similar to Nintendo's reluctance to acquire outside development studios.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
Pie and Beans said:
Depends on where SCEI has allowed funding to go. Looks like they spent a whole shitton of dev dollars on Western made games. After all they just bought Sucker Punch, then Mm before that, and Evolution before that. All Western companies. Where has the financial backing for Japanese third party devs been like the support for Western devs?
walking fiend
Member
that open world game now taken up by SE? can't remember the name, something like stranglehold? True Crime?Boney said:
Well, CoD sells a lot on DS.
SolidSnakex
Member
Boney said:
BL, Ghostbusters, True Crime etc.
Boney said:
Well, you can look at some of Capcom's outsourced games for that (the mediocre/bad games). Sony has improved quite a bit since earlier this gen though. Lair's development was rumored to be specifically because Kutaragi saw them as being able to exploit hardware. They flushed 20m down the toilet on that one.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
SolidSnakex said:
Those were funded by Vivendi, not Activision.
I think thats part of the problem but alot of people seem to think Sony Corps checkbook is open to SCE just because they are a branch. In fact I suspect Sony Corp is very hesitent to keep passing off random amounts of money to SCE because the ROI is non existent.OldJadedGamer said:
SCE is forced to use whatever budget they have in ways the benefit the global stage. In much the same way people say MH is not so important to 2/3 of the world SCE may say why put all this money thats not gonna help 2/3 of the world. Probably makes more sense to the suits to invest in a project thats gonna sell in 2 of 3 major markets instead of a game that will sell to 1 of 3
DeaconKnowledge
Member
1-D_FTW said:
very simple fix.
Sony has to do a very specific thing with Vita - they have to prove that this thing will succeed where the original PSP failed. Ultimately they will have to prove that to the consumer, but in the near future they will have to convince that to third parties.
My honest opinion on the Vita is that it will do worse than the PSP. It only fixes one of the problems the original PSP had (Disc based media) while still retaining a plethora of other problems, the chief one among them facilitating easy ports from the HD consoles, which has proven to be a dud with consumers in the west.
Western gamers don't WANT portable odysseys. They want those titles on their 60 inch Bravias and PC rigs. They want bite sized, simple gaming that cannot (and will not) be achieved on a sit down console. So far, anyway, that's not Vita.
Vita in fact, is exactly what consumers don't want - a PSP with prettier graphics and better control.
edit: I will add that this opinion is reserved for Vita in the western market.
People should really ask Capcom about the situation but imo it's pretty clear.
Nintendo was getting desperate with their 3DS sales around June and decided to take actions.
The deal must be recent because Reeves at Gamescom basically confirmed MH for Vita and that was in mid August.
Then Nintendo proceded with the second part of their 3DS resurrection plan after the price drop, they made a huge market deal to get MH4 and the whole series exclusive for a certain period of time. So not only MH4 is locked for 3DS but Capcom can't even release a spin off or port or anything MH related on an other platform until after MH4 is released.
And to think that maybe Sony was gearing up to announce MHP3 on Vita at launch which has been scrapped.....LOL
The only missing piece is if Sony was at least given the chance to make a counter-deal proposal and they declined because there was too much money involved or if it's a full betrayalton XD (like RE series on GC part two).
Still Monster Hunter or not, Sony will have to make specific deals for the japanese market if they want to make Vita succeessful in that market.
In the west they have their first party studios,they're spending money to increase the number of their internal developers and considering how western developers usually don't committ seriously to handhelds it's the right decision, but in Japan they have nothing made 'in house' to bank on and ports/remakes (like Persona 4, FFX, Disgaea 3, Tales of Innocence, Ninja Gaiden Sigma) won't keep the platform alive, those are nice as an extra but can't be the main meal.
Nintendo was getting desperate with their 3DS sales around June and decided to take actions.
The deal must be recent because Reeves at Gamescom basically confirmed MH for Vita and that was in mid August.
Then Nintendo proceded with the second part of their 3DS resurrection plan after the price drop, they made a huge market deal to get MH4 and the whole series exclusive for a certain period of time. So not only MH4 is locked for 3DS but Capcom can't even release a spin off or port or anything MH related on an other platform until after MH4 is released.
And to think that maybe Sony was gearing up to announce MHP3 on Vita at launch which has been scrapped.....LOL
The only missing piece is if Sony was at least given the chance to make a counter-deal proposal and they declined because there was too much money involved or if it's a full betrayalton XD (like RE series on GC part two).
Still Monster Hunter or not, Sony will have to make specific deals for the japanese market if they want to make Vita succeessful in that market.
In the west they have their first party studios,they're spending money to increase the number of their internal developers and considering how western developers usually don't committ seriously to handhelds it's the right decision, but in Japan they have nothing made 'in house' to bank on and ports/remakes (like Persona 4, FFX, Disgaea 3, Tales of Innocence, Ninja Gaiden Sigma) won't keep the platform alive, those are nice as an extra but can't be the main meal.
SolidSnakex
Member
OldJadedGamer said:
Wasn't True Crime their own series?
Wazzim said:
The new Anno and that atrocious Bloom
1-D_FTW said:
Lord have mercy, I higggghhhllly doubt its some Japanese conspiracy among third parties meant to stunt the adoption of high cost game development. Just a moneyhat is all.
walking fiend said:
Tis true, I remember that, supposedly the COD DS games do quite well. Not blockbuster hardware movingly well, but well. I still think though, that this sudden rush of folks claiming a COD on Vita is going to be a system mover is crazy talk though. I dont doubt it could do well, even better than the DS versions did, but its not likely to be a major breadwinner. This is the same thing people said about GTA and the PSP.
Fine Ham Abounds
Member
( ╯°□°)╯︵ [° [::[_]+]]
I'm just sore MML3 is gone.
Considering the hit their stock took, it sounds like business-types are convinced Capcom's hurt themselves more than they've helped the 3DS.
For those of us who play these things, I'm hoping this means there'll be some sustainable healthy competition between these systems for a while.
[_[_]°]
I'm just sore MML3 is gone.
Considering the hit their stock took, it sounds like business-types are convinced Capcom's hurt themselves more than they've helped the 3DS.
For those of us who play these things, I'm hoping this means there'll be some sustainable healthy competition between these systems for a while.
OldJadedGamer
Banned
SolidSnakex said:
Looking back on True Crime L.A. it was an Activision series so one out of the three you mentioned could be covered but the other two while of course dropped by Activision, they were only dropped after the merger with Vivendi... the original funding source.
Are there any other examples of companies doing this besides True Crime?
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
I certainly hope Capcom and Nintendo work something the fuck out for Monster Hunter 4 and the 3DS online in the west if this really is sounding as money-hatted and seemingly conclusive as it all does.
To go from PSP to PS3 adhoc party shenanigans but working solution, to Tri's pretty awesome online back to absolutely fucking nothing is not acceptable.
To go from PSP to PS3 adhoc party shenanigans but working solution, to Tri's pretty awesome online back to absolutely fucking nothing is not acceptable.
Cwarrior said:
I don't have a link but I remember that the deal was made because Mikami thought that Sony was getting too arrogant and for the sake of the game industry (LOL) they needed to counter balance their power supporting an other platform with key titles exclusively. Also Mikami said they had nightmares developing Code Veronica and DMC on PS2 and Sony didn't help them. Still Nintendo obviously paid money but the deal came also because of Mikami going for it.
Kutaragi stated that he was not informed about it until after the announcemen and that his heart was broken ahaha
airmangataosenai
Member
From my perspective it seems like there was a major falling out between the two companies, after all they had a working demo of Monster Hunter for the Vita as far back as January. Either Nintendo gave them a crazy offer or Capcom overreached with some sort of demand from Sony leading to it getting cancelled.... made all the stranger by them only announcing the PS3 version back in May. Coupling that with the fact that all the other rumors were true and that no one knew about MH4 before the actual trailer..... all of these decisions regarding the move of the franchise probably happened within the past month. I'm thinking Sony blocked the release of MHP3rd on the grounds of not receiving new content and with the harsh language from execs I doubt we'll see it in the near future either.Cwarrior said: