Same as it ever was. I would encourage those who have questions to simply ask them. I had frequented this community since 2011 and every question I asked was answered promptly and informatively.I'm shocked that the users that only posted to complain about the community left the thread immediately after people started talking about sales again.
I'm not suggesting that human beings don't have biases, but i think i think the broader picture painted by these threads is often silly
- Capcom could put RE7, RE2, and MHW world on Switch, but they won't, because you know, bias.
*RE7 is on Switch in cloud form, ostensibly because they tried to get it to run and were forced to make a compromise
- S-E could put FFXV on Switch, but they won't, because bias (or maybe Sony money?)
*Pocket version is on Switch and this is a game that they really struggled to get to run on PS4
-Falcom hates Nintendo, despite barely releasing competent games on a single platform, and outsourcing ports of the entire Sen sub series with the interim title also coming soon
In regard to Danganronpa, maybe, but I'm also not really informed re: the series. I'd want to see more than a joke comment about wishing people bought more of a certain platform and lack of releases on another (I do believe it was recently put on Switch.) But the entirety of these discussions seems to paint some picture of some anti-Nintendo cabal within the JP industry.
I do understand some of the confusion. Why ISN'T Sakura Taisen a multiplat? At the same time, software on less successful hardware has always been a thing. Can you imagine going through the early 90s questioning every PC Engine or Megadrive exclusive?
Comparing the landscape of today's industry and the way it handles multiplatform releases to the early 90s is, frankly, nonsensical. "Why ISN'T Sakura Taisen a multiplat?" is the correct reaction to Sega's release strategy for the game. The reality for most exclusive releases these days seem to fall into any number of categories: platform-holder invested money into the project/has some sort of contract, the developer is small and possibly can't handle multiplatform releases (becoming less convincing as a reason as time goes on), it's the platform that would sensibly consume the vast vast majority of sales anyway and thus a multiplatform release could maybe be seen as unnecessary. Saying that there have always been dumb exclusive platform releases that make no sense doesn't really contribute to any understanding of why Sega decided on it this time. It's really just a roundabout way of saying the decision was dumb, which is absolutely true but the same conclusion can and should be drawn with better logic instead of "well people always have done weird stuff"I do understand some of the confusion. Why ISN'T Sakura Taisen a multiplat? At the same time, software on less successful hardware has always been a thing. Can you imagine going through the early 90s questioning every PC Engine or Megadrive exclusive?
Not really as far as I remember.Have any Metroidvanias in general done exceedingly well in Japan?
I'm not suggesting that human beings don't have biases, but i think i think the broader picture painted by these threads is often silly
- Capcom could put RE7, RE2, and MHW world on Switch, but they won't, because you know, bias.
*RE7 is on Switch in cloud form, ostensibly because they tried to get it to run and were forced to make a compromise
- S-E could put FFXV on Switch, but they won't, because bias (or maybe Sony money?)
*Pocket version is on Switch and this is a game that they really struggled to get to run on PS4
-Falcom hates Nintendo, despite barely releasing competent games on a single platform, and outsourcing ports of the entire Sen sub series with the interim title also coming soon
In regard to Danganronpa, maybe, but I'm also not really informed re: the series. I'd want to see more than a joke comment about wishing people bought more of a certain platform and lack of releases on another (I do believe it was recently put on Switch.) But the entirety of these discussions seems to paint a picture of some anti-Nintendo cabal within the JP industry.
I do understand some of the confusion. Why ISN'T Sakura Taisen a multiplat? At the same time, software on less successful hardware has always been a thing. Can you imagine going through the early 90s questioning every PC Engine or Megadrive exclusive?
I'm pretty sure (though maybe misremembered) in the case of FFXV the team mentioned later on that they attempted to get it running natively on the switch to unsatisfactory result.I think the bolded is an unfair generalisation. I'm not saying there hasn't been cases of some posters claiming those thing but people are in general well aware of the limitations of AAA development and the lower powered Switch hardware. In regards to Capcom the broader picture wasn't about specific games missing the platform, it was that up until this year Capcom had only released one original game at all.
On top of what Oregano said, the issue with Falcom is they were multiplat developer, until the vita died, and they don't publish any switch ports themselves. You can't build an audience on late full price ports published by another company. Won't even get the same kind of advert lead up.-Falcom hates Nintendo, despite barely releasing competent games on a single platform, and outsourcing ports of the entire Sen sub series with the interim title also coming soon
I'm pretty sure (though maybe misremembered) in the case of FFXV the team mentioned later on that they attempted to get it running natively on the switch to unsatisfactory result.
On top of what Oregano said, the issue with Falcom is they were multiplat developer, until the vita died, and they don't publish any switch ports themselves. You can't build an audience on late full price ports published by another company. Won't even get the same kind of advert lead up.
The falcom hates Nintendo thing isn't even us, it's from Japan and is a joke/exaggeration.
Maybe I let certain posts color my general impression of broader discussion? I have definitely read a few of these multiple times (multiple discussions on the GPD Win in this context). It just seems like a considerable amount of time in these threads is spent on what games aren't but should be on Switch and what individuals we can hold accountable. It also seems like bias is generally presumed to be the most likely factor at play, even when others may be.I think the bolded is an unfair generalisation. I'm not saying there hasn't been cases of some posters claiming those thing but people are in general well aware of the limitations of AAA development and the lower powered Switch hardware. In regards to Capcom the broader picture wasn't about specific games missing the platform, it was that up until this year Capcom had only released one original game at all.
I understand that the industry is in a different place, and if it wasn't clear, I am personally confused by the game not releasing on Switch.Comparing the landscape of today's industry and the way it handles multiplatform releases to the early 90s is, frankly, nonsensical. "Why ISN'T Sakura Taisen a multiplat?" is the correct reaction to Sega's release strategy for the game. The reality for most exclusive releases these days seem to fall into any number of categories: platform-holder invested money into the project/has some sort of contract, the developer is small and possibly can't handle multiplatform releases (becoming less convincing as a reason as time goes on), it's the platform that would sensibly consume the vast vast majority of sales anyway and thus a multiplatform release could maybe be seen as unnecessary. Saying that there have always been dumb exclusive platform releases that make no sense doesn't really contribute to any understanding of why Sega decided on it this time. It's really just a roundabout way of saying the decision was dumb, which is absolutely true but the same conclusion can and should be drawn with better logic instead of "well people always have done weird stuff"
[FCM] Metroid |Disc System| <ACT> (Nintendo) {1986.08.06} (¥2.600) - 1.040.000Have any Metroidvanias in general done exceedingly well in Japan?
Maybe I let certain posts color my general impression of broader discussion? I have definitely read a few of these multiple times (multiple discussions on the GPD Win in this context). It just seems like a considerable amount of time in these threads is spent on what games aren't but should be on Switch and what individuals we can hold accountable. It also seems like bias is generally presumed to be the most likely factor at play, even when others may be.
I understand that the industry is in a different place, and if it wasn't clear, I am personally confused by the game not releasing on Switch.
Btw is Front Mission franchise dead even in Japan? I remember seeing some kind of FM test footage on twitter or some sites, but can't recall where.
I feel like Square killed it with Left Alive lol :/
I am very aware of Falcom, because until recently, I bought all of the Trails games upon release (starting with Ao). I'd say "multiplat developer" is stretching it. Falcom released games on both Vita and PS3 because they were able to use the same engine that was ostensibly designed to make said process seamless.On top of what Oregano said, the issue with Falcom is they were multiplat developer, until the vita died, and they don't publish any switch ports themselves. You can't build an audience on late full price ports published by another company. Won't even get the same kind of advert lead up.
The falcom hates Nintendo thing isn't even us, it's from Japan and is a joke/exaggeration.
I feel like the Switch version that does exist indicates that if they could put a native Switch version on the platform, they would have. I can't imagine it being Plan A. (Especially when I believe it ended up being Japan exclusive, presumably because internet infrastructure is not as reliable elsewhere?)That's definitely happened a few times, I think it was only really notable for RE7 though which launched around the same time as Switch, and also had the overhead for a VR mode at the time.
The threads don't even paint a picture like that, you are grossly exaggerating and grossly misrepresenting what the threads discuss here. While not everyone here is tech savvy, they aren't exactly tech illiterate either to the point of claiming every should be ported to the switch, and they do not argue that a game receiving several coats of downgrades is perfectly justifiable to get it to run on the platform. What people discussed with RE, based on leaked information, is about a game that is targeting the switch has the potential to do really well in JAPAN, and nothing more.I'm not suggesting that human beings don't have biases, but i think i think the broader picture painted by these threads is often silly
- Capcom could put RE7, RE2, and MHW world on Switch, but they won't, because you know, bias.
*RE7 is on Switch in cloud form, ostensibly because they tried to get it to run and were forced to make a compromise
- S-E could put FFXV on Switch, but they won't, because bias (or maybe Sony money?)
*Pocket version is on Switch and this is a game that they really struggled to get to run on PS4
-Falcom hates Nintendo, despite barely releasing competent games on a single platform, and outsourcing ports of the entire Sen sub series with the interim title also coming soon
In regard to Danganronpa, maybe, but I'm also not really informed re: the series. (I do believe it was recently put on Switch though.) But the entirety of these discussions seems to paint some picture of some anti-Nintendo cabal within the JP industry.
I do understand some of the confusion. Why ISN'T Sakura Taisen a multiplat? At the same time, software on less successful hardware has always been a thing. Can you imagine going through the early 90s questioning every PC Engine or Megadrive exclusive?
The crux of it is that they were still a multiplat dev that released games themselves. Having another publisher release their switch titles is not a default strategy, especially since neither of the two publishers they work with are publishing these games with a focus on Japan. For NIS as an example, it's absolutely NA and Europe, with Japan as just a bonus. In the end while outsourcing would be expected, not publishing is what raises eyebrows.I am very aware of Falcom, because until recently, I bought all of the Trails games upon release (starting with Ao). I'd say "multiplat developer" is stretching it. Falcom released games on both Vita and PS3 because they were able to use the same engine that was ostensibly designed to make said process seamless.
Even then, it did not go particularly well. When Sen no Kiseki was released on Vita, it was more or less a disaster. I remember, because I owned this version. Opening certain doors could produce minute long loading times. The framerate dropped to less than 5 seconds during one late game section of the game. If I recall, Falcom was forced to release multiple patches to improve the performance of the game, one being weeks after I had already finished the game. There was no shortage of fan criticism for this release. Unless Sony waived some fees, this couldn't have been cheap. If Falcom had been a competent multiplatform developer, maybe Ys VIII PS4 and Vita would have released at the same time.
I understand that the price point might be an issue for these versions, but it was always going to involve a partnership with some other company, because even when they release titles like Sen III and IV on hardware that should be able to handle them with ease, severe FPS drops during cutscenes and other performance issues are common. I am guessing they are rushing these titles out. (Maybe they should have hired more people after Ao saw a surprise jump in sales over Zero ...)
There was also rumors about SE wanting to put Kingdom Hearts 3 on it, then same stuff for the collection, so yeah they really did try.I'm pretty sure (though maybe misremembered) in the case of FFXV the team mentioned later on that they attempted to get it running natively on the switch to unsatisfactory result.
Yeah I understood. I mostly take exception with what followed "why isn't a multiplatform release?" I guess I'm not entirely sure what the insinuation was from it. I initially took it as commentary on how criticism of absurd release strategies like Sakura Wars' should be talked about, which I didn't agree with at all. It feels like handling the decision with kid gloves in a way that almost feels dishonest. I think it's fine to call a dumb decision a dumb decision without bringing up that there have always been wacky choices made.I understand that the industry is in a different place, and if it wasn't clear, I am personally confused by the game not releasing on Switch.
It is. But in our hearts it lives forever. Lol.
Shit this looks cool. Oh well.
KH Collection was probably a result of KH3 not coming, not that it couldn't runThere was also rumors about SE wanting to put Kingdom Hearts 3 on it, then same stuff for the collection, so yeah they really did try.
I wouldn't be surprised if those projects get revived on Switch 2.
Have any Metroidvanias in general done exceedingly well in Japan?
Technically, but arguably not meaningfully. Certainly not meaningful in the context of a Switch/PS4 multiplat situation.The crux of it is that they were still a multiplat dev that released games themselves.
to be clear this is the equivalent of an anonymous 4chan post, don't remember which message board it was found on
That's good to know. I'd seen it thrown around but I wasn't sure where it came from lol.to be clear this is the equivalent of an anonymous 4chan post, don't remember which message board it was found on
to be clear this is the equivalent of an anonymous 4chan post, don't remember which message board it was found on
I'm having a real hard time thinking of any. The only ones, if you want to get straight to the source material that started it all, are Metroid and Super Metroid. As a huge fan of the series (Super and Metroid Prime are both in my all-time top 10 list), it sucks, but I'm not sure what can be done to make the series more appealing without fundamentally changing what I love about it.
It came from 5ch. I think the main thing that made people pay attention to it was that it was posted 49 days before he was reassigned.to be clear this is the equivalent of an anonymous 4chan post, don't remember which message board it was found on
The PlayStation and Saturn versions did 225k in Japan.
I'm more focusing on releasing games themselves. Like you said, they need to build an audience, and having other publishers handle switch ports long after release just won't work. It seems clear to most that Falcom knows it needs to release its games on switch, they'd have NISA's sales data telling them as much, it's just frustration with their current strategy that could hurt their series long term, especially given how rapidly PS is falling in Japan.Technically, but arguably not meaningfully. Certainly not meaningful in the context of a Switch/PS4 multiplat situation.
If the person who posted that was in fact leaking his demotion, seems likely they were just trying to make Nagoshi look as bad as possible. Maybe they were mad about his Puyo comments? Although it's been a while so I could be mixing the timing.It's an absolute nonsense post(the origin I mean), the only reason it got any traction is that it was posted a month before his role changed.
Nomura said that it was for technical reasons, and that sounds weirdKH Collection was probably a result of KH3 not coming, not that it couldn't run
what kind of arcane magicks did they pull to port that? they lost the source to KH1, so I'm guessing they had to do some crazy shit to itNomura said that it was for technical reasons, and that sounds weird
The broadcast where he made the derogatory remarks at Puyo players was the end of July and the apology was in August. News of his demotion came February the following year.If the person who posted that was in fact leaking his demotion, seems likely they were just trying to make Nagoshi look as bad as possible. Maybe they were mad about his Puyo comments? Although it's been a while so I could be mixing the timing.
It seems like the recent Switch releases are being released at a decent pace, so maybe by the time they get to whatever comes after Kuro 2, we'll see a simultaneous release (if not transitioning to Nintendo being the primary platform for the series, given the performance of the PS5 ...)As a publisher they are still mainly reliant on their domestic sales where they self publish, their last few games have continuously declined, Kuro no Kiseki is almost certainly going to decline and its international release is at least three years away.🤷♀️
Oh, I absolutely agree that they need to make a change.I'm more focusing on releasing games themselves. Like you said, they need to build an audience, and having other publishers handle switch ports long after release just won't work. It seems clear to most that Falcom knows it needs to release its games on switch, they'd have NISA's sales data telling them as much, it's just frustration with their current strategy that could hurt their series long term, especially given how rapidly PS is falling in Japan.
They remade it all for PS3.what kind of arcane magicks did they pull to port that? they lost the source to KH1, so I'm guessing they had to do some crazy shit to it
in the days of "the disc is just a key", I'm not too sure why this is a problem. I know discs have installers on them, but still. KH Collection would sit at the top of the digital charts for a good long whileThey remade it all for PS3.
Even in that case, it's a PS3 game ... Maybe it's a cartridge problem
Another thing I'm confused about - why would Chris abandon this place over a one day ban? Like, he's important, but he's not untouchable and it's 24 hours.
I don't really know, I'm just saying that "technical problems" was his reasoningin the days of "the disc is just a key", I'm not too sure why this is a problem. I know discs have installers on them, but still. KH Collection would sit at the top of the digital charts for a good long while
Okay yeah, I knew I had the timing right.The broadcast where he made the derogatory remarks at Puyo players was the end of July and the apology was in August. News of his demotion came February the following year.
It seems like the recent Switch releases are being released at a decent pace, so maybe by the time they get to whatever comes after Kuro 2, we'll see a simultaneous release (if not transitioning to Nintendo being the primary platform for the series, given the performance of the PS5 ...)
If the person who posted that was in fact leaking his demotion, seems likely they were just trying to make Nagoshi look as bad as possible. Maybe they were mad about his Puyo comments? Although it's been a while so I could be mixing the timing.
Falcom titles are declining but they do not sell milion copies in Japan.I'm more focusing on releasing games themselves. Like you said, they need to build an audience, and having other publishers handle switch ports long after release just won't work. It seems clear to most that Falcom knows it needs to release its games on switch, they'd have NISA's sales data telling them as much, it's just frustration with their current strategy that could hurt their series long term, especially given how rapidly PS is falling in Japan.