I have no clue what you are trying to imply. If there was no market for the game then there will be no games. Octopath being popular just shows that these types of games can sell really well. That means more games like it. Which is a plus for me. But if a game has to sell millions in order to be successful than there are a lot of bombs.

Nah you are wrong. I was said in a later post that I just wanted Octopath to show that people want to play. People can cheer what they want and I will cheer for what I want. I will not hope that something like FF 15 to do horribly but I won't cheer if it succeeds. I am not going to root for an entire genre even just because I like it. If it goes in a direction I do not want I will be against it. If they want to make every type of game that's fine. However, if it is at expense of things I like then I will be against it. 

If you want to cheer towards an entire genre regardless of what it does than that is on you. If RPGs started to do things I don't want to do then I will play something else. 

Huh? I am too a huge fan of turn-based JRPGs, strategy games like Heroes etc. Why should I be forced to enjoy and root for "adjacent" genres? I hate the shoehorning of action elements into every genre. I have terrible reflexes and wit / quick thinking so those games don't appeal to me at all.

PS: SEGA had it coming with Shining, they released an old port the same window as an exclusive, highly anticipated and marketed same-genre game. YS VIII came a little while back, too. 

Action JRPGS will be the brunt of the few JRPG's that get AAA budget. This is because elements of an ARPG are more in line with what's the norm in today's market, number 1 being worlds in which you transition between Town, exploring and battles seamlessly. Turn base/classic JRPG's do not lend themselves with well with those elements. The reason you why should root for JRPG styles that you don't necessarily like is because they are going to pay for more games like Octopath Traveller. The success of FFX or Xeno is a success for the entire genre. If FFXV had bombed there would be not Octopath Traveller (FF bombs then RPG lesser than it goes bye bye). Games like Octo are an experiment that developers would only be willing to take if they know that have funds coming in elsewhere. The fall of Action RPG is not going to propel classic JRPG's back (stupid kiddy mindset). It's going to kill the whole genre. You don't have to like ARPG's, but do know they are important for survival of the genre.

Action JRPGS will be the brunt of the few JRPG's that get AAA budget. This is because elements of an ARPG are more in line with what's the norm in today's market, number 1 being worlds in which you transition between Town, exploring and battles seamlessly. Turn base/classic JRPG's do not lend themselves with well with those elements. The reason you why should root for JRPG styles that you don't necessarily like is because they are going to pay for more games like Octopath Traveller. The success of FFX or Xeno is a success for the entire genre. If FFXV had bombed there would be not Octopath Traveller (FF bombs then RPG lesser than it goes bye bye). Games like Octo are an experiment that developers would only be willing to take if they know that have funds coming in elsewhere. The fall of Action RPG is not going to propel classic JRPG's back (stupid kiddy mindset). It's going to kill the whole genre. You don't have to like ARPG's, but do know they are important for survival of the genre.

That's not a stupid mindset, it's basic business.

If Product A (Old style RPGs) is selling and Product B (modern RPGs) is not, then companies will make more of Product A. You could have a point if only Product B was on the market and not selling well, companies may think 'this entire genre is less popular now, we shouldn't make product A or B'. But both products are on the market; if one does better than the other, companies will make more of the successful product.

No. I have not to support games I don't like. That's something different than wishing them bad sales, that's not good behaviour for a gamer. But supporting - even purchasing games I don't like is never good.

You also have to accept, that turn-based and real-time split every genre. Turn-based startegy is a different genre than real-time-strategy. Turn-based RPGs are a different genre than real-time RPGs. If I like one, I have not to like the other and vice versa. Gameplay between turn based and real time is so fundamental different, these games aren't comparable. So there is no RPG-genre (even less a JRPG-genre, the differentiate japanese and western games based just on their countrya of origin instead of gameplay is just wrong). If turn-based RPGs die out it doesn't affect real time RPGs at all - it only leaves the fans of turn based RPGs in the rain. The other way around too. So no, real time RPGs aren't saving the genre, as they are a different genre.

No. I have not to support games I don't like. That's something different than wishing them bad sales, that's not good behaviour for a gamer. But supporting - even purchasing games I don't like is never good.

You also have to accept, that turn-based and real-time split every genre. Turn-based startegy is a different genre than real-time-strategy. Turn-based RPGs are a different genre than real-time RPGs. If I like one, I have not to like the other and vice versa. Gameplay between turn based and real time is so fundamental different, these games aren't comparable. So there is no RPG-genre (even less a JRPG-genre, the differentiate japanese and western games based just on their countrya of origin instead of gameplay is just wrong). If turn-based RPGs die out it doesn't affect real time RPGs at all - it only leaves the fans of turn based RPGs in the rain. The other way around too. So no, real time RPGs aren't saving the genre, as they are a different genre.

Both you guys are wrong because you think that developers actually think in terms of action/turn based/tactics. They don't. An RPG  is just RPG to them. So, if let's pretend that SE had a successful RPG in all in styles and they wanted to boast about them in their Financial Report. They are not going to say we have the best selling turn based RPG this year! Our Action RPG section did well too! as did they tactics branch. Noooooo. They would just say our JRPGS have sold a total of blah blah and we have seen a increase in consumers for this genre. That is why Success in one type of RPG is a success for the whole genre. When gamers dont get what they want they start acting like pussies, they take their prefered version and then split it from the rest and pretend, and they it becomes its own genre... look Sonic as the best example of that behaviour.

You are wrong again, Action/Tactics are splinters of the SAME genres. They are all parented under RPG umbrella.

SE's Action RPGS are doing than their classic stuff because its more in line with what's expected in the market. Period. Success help fund games like Octo and Mana SaGa and whatever other B class niche games SE has. If FFXV underperformed, or 14 underperformed, then Octo would not  be here. 

So you believe in some god-given order of genres that is ever unchanging. Because turn-based RPGs were popular at the time and the first developers decided to call their new gameplay in real time also RPG, you think it is all the same. Whatever.

Whichever genre a game is in or not in, you must accept that different gamers like different games. As real time and turn based is fundamentally different gameplay, it is obvious that some gamers prefer the one gameplay, others the other. The problem is you demand that fans of one gameplay have to support games of the other gameplay, because you put them for whatever reasons in the same genre. And I don't see it. Support games you like.

As turn-based fell under the radar a bit over the past years I can understand someone celebrating the success of Octopath Traveller, as it is proof that turn based games have their fanbase and can sell good, if the game in question has quality. Which is what people don't understand, they say some cheap turn-based games sell bad and conclude the genre is dead.

And to your last point: no, I deny that FFXV paid for Octopath. FF was so incredibly expensive, that it was a high risk. It did pay off, but it could've been different. But that all doesn't affect Octopath much. The development of Octopath was comparatively cheap, so lesser profit would've been enough. Moreso, the genre is completely irrelevant if you ask what pays the bills. So I could say Tomb Raider and Just Cause paid for Octopath, because Square don't care. Most of all though, Bravely Default already proofed that turn based RPGs can sell. It was made by the same studio. So - if at all - it was Bravely Default which made Octopath Traveller possible. If Bravely Default had failed, Octopath wouldn't be here. And with these sales Octopath paid for itself.

So in the end I don't need to support a shooter, an aciton-adventure or whatever to get my turn-based RPGs. I support turn-based RPGs to get turn-based RPGs. That's why I bought Etrian Odyssey, Bravely Default, Shin Megami Tensei, Persona Q and Tokyo Mirage Sessions - because I wanted to play these games. And with that I signalled I want more games like these. Some different games don't influence that.

I think it would be fair to assess that both of you are acting like brick wall at this point. You'll just re-state your arguments and go in an infinite circle.