| Kresnik said: Justifies what? You questioned why he does it with your first line: "Why is it every time a game underperforms on a Nintendo platform {...]" We know why he does it. And honestly, I don't think there's going to be any convincing him otherwise at this point. Unless we started moderating people for only seeing the perks of their favourite platforms and failures of their least favourite platform, in which case we might as well just permaban half of the forum. But, if you want to carry on taking him up about it then go ahead, I won't stop you. I will just warn you that it may be a difficult task. |
Justify his misleading comments. I don't see how just stating who he is justifies the comments themselves. And if you recognize this, then I don't know why you're arguing with me about this in the first place. Given how we are on a site dedicated to sales, and within that a topic also dedicated to sales, how is correcting or debating said comments irrelevant ?
I'm sure I won't change his mind, but that wasn't my intention. The question you pointed out was rhetorical, and I didn't expect much of an answer, if any. As I stated before, my intention was to correct his factual error and evidence his double-standard. Again, not everyone who reads these threads is familiar with the Japanese market and his post history. And the point also goes beyond him, as he's hardly the only one who does it. Blaming the platform is a common response when it comes to evaluating underperforming 3rd party games on Nintendo platforms, yet not on the rest. I could give many examples here, but it's not worth getting into it now.
| Kresnik said: I think the success of the PS3 was the reason for the ports beginning, but I don't think that's why they continued - and that was my point of profitability. If Vita was getting all of these ports and none of them were selling enough to recoup their costs + profit, then they'd stop. As simple as that. I think we're veering into the territory of "ports don't count" again. Yes, 3DS receives more exclusive support, I'm not arguing that (see my first post or this sentence for proof of that), and if Auron had said "and that's why Vita receives more exclusive support", you could've gone to town on that sentence and I wouldn't have intervened. But that's not what he said. (In addition, I don't really think Namco engage in particularly big projects - or the ones they do don't appear on Vita/3DS. Sure, something like Tekken will have a more-AAA sized budget, but stuff like Magi/Gundam/One Piece/Dragon Ball/Toriko are outsourced to developers that are in effect in the same vein as someone like Compile Heart or Gust. Yes, Namco are a big corporation, but that doesn't make all of their games AAA projects) |
Again, let me make this perfectly clear, I didn't questioned the existance of said Vita ports in any way in the context of profitability or validity. Yes, they make sense financially, yes people can perfectly enjoy them as much as exclusives or more, yes it still counts as 3rd party support. Do they favor the platform as much as exclusives do ? No, as the fact that people can play them on other platforms doesn't give as much incentive to pick up the platform for them, and it splits up the sales. Does it show the same level of commitment or confidence from the 3rd party to make just ports and rarely, if ever, exclusives ? No, as exclusives are more of a risk in general, needing to be created from the ground up and putting your eggs on one basket. For the record, these arguments could also be used when discussing WiiU for example (aside the fact that WiiU can't even get ports on a regular basis...), so it's not just about Vita.
Regarding Namco, sure, many of their games are relatively low budget, but when compared to 3DS development, the fact of those being HD and on 2 platforms still counts. For example, I'm sure Magi costed a lot less to make than Super Heroine Chronicle (licensing costs aside, which we don't know), and both of them are surely low budget. Games like J-Stars, the musou licensed games, God Eater and Dragon Ball: Battle of Z certainly cost considerably more. Musou games in general might be considered cheap for Western standards, but I'm pretty sure in Japan they're of a medium budget, certainly above most licensed games. And the DBZ game is probably of low budget compared to previous HD ones, but it was still a DBZ game, meant to be released worldwide. None of them would qualify as "AAA" games of course, but little Japanese games do, specially if we get into Japan-only games.
As for outlawauron's comments, my points about ports were not the only ones, and I already stated why I made the distinction. Small/medium-sized projects do not favor Vita over 3DS in my opinion, and the things I mentioned go in that direction. If you believe that whether a game is exclusive or not in this specific context is irrelevant, then I guess we have to agree to disagree. I don't think it's the same for Namco to port a Super Robot Taisen to Vita than make an exclusive one from the ground up, like they did with 3DS, for example. It's not the same level of support. Just counting games without taking into account this and other elements is not the full story to me.
| outlawauron said: You should take a look at some of your own examples of 3DS otaku sales and rethink your argument. |
I'm not sure what your point is... By VGChartz numbers, New Love Plus sold over 100k first week, and 140k lifetime, despite being notorious for being a bugged release. That's more than what most of these "otaku" games on Vita do, and while down from the DS games, certainly enough to greenlight a sequel, as we know. Senran Kagura was a new IP, sold over 50k FW, and according to VGChartz over 150k LT. Burst, more of an expansion than a full new game was also a success, and now we have a new game on 3DS coming.
If you're refering to Shinobi Versus in comparison to the Senran Kagura games on 3DS, then there's plenty of reasons why the game could've sold better outside of the platform. That game is a musou-style game compared to the more traditional beat 'em up style of the 3DS games, and it was released at the week of Vita's price cut and around the time of the anime. Some also claim it is the better game, and it probably costed more to make. Besides, given how the original game was a new IP and Burst was more of an expansion, how do we compare things here ?
Again, these games proved how there's success to be found in the platform in this area, so arguing that Vita should have some sort of monopoly on these games is unfounded (and ridiculous, regardless of type of game or platform...). Pointing at multiplatform games is not the whole story, as it doesn't tell us how many 3DS owners chose to go for the Vita version despite already having a 3DS. If they would've gotten the game either way, then having a Vita version didn't expand the audience, just increased costs. Is there any evidence of a significant number of Japanese gamers interested in these type of games refusing to buy a 3DS for some reason ? How many Vita owners in Japan also have a 3DS ? I, for one, don't know.
Basically, there's plenty of factors at stake here, and many reasons why these companies would chose one platform or going multiplatform. The merits of each choice can't be discussed on just the basic premise of "x" type of game being on "y" platform, nor can we evaluate the performance that way. And if these companies are making decisions which go in contrast to the usual arguments stated here, then maybe that's for a reason and not just pure whim...
PS: I've already wrote too much, so I'll shut up now... >.< I'll only post again if there's any question to answer.
