| outlawauron said: The only real similarity to 3DS and PS2 is their stranglehold on the market, because as we know, 3DS still hasn't sold all that well. (ETA: Also wanted to clarify more. I do think Vita is a viable enough platform to justify multiplatform development. I don't think the series should be exclusive to one platform) For the side games, I just think they're that. Side stories that don't really matter. Do you consider remasters to be full entries in a series? Wind Waker HD is nice, but I don't think people accept it as the new entry in the Zelda series. I'm not claiming to know the ins and outs of what agreements are in place between Capcom and other publishers (because that gets into silly territory), but you can easily come up with theories as to why both things were allowed to happen (Sony could have already had agreements in place for MHP3rd, while Nintendo got MHtri and the following extra editions, etc). That's not really important. The lower development cost with the static number of people (ie. you're paying the same amount for the same group of people regardless of platform) isn't that much of a change. It's still a big budget title for them. Nintendo being such a "cooperative partner" is exactly why people think contracts/agreements are in place. There's no definitive proof for either of what we believe. I at least hope you can see there's some smoke. |
In under 4 years, 3DS has sold almost 75% the PS2's lifetime sales in Japan... PS2 had about 77% market share in Japan -- and that's considering it continued selling long after its competition had been discontinued -- while 3DS has over 83% market share. In the end 3DS will be very close to PS2's lifetime hardware sales.
Vita is a viable enough platform in Japan to support any kind of development. But Capcom has never demonstrated any interest in releasing multiple versions of the same Monster Hunter game simultaneously, not when they could release Monster Hunter X on platform 1 in 2015, while developing the same game on platform 2 all along, adding a couple of whatevers to it, and releasing it as Monster Hunter X Again on platform 2 in 2016. They make more money that way.
Why would Sony have had an agreement for Portable 3rd before Tri even properly started development? Even if they did, why would they have had one for Portable 3rd but not for Tri on PS3 -- and if they did have one for Tri on PS3, why was Capcom allowed to break that agreement but not the one for Portable 3rd? No one can claim to know the ins and outs of these sorts of agreements, but surely you can see that the typical exclusivity agreements are extremely simple to the point of transparency. Like the recent Tomb Raider and Street Fighter deals. There's nothing complicated about those, and the more convoluted this supposed agreement between Nintendo and Capcom has to be in order to accomodate all of the events of the past 6 years, the less likely it is to exist. Nintendo being a cooperative partner is exactly why such a contract is unnecessary.
There is smoke, but that's no reason to jump to the conclusion that napalm is involved. It's probably just a couple of regular campers.
| Mnementh said: What clone? |
He is probably referring to Final Fantasy Explorers. Not sure I'd call it an outright clone but it is certainly a hunting game.
