By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Hiku said:

I agree that P5 will probably come to Switch, but I disagree with this reasoning.
Cloud's inclusion on WiiU in 2014 meant "nothing in return", and him only being a guest character in spinoffs and in puzzle games etc, was fine. But for Joker, that's not the case just because he is less well known?

I'm sorry but this really requires some mental gymnastics. I'd like to see one concrete example of this ever happening in a gaming business deal. Nintendo paid Atlus/Sega money for this license. Atlus don't have to give anything in return for having their characters advertised on a popular platform, just because Joker is "less popular" than Cloud.
And there's no doubt that this more positively influence the sales of the current Smash Bros Ultimate, rather than an older game from 2016/17.

Persona 5 is still very popular, has an anime, and has collaborated with many different brands, including having its character featured in some of the most popular mobile games in Japan, including Puzzle & Dragon and Granblue Fantasy.

Both of which are among the highest grossing mobile games in Asia.

Oh cool, I didn't know Persona was so popular in Asia - thanks for pointing that out! But you are focusing on the wrong part of my post. The fact that Nintendo's management is in charge of the decision making suggests they want to make deals that are beneficial to Nintendo - why else would management do the job? There's literally no other logical reason. If Atlus thinks a Persona 5 port on Switch will make money, both parties profit from this. It's a win-win situation, which is exactly why Nintendo's management would be involved. Also, I wonder why people think Nintendo didn't get anything in return for including Cloud? If it only resulted in an improved business relationship that paved the way for improved Square support then that's a strategic advantage for Nintendo. Back in 2015 Nintendo wasn't in a good position, business-wise. Certainly not in a position to strike a deal for FF 15 on Wii U or something. Today, with Atlus, they are. 

Suggesting management of a big company is trying to strike a mutually beneficent business deal is not mental gymnastics at all. It is the only way to look at it that makes sense in my opinion. 

 

Edit: Also this part: " I'd like to see one concrete example of this ever happening in a gaming business deal". What I'm suggesting is that Nintendo said: "Our platform is selling well and we will promote your game if you put it on our platform." I guess this has happened hundreds of times before in the gaming industry. It's not like Nintendo is cancer and Atlus will suffer horribly from releasing Persona 5 on Switch. :p

Last edited by Louie - on 15 December 2018