Ruler said:
Tekken could end up being exclusive on PS4 as well |
If it will be successful, i have zero problems with that.
but i doubt it will, after the stuff happend to sfv
Exclusive in japan, ofc
rest of world? Nahh
Ruler said:
Tekken could end up being exclusive on PS4 as well |
If it will be successful, i have zero problems with that.
but i doubt it will, after the stuff happend to sfv
Exclusive in japan, ofc
rest of world? Nahh
soonyfanboy said:
If it will be successful, i have zero problems with that. Exclusive in japan, ofc |
yes. Street Fighter failed because of lack of content and too early release and media witch hunt.
Xbox owners dont buy japanese games as much as PS4 owners the numbers have shown
its like 5 to 1, street fighter would have only sold 100k on Xbox One
The NX is different story, we dont know what it will be
Ruler said:
yes. Street Fighter failed because of lack of content and too early release and media witch hunt. Xbox owners dont buy japanese games as much as PS4 owners the numbers have shown its like 5 to 1, street fighter would have only sold 100k on Xbox One The NX is different story, we dont know what it will be |
Pretty much my feelings on it all. Street Fighter V is multiplat, just not on Xbox, cause the sales there would be negligible. I mean 50 - 100k isn´t gonna change much.
Tomb Raider was a franchise that sold more on PlayStation platforms, that is probably why people had a harder time wrapping their heads round it....I really didn´t like the reboot so.... meh!
Tekken..... I don´t see why it would make a difference if it was released or not on xbox. If it shuts the critics up... fine release it for the 5 people that will buy it. Just like MGSV.
Ruler said:
yes. Street Fighter failed because of lack of content and too early release and media witch hunt. Xbox owners dont buy japanese games as much as PS4 owners the numbers have shown its like 5 to 1, street fighter would have only sold 100k on Xbox One The NX is different story, we dont know what it will be |
And even then, it only did "bad" in terms of expectations, not in terms of raw numbers.
SFV sold 439,868 copies sold WW in its first week according to VGC. Nobody would say that's bad on the surface for a console exclusive game in its first week (Steam numbers actually bump it up to over half a million week 1 sales), but it did debut below expectations, and by a significant margin, so it's dismissed as being "flop" numbers.
Same more or less with ROTTR on XB1. A million copies sold in 2 months isn't necessarily "bad" in terms of raw numbers, but for an AAA action game of the stature of TR, it's certainly a flop. For comparison's sake, Resident Evil 5 passed 1 mil in just 2 weeks on the 360, and yes, I'd wager the two franchises are comparable in terms of popularity. This isn't even taking budget into account. It should be worth noting that the first TReboot game needed 5-6 mil combined sales just to break even, and ROTTR is reportedly twice as big. Based on that, I think it's safe to say SE can't be happy with anything South of 5 mil total sales when it's all said and done.

Doesn't matter. The Super version will be top 10 next year.
"You should be banned. Youre clearly flaming the president and even his brother who you know nothing about. Dont be such a partisan hack"
Bryank75 said:
That really is a good insight, Nintendo would "handle" Capcom, meaning an overbearing management of them as a subsidiary. Whereas Sony are very much hands off to allow the creative process (ala Naughty Dog). We could almost visualise a Nintendo-ization of Capcoms Franchises. No lets plays or streams either! |
ND are really the only ones at Sony with the creative freedom that your talking about, you could also say the same with Remedy or Rare (Today) or Monolith for Nintnedo. Capcom needs a good managment team to handle the games. Sony handled SFV and look what happen. Nothing more then a disaster and one of 2016s most disapointments with a franchise that is almost impossible to screw up with.
I would preferible like Nintendo to handle Capcom because in the past when Capcom did deals with Nintendo, we saw RE1 remake for Gamecube, RE4 (Best RE game ever made) and RE0 plus Megaman fits better under Nintendo.
MS would of handled Capcom better aswell however under Japanese rules, a US company cannot buy a Japanese company.
| KManX89 said: So on top of having to pay for marketing, tournaments and ALL the development costs on their own, a company that's already super low on capita (they had all of $150 mil in the bank at the time, remember that) would also have to run both their own unique servers for PS4/PC cross-players AND Microsoft's servers minus cross-play, basically allocate all the extra time, work and resources just to give MS special treatment, all because they're too greedy to allow console and PC players to play together. |
Nah, you can always make marketing/exclusive deals that don't include complete console exclusive availability. See: Destiny, CoD, The Division, etc. Also, 152 million in the bank might not mean much depending on how much revenue was coming in and what assets they had. Clearly, Capcom did ok. Also, when smaller devs can make games that run on all these different systems and networks, I refuse to believe the cost would have been substantial for Capcom to make an Xbone version that didn't have crossplay.
And remember, I am not saying they should have made an Xbone version. I was just pointing out the fallacy in someone elses argument against it. Like my original post in this thread says, for all we know, Capcom is more than happy with the money they got from Sony + revenue from SFV sales.
| KManX89 said: No, MS once again shot themselves in the foot with their anti-gamer policies. After all, Capcom couldn't make DS4 multiplat with a lot LESS than that. Remember, this IS the same company that tried to ram the 24 hour DRM, mandatory Kinect and anti-used game policies down our throats, I guess we can add this one to the pile. Sony at least has the courtesy to ACT like they care about consumers (yeah, I know they don't, so spare me), MS makes it no secret they don't give a damn about you, they don't even try to hide it. That might explain why so many people switched from the 360 last gen to PS4 this gen, hmm. Also, you guys act like Sony had ANYTHING to do with it. Newsflash: they didn't. Capcom went to Sony for SFV, not the other way around for this exact same reason as explained in the article. |
Ignoring how utterly hilarious it is to see someone railing on MS for anti-gamer policies while making excuses for Capcom's financial state, none of this you typed here is relevant to what I said regarding whether SFV would work on Xbone without crossplay. This just reads like a bitter rant against MS. I can't help you there, friend.
I've been warned and even banned lately for discussing SFV for reasons that are beyond me, so before I cross that line again somehow, this will be my last post in this thread.
TheDeleter said:
ND are really the only ones at Sony with the creative freedom that your talking about, you could also say the same with Remedy or Rare (Today) or Monolith for Nintnedo. Capcom needs a good managment team to handle the games. Sony handled SFV and look what happen. Nothing more then a disaster and one of 2016s most disapointments with a franchise that is almost impossible to screw up with. I would preferible like Nintendo to handle Capcom because in the past when Capcom did deals with Nintendo, we saw RE1 remake for Gamecube, RE4 (Best RE game ever made) and RE0 plus Megaman fits better under Nintendo. MS would of handled Capcom better aswell however under Japanese rules, a US company cannot buy a Japanese company. |
I am quite aware of the Resident Evil deals during the Gamecube lifespan, as Gamecube was my favourite console at the time and it was when I started playing Resident Evil. I started with the remake actually. Like you my favourite is RE4 also.
However, you did conveniently forgot that that exclusivity deal fell through and it ended on PS2 withthe Ada missions added on.
I don´t see how horror fits in with Nintendos overall portfolio and Street Fighter, really only makes sense as a cameo in Smash Bros.
As for creative freedom, here is a thread from Neogaf related to it.... http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=771509
Out of the three, Sony certainly give the most freedom and are the most lenient.
I also believe Sony are the only ones in any position to actually acquire them.. thats why I suggested it. If it comes to be... who knows!
I love Nintendo, dont get me wrong on any level and I hope that NX is a huge success and that it maes me want to buy one.
| ironmanDX said: How the mighty have fallen... I remember playing Street Fighter religiously on the ps1 and 2. It's actually a real shame. Whomever buys capcom, please use the IP's properly. |
Okay the PSone had a few Street fighter ports in Street Fighter Alpha 1-3 and Street fighter EX+Alpha, but what were you playing on the PS2 religiously from the Street Fighter Franchise? The god awful Ex3+Alpha? As much as I adore the Street Fighter series I could never enjoy a game with a 5foot tall sagat.
On topic tho... this shouldn't be that surprising surely? Capcom release a featureless game with a promise to add those features months later for free? people have zero reason to trust Capcom to honor their word at this stage so people wait until the features come before giving capcom a sale, heh also there is a torrent knocking about of the core gameplay for vs play, if local is all you want until the "content" patch arrives you can just download and play that and Promise Capcom that you'll buy their game when they honor their promise.
Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive