Printable View
...which is their intent, I think. This is completely off-topic, but I'm pretty sure the reason WHY NoA won't release the OpRainfall three RPGs is because they are trying to starve NA gamers for RPGs so that DQX will sell as much as possible, thereby strengthening their relationship with squeenix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
Conspiracy theory?
Dude, that would be insane.
Also, monthly fees confirmed to be monthly fees and you do in fact need an internet connection to play past the "first few hours."
Dragon Quest X has usage fees, requires Internet connection; does not require an NES | Joystiq
I feel the fact DQIX and DQX are Nintendo exclusives is more than enough proof to say that Nintendo and Squenix are in a pretty good relationship with each other. Holding back other titles just to boost some sales is pretty much going to sour their relationship with Mistwalker and may cause some Monolith Soft employees to quit Nintendo. I'm pretty sure the reasoning is simply that NoA sees the Wii as a family party game machine and don't see why they should release some titles that appeal to what they see as a minority in the Wii market. Course, I feel that NoA is simply underestimating the possibility that some of the Operation Rainfall titles hold the potential to be system sellers, but its also likely that European journalist are simply giving the games higher praise as a "take that" to US fans who have for years gotten better releases.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastian...which is their intent, I think. This is completely off-topic, but I'm pretty sure the reason WHY NoA won't release the OpRainfall three RPGs is because they are trying to starve NA gamers for RPGs so that DQX will sell as much as possible, thereby strengthening their relationship with squeenix.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
I also wouldn't be surprised if NoA is simply holding onto the titles so they can release them as launch titles for the Wii U, if their goal for the console is to appeal to hardcore players, having two heavy JRPGs as launch titles would be pretty good for launch sales, course they would have to do some modding to justify them as Wii U titles. Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if DQX got canceled for the Wii outside of Japan and they simply stuck to the Wii U version for US/PAL.
If they're worried about sales numbers, they can't justify cancelling a Wii version of a game for a Wii U exclusive. There is already a HUGE install base in the Wii, and the Wii U is backwards compatible. Those who want the "better" version (see Twilight Princess) will buy the Wii U version, and those that don't want to buy the new system right away can buy the Wii version, and continue playing it on the Wii U when they do buy one. The two games will still be connected. Same holds true for the OpRF games. Why alienate the current install base of people who already own the system and are starving for the games? Just releasing them on the next system would upset at least half of those that want the games.
THE JACKEL
MWahahahahaha I actually like Bastian's theory, and why not? NoA have no clue what you're trying to say when you talk about real gaming. All they know is some people might want these games and journalists might give them a thumbs up, but why would they care about that when the media has been crapping all over them this generation, for a brief respite in response to the 3DS hype, only for it all to start falling again once the truth came out.
And why would Monolith employees quit Nintendo b/c of this? I'm sure they could care less about the Gaijin considering their games are coming out and doing well in JP not to mention getting tons of acclaim in EU. Hell, they might have no idea and could care less if the game comes out over here.
I think DQX is a real possibility here but I wouldn't hold your breath for those three, as well as the DQ collection while you're at it. Which is sad, because as Jackel pointed out, that would actually make it a system selller for me :)
The media has only been crapping on them lately (like the last year or so) they've pretty much dominated this generation and have caused probably the biggest shift in video game directions in over a decade, with even Sony and Microsoft jumping in on the motion control gaming. Hell Microsoft seems pretty damn committed if this last E3 was any indication. The 3DS has certainly faltered but when you break the number one rule of console selling (affordability) then you should expect some less than steller outcomes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
Considering this company was founded after they broke away from Square, over the argument of mishandling their projects, and then it was repeated with Namco Bandai with Xenosaga Episode 2's mishandling, I would say its not unlikely possibility. These guys are truly the "how dare you tamper with my masterpiece! I'm leaving" art types. Of course, I meant this in case of Bastion's scenario where NoA purposely did not release these games in order to garner some extra points with a third party company. Who wants to work for a company that purposely diminishes your work so they can score extra points with an outsourced company. Shouldn't in-house developers get a bit more priority?Quote:
And why would Monolith employees quit Nintendo b/c of this? I'm sure they could care less about the Gaijin considering their games are coming out and doing well in JP not to mention getting tons of acclaim in EU. Hell, they might have no idea and could care less if the game comes out over here.
Ignoring the conspiracy theory aspect, I agree they probably don't care, they are already busy recruiting for their next project which is suspected to be a new Baiten title. Mistwalker is actually supporting Operation Rainfall . The real issue with NoA decision, is that the PAL version already calls for an English translation. So its not like they have to worry about financing a translation cause its already done, and all they need to do is release it for the North America region, which would not take much effort. NoE has already done all the costly parts, NoA just needs to get off their ass and realize a Zelda game is not the way to send off a console.
The DQ Collection never had a chance outside of Japan. I don't see too many people jumping at the chance to drop serious dough on a collection of three NES titles. DQX is definetly seeing release outside of Japan, considering how much effort has been put into releasing the lost titles out here, and Nintendo itself handled the release of DQIX, its a heavy weight. Still, its not like Nintendo has the greatest online of the consoles, and its not like SE has a good track record with MMOs lately. I'd be a bit concerned and skeptical at this point.Quote:
I think DQX is a real possibility here but I wouldn't hold your breath for those three, as well as the DQ collection while you're at it. Which is sad, because as Jackel pointed out, that would actually make it a system selller for me :)
Do you follow a lot of mainstream journalism outlets (granted, they all suck) or listen to a lot of podcasts? The Wii had a lot of love (because they showed a lot of love) up until the end of 2008 around when No More Heroes came out. After that they've constantly been crapped on, parodied, humiliated, and branded by gaming journalists as the coming of the anti-christ. The 2010 E3 press conference was clearly a response to the outcry from the media FOR YEARS that Nintendo no longer provides "hardcore" (still hate the word) experiences. They name dropped nearly every major franchise of the last twenty years in order to get the support they did. Now that Nintendo is selling expensive hardware and need to sell more than 1-2 games to 8-year old girls (who can't play their new handheld) and soccer moms (who think it's just the third iteration of the DS) this was a move they HAD to do to counter the negative publicity. As it turns out, their name dropping was just that: name dropping. So many of those games have been cancelled, moved to other platforms, or delayed (some likely indefinitely).Quote:
Originally Posted by Wolf Kanno
And I wouldn't say they completely shifted this industry - they've simply created a market outside of gaming that closely resembles this one. But it's not the same as "this thing of ours." Microsoft and Sony adopted motion control to appease investors - there's no better evidence for that than the utter drought of original, motion-only content immediately after the products launched. It became a success for Microsoft and they've clearly gone in that direction. But as the years went on and the mature games were panned, even Nintendo had to learn the hard truth: you simply can't make compelling experiences with motion inputs. Some PS3 games integrate it really well, but those titles are still best with a controller. And the possibility that ANY hardcore title will come to the Kinect has all but been foreclosed. Nintendo is still innovating interfaces, but they've brought back the focus on buttons and have even knelt before the altar of graphics. As Wii sales have died down and the truth of it only being a fad has been laid bare, it's Nintendo who's now adjusting according to Sony and Microsoft's ways.
IIRC those were over creative differences, not distribution hiccups. I really think if they're able to create the games they want they're content, getting additional advertising and acclaim is just a bonus.Quote:
Considering this company was founded after they broke away from Square, over the argument of mishandling their projects, and then it was repeated with Namco Bandai with Xenosaga Episode 2's mishandling, I would say its not unlikely possibility.
It would certainly get me to buy a Wii. DQX, unfortunately, not so much. I'm sad!Quote:
The DQ Collection never had a chance outside of Japan. I don't see too many people jumping at the chance to drop serious dough on a collection of three NES titles.
hahah, my friend Casey would cry with joy if that were true. Too bad it's a silly The Onion-esque source.Quote:
Originally Posted by Depression Moon
With the evolution of MMOs in recent years, it's kind of silly that SE is taking their most archaic franchise and making an MMO out of it. If there is a monthly fee required to play this game then I will not be playing it. Hopefully that aspect of the game is 100% optional and the single player mode is worth it.
Its kind of poor taste to undercut the strength of your own evidence. :p I don't listen to podcasts and gaming journalism cause its mostly bias or paid off. Besides, both were decrying the Wii even back when it was outselling both Sony and Microsoft hand over fist, so its not like any of their commentary is new, its just now followed with a "sales for the Wii is declining, so we were right all along".Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolivar
Honestly, looking at what NoJ has been doing and what NoA has been doing, I would argue that the Wii's issue with the gaming enthusiast outside of Japan come mostly from the fact that NoA does purposely appeased a demograph of non-gamers but when you start to look at what has been released in Japan, the system actually had a much better game library (course this isn't anything new with any Japanese console) and actually had some major titles and sequels that never made it over, that could have made the console more appealing.
I would argue the fact they created a new market that even Sony and Microsoft had to bow to years later and is still relevant today is a major shift. The problem with Sony and Microsoft is that they forgot that games need to be accessible and not require years of honing your skills in the genre. Who wants to pick up a FPS for the firs time only to get hammered in Online play mode (which is 90% of the game) just because you didn't have the 10 year start most of the other players have had. There is a reason why some genres become hardcore cause they reach a point of skill level where you have to seriously dedicate time and resources just to be adequate. Its a good business model but its also one that has to deal with either angering fans by appealing to more casual fans, or completely shut out new players and hope for a SFII/Madden approach of having a dedicated fanbase who will buy tweaked up versions released on a yearly basis or new DLC maps and content every few months.Quote:
And I wouldn't say they completely shifted this industry - they've simply created a market outside of gaming that closely resembles this one. But it's not the same as "this thing of ours." Microsoft and Sony adopted motion control to appease investors - there's no better evidence for that than the utter drought of original, motion-only content immediately after the products launched. It became a success for Microsoft and they've clearly gone in that direction. But as the years went on and the mature games were panned, even Nintendo had to learn the hard truth: you simply can't make compelling experiences with motion inputs. Some PS3 games integrate it really well, but those titles are still best with a controller. And the possibility that ANY hardcore title will come to the Kinect has all but been foreclosed. Nintendo is still innovating interfaces, but they've brought back the focus on buttons and have even knelt before the altar of graphics. As Wii sales have died down and the truth of it only being a fad has been laid bare, it's Nintendo who's now adjusting according to Sony and Microsoft's ways.
The Wii made gaming accessible to a much larger audience than before, and it made gaming more socially accessible and not just people imagining overweight nerds playing murder/rape simulators. Sony and Microsoft should be grateful cause these kids will most likely grow older and start picking up their consoles and bringing in fresh blood. Then they can nickle and dime for extra content. :shifty: You should seriously look at the bigger picture here than just the usual console war BS that hasn't been relevant since middle school for anyone. :p
I would also argue that Nintendo's goal has been to change how people play, which started with the DS and went to the Wii, and now the Wii U and 3DS. I've always felt motion gaming was innovative and something for the future, but I don't believe it was meant to be an exclusive interface and more of a new type of gaming that consoles will employ in the future. If Nintendo wanted to make motion gaming the major interface over standard controllers, then they wouldn't have bothered with buttons but they still allowed for the Wii Mote to be utilized like a regular controller. I think the idea of pure motion gaming is simply just hyberbole created by those game journalist you love so much to get more clicks on their webpage.
Namco was creative, Square was having to deal with a budget and release schedule, but I digress, cause I only said this scenario was plausible if Bastion's theory was correct. As oppose to what Nintendo has pretty much said, which is that they don't believe the games would fare well in the Western market. It's one thing when marketing tells you you're game might not do well in the market, its another thing entirely to tell them we shouldn't release your game cause its good enough to compete and take away sales from a third party company, who is technically a competitor. It would be like Sony telling the GoW team they can't release GoW4 in the US cause they want Capcom's DMC reboot to get better sales.Quote:
IIRC those were over creative differences, not distribution hiccups. I really think if they're able to create the games they want they're content, getting additional advertising and acclaim is just a bonus.Quote:
Considering this company was founded after they broke away from Square, over the argument of mishandling their projects, and then it was repeated with Namco Bandai with Xenosaga Episode 2's mishandling, I would say its not unlikely possibility.
[/QUOTE]Quote:
It would certainly get me to buy a Wii. DQX, unfortunately, not so much. I'm sad!Quote:
The DQ Collection never had a chance outside of Japan. I don't see too many people jumping at the chance to drop serious dough on a collection of three NES titles.
If you're going to drop that kind of dough, it would be cheaper to just buy a GBC and both of the GBC editions. It would cost about the same, and actually be portable. Hell, if Squenix wasn't trying to make some quick cash with this, they could have actually released all three games on Virtual Console for a third of the cost by now.
The monthly fee will only be for the online aspects (mmo, maybe for the dlc of new quests and such as well, if they wanted to be jerks about it) but they clearly stated at the presentation that you can play 100% of the main story without being online. I REALLY don't think they'll force you to buy a $60 game and then pay a monthly fee just to play and finish it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Del Murder
Not to mention that I really, really doubt we will have to pay outside of Japan for the monthly fee. Monster Hunter Tri is the closest analogy of a Wii game wherein Japanese players had to pay a monthly fee for the online stuff but NA and EU players did not... because NoA and NoE know that such things would never fly here. At least not yet.
I already posted a link where Square clarified that you need to be online to play past "the first few hours" of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastian
Also, while Monster Hunter was able to get away with giving the NA version for free, I think DQ will still charge us. Nintendo clearly has it in their head that this series can be more popular than it actually is in NA, and considering this is more in line with an MMO than Monster Hunter, and only the smaller guys go free to play (WoW and EQ are still monthly fees) we could be seeing this fee.
I think we have a misunderstanding. My argument was that Nintendo wouldn't try to appease mainstream journalists by bringing those games over here because mainstream journalists have been bashing them for years. You disagreed and said that it's only been recently. I ask you if you follow mainstream journalists. The evidence's strength isn't based on how much integrity these idiots have. The evidence's strength is based on the fact that they've been bashing Nintendo for years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woof!
They did not create a new market. Adults were killing productivity at their jobs at sites like Addicting Games and Candy Stand long before Smart Phones and Nintendo monetized the casual experience. The other half of their market is younger children. I would argue the DS and Wii have simply been the apotheosis of the Nintendo experience, because Nintendo products always brought in young children (how old were we when we were glued to our GameBoys and GBCs?), it's just now they've made such quality titles and enough varied titles to spark any child's interest, that they've really smashed the sales charts. The one area where they have broke new ground is young girls and that is an accomplishment. I never understood the power of the DS until I realized I had just played NSMB with my two little girl cousins who both had DS' and were both under the age of 10. I badly want to discredit Nintendo's accomplishment in this area, but I can't. The one thing I can think of is Tamagachi but even that is questionable.Quote:
I would argue the fact they created a new market that even Sony and Microsoft had to bow to years later and is still relevant today is a major shift.
Still, I disagree that gamers have gotten older or younger. The older crowd now just has an outlet for it on one of the big 3 console manufacturers. And me and almost all of my friends have been playing video games as long as we've been old enough to hold and use a controller. But the young girls crowd? Yeah, Nintendo created that one. But I think they're losing it to Apple.
I think Nintendo kept the buttons and D-pads because there would lose so many developers. But really dude? You don't think Nintendo hailed touch and later motion inputs as the future of gaming? Do you really want me to dig up the quotables from Iwata, Miyamoto, and Reggie where they defensively explain why they've forgone better graphics and online connectivity (which they now have ironically embraced, relative to this thread)?Quote:
I think the idea of pure motion gaming is simply just hyberbole created by those game journalist you love so much to get more clicks on their webpage.
And don't accuse me of loving those journalists, b. I've said in this thread and others that they're corny, historically inaccurate, biased, and flame baiting. Never confuse these dudes for my role models (those are Tetsuya Nomura and Yoshinori Kitase!!! :) )
I assumed Square was creative. Because I just got to Disc 2 of Xenogears and I have to say: wow, dude. Wow. This is probably the most unfinished game I've ever played, although I like to say that Sakaguchi put Fei in his "Time-Out Chair" to tell his little story becasue the gameplay just wasn't up to Square quality :) . But I guess I could see how this is more of a budget/timing problem than creative interference. It's sad because I read Square was going to greenlight a sequel if the game sold 1 million copies and it just hit 900,000 before they all decided to leave... sad.Quote:
Namco was creative, Square was having to deal with a budget and release schedule, but I digress, cause I only said this scenario was plausible if Bastion's theory was correct.
Also, your example would have been if Sony told the GoW team that they couldn't release GoW4 in Japan because of DMC sales... I would tend to think they still wouldn't care, but I can see what you're getting at and for people as passionate as Monolith I wouldn't be surprised if you were right.
I'm gonna still hold out. This is the golden age of remakes, my friend, and I know sooner or later an awesome edition is going to come out with these games on it and commemorative artwork/memorabilia and it could even be for something I own. The portability is also an issue for me. Don't get me wrong, I loved playing Dragon Quest IV and V on the DS but as I learned with Shining Force II on the HD Sonic collection, these games were meant to be played on a TV. So we'll see.Quote:
If you're going to drop that kind of dough, it would be cheaper to just buy a GBC and both of the GBC editions.
And I've already explained that during the actual presentation they said you would be able to play 100% of the game solo. They are NOT going to charge you a monthly fee to play the game solo, even in Japan. That would a completely idiotic business decision and no one would go for it. It is being built as a traditional RPG with MMO extras, not an all out MMO, so it would make no sense to charge a monthly fee unless you're playing the MMO aspect.Quote:
Originally Posted by BolivarI already posted a link where Square clarified that you need to be online to play past "the first few hours" of the game.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bastian
Not to mention that I very seriously doubt we will have to pay such a fee outside Japan. Your analogy with WoW and such makes no sense since DQX is NOT a full-on MMO. You CAN play it 100% completely solo. That is not an MMO. Thus it really would make more sense to follow the example of the only Wii RPG with MMO aspects. If there is a monthly fee in NA, I'll eat my hat (thank goodness I own no hats).