Physical Games Media: Time To Catch Up

23rd November 201724th November 2021Sean Alexander

Physical storage media for games that you buy from a brick and mortar store is under fire, mostly on Nintendo Switch due to downloading the remainder of big games that don’t fit, or cheaper developers skimping on costs, but this is the case on all systems.

So what spurred this? Well two things. One is Resident Evil Revelations Collection news a few days ago, where Capcom Europe announced that again, like usual, they won’t have a physical run of the game in the EU due to costs. These costs involve paying PEGI and other ratings boards, shipping, distribution, localisation, it’s a bit of a mess to be fair. But even in other regions (Except Japan allegedly), the two games come as such: 1 on a card (The smaller game I might add) and the 2nd game as a download code.

This isn’t uncommon. The “Switch Tax” as it has become known is just a laundry list of third-party games that cost more on Nintendo Switch, attributed to cartridge costs. L.A. Noire, RiME, the list goes on. Is this entirely true? Not…really? Without official figures on costs we will likely never know, but one idea is that it is simply just price gauging a new market, which is normal. But the inclusion of goodies like OST keys and pins in physical editions shows developers and publishers (Indies, typically) want to sweeten the deal for physical buyers to offset that price.

The next issue with the game cards is actually publishers like Take Two, who have released LA Noire, NBA 2K18 and WWE 2K18 on the horizon. Each game is “Playable” without downloading the remainder, but there has been widespread panning of this move, instead with people preferring to pay a little premium and have the whole experience on a 32GB card, as opposed to what is right now, a 4GB or 8GB card, with the rest as a download.

In the case of something like DOOM, this is handled quite well. The game fits all single player and DLC content on the card (16GB) and offers all the multiplayer as a download. This way you don’t miss any of the “Main event”. With Take Two though, it’s been revealed that the backlash against the Switch copy being only “Partly physical” should also be levelled at the other editions.

On PS4 and Xbox One you use Blu-Ray discs, that hold up to 50GB of data. Most games fit on this, and L.A. Noire most certainly would. However, interestingly enough that game actually only has a small amount on the disc, the rest as a download. This is a mirror of what happens on Switch. Why? Simple: It’s cheaper. While full capacity Blu-Ray discs are cheaper than the 32GB cards on Switch, publishers, as noted by Take Two saying the following, want “Maximum Profits”:

“We’ve said that we aim to have recurrent consumer spending opportunities for every title that we put out at this company. It may not always be an online model, it probably won’t always be a virtual currency model, but there will be some ability to engage in an ongoing basis with our titles after release across the board,”

Link

The truth is the digital storefronts of Xbox Live and PlayStation Network offer something physical games don’t: More money per sale. The prices are often the same regardless, but one of them won’t factor in costs of production, shipping, retailer cuts and so on. On PS4 and Xbox One this model of Digital Only is being pushed heavily, as both systems, even if using discs, just install them to the hard drive anyway, making the disc just a form of DRM and to save you downloading all of a game, instead (In this case anyway) most of it.

So what does this mean? Well your internal storage is being eaten up anyway, why not just go digital and be more convenient on yourself (Until the game gets pulled from the store…) and you can even get those Digital Gold Editions publishers like so much. In the end, more money for them. Take Two is the most brazen with this, as their games come piece meal regardless of format.

But sticking with Xbox One for a moment, let’s loop back to the complaint you have to download most of these third-party Switch games to get the full and best experience (OR complete experience) even when you buy physically.

The Xbox One X recently launched, and with it comes the ability to use actual UHD (4K) assets, which I assume (I haven’t got one of the boxes, I’m not rich!) look amazing. The problem with these are the file sizes are enormous, with HALO 5 and Forza Motorsport 7 passing 90GB to 100GBs each! Final Fantasy XV on PC is 170GBs, so that won’t fit on ANY current disc.

The catch here is to fully utilise your new shiny console, to get the best experience you can, you will have to download a good 50GB of game, or more heaven forbid. Why? The games have to come on standard Blu-Ray because they ALSO need to work on the basic Xbox One and One S. So what does this mean? These huge games require downloads, because the storage medium can’t hold them.

To confound this issue further, there IS a storage medium that COULD hold them. UHD Blu-ray. They go up to 100GBs. In fact, looking at how long regular Blu-Ray has been used for gaming (Since 2006 with the PS3), one would expect UHD Blu-Ray would be used by now, but an issue there would be cost. At which point no matter which option you take, you have the same issue as you do on Nintendo Switch: Games are too big for the medium flat-out, or the medium is too costly to use to store a full game. Sure it’s a little different, where the devices don’t even support UHD Blu-Ray (Well, the Xbox One S and X do for movies…) but the problem even then still persists when some games on the basic PS4 and Xbox One go over GB anyway!

The third-party publishers want a digital only future. Consumers are leaning to it from convenience. Console makers can’t keep up with the scope of games due to costs. A digital only future is most likely coming down the line. Physical media is already outdated on PS4 and Xbox One, skipped out on with all systems by publishers wanting to save costs, and too expensive on Switch and for UHD to hold the games being made in their entirety.

Let’s just hope they include bigger hard drives in the next ones right? 1TB in the Xbox One X…eesh.

As always if you enjoyed this give a like and share on social media, and I will see you next time! Happy Gaming!

Capcom May Be Short On Cash…

21st November 201724th November 2021Sean Alexander 1 Comment

News today has confirmed my beliefs: Capcom is running low on money.

In a statement to NintendoLife, Capcom revealed that Resident Evil Revelations Collection will NOT be receiving a physical release in the EU.

Capcom has to take various factors into account when deciding what format to deliver our titles to our fans. These can include but are not limited to overall production costs, manufacturing times, distribution, and first party regulations. In the case of Resident Evil Revelations, we’ve found that unfortunately it’s not viable for Capcom Europe to create a physical version of the title on Nintendo Switch for our territories, however we will be making this available as a digital release.

Link

Honestly though, breaking this down it reveals there is no real reason for this.

Here in Europe, you can get physical releases of both Revelations titles, readily available on Amazon, for other systems. If it was truly a cost measure, then maybe I could buy it. Cartridges are expensive after all, but the Collection only has the smaller first title on cartridge. The second game is a download code. Capcom can’t even print a half-assed attempt at a physical collection here! By all logic…this would be cheaper than printing two separate discs for other systems, two unique SKUs, and having both rated separately by PEGI.

In fact, the cost issue is potentially true: PEGI costs a lot of money for submission and rating of physical games. Plus, the cost of printing Nintendo Switch games is also fairly steep, but then again, only one of the games is even physical anyway.

Plus, indie titles are going physical left and right. With the size of Capcom you would think their EU division could be better funded, but here we are. The truth is coming to light.

I’ve noted this before, but Capcom, with the exception of Resident Evil 7, has had a rough time. Street Fighter V is being re-released. Marvel Vs. Capcom Infinite was a footnote in their financials and they even dodged questions about it. Their remasters and collections seem to be dodging more accepting platforms for those games (As historically noted with sales) in favour of keeping costs down. The leaked budget (If it can be called that…) for MVC:Infinite is laughable, and shows how tight the ship has become.

I have said it before in another article but Capcom, I swear now more than ever, this better pay off. Monster Hunter World is throwing away your existing Japanese fanbase, and Western fanbase, in the hope you reach a bigger audience despite appealing to what will most likely be a smaller Japanese audience by sheer install base. To do this, you are spending more money developing the game. It better pay off Capcom, I sincerely hope so, because if it doesn’t, the writing is clear.

Personally, I’m also sick of Capcom giving Europe the shaft AGAIN regarding physical releases, like the Megaman Legacy Collections, almost every Mega Man Collection actually, and many, many more games we either didn’t get, or got digital only because “Cost”.

Tomorrow, there will be a bigger article about physical distribution across all platforms, because no system is sage anymore.

But until then, leave some comments, share with your friends, and I’ll see you all next time! Happy Gaming!

Lootboxes: Are They Really Gambling?

18th November 201724th November 2021Sean Alexander 1 Comment

Lootboxes are a hot and noisy topic across the internet and now, even with governments and main stream media. But are they gambling?

So this discussion has multiple view points and honestly each has merit. I fall on one particular side of this fence that’s a little unique, but that’s for the end.

So PEGI and the ESRB don’t count lootboxes as gambling, as according to them, there is no specific legislation against the practice, and unlike actual gambling, you are guaranteed a reward. This is actually entirely true. Even if you don’t want what you get, investment is returned.

China is a little different, making Overwatch display odds of items, and classifying lootboxes as “Lottery tickets”. Here in the UK, lottery tickets are counted under gambling laws and age restrictions. So we already have overlap based on different countries.

Belgium is now investigating both Overwatch (The harbinger of the craze really) and Star Wars Battlefront 2, for child gambling. Namely, the idea of introducing monetary games of chance to minors. This I also agree with. The last thing you want is the seeds of gambling addiction from games.

This got so severe when the main stream media like BBC and CNN picked this up, that Disney called EA and soon after in app purchases were disabled, at least temporarily, in Star Wars Battlefront 2. Likely a way to save their brand image.

Now my stance actually comes from PEGI themselves. It actually stems from Pokémon.

Pokémon no longer has Game Corners, due to gambling laws here in the EU (We didn’t have them from Pokémon Platinum onwards) and in the re-releases of earlier games on the 3DS eShop, they carry a 12+ rating, solely for gambling. The trading of virtual currency you pay no money for in exchange for the chance of profit is labelled clearly on the box as gambling to the extent later games remove the feature entirely, but when using real world money for the privilege and a slight change in that you are guaranteed rewards even if you don’t want them, it’s not gambling.

To me personally, this makes no sense. You can’t hold both to different standards, but then the argument comes to something like Trading Card Games. Booster Packs are effectively lootboxes. So are Kinder Eggs. So are many things. What makes lootboxes in games different? Nothing.

I feel as though the argument has become skewed. From one side there is the fight whether these constitute gambling or not, or an entry to such addictions, and on the other, the argument they have no place in a full price retail game.

Either way, precedents are about to be set.

If you enjoyed this brief discussion (I’ve been in the hospital!), share with your friends and comment away, and until next time, Happy Gaming!

The Unfortunate Obsession with Metacritic

16th November 201724th November 2021Sean Alexander

The industry has a bit of an obsession with Metacritic scores. Both consumers, and unfortunately publishers, look at the numbers in a way that has proven not only counterproductive, but dangerous in recent years.

Metacritic (And similar aggregators) have a simple job: Collect review scores and average them out. Now that’s all well and good and can be a useful source for a range of different reviews on a game, movie, music and so on.

Metacritic though has become a focal point. The vaunted goal, the barometer of what’s worth buying, and even what determines developers getting bonuses. Yes, Metacritic alone has become a huge part of the industry, and while it does a job that is needed, namely collecting reviews into one place for convenience, how it does it and the impact of that, is the problem.

First, the rise of competitors such as OpenCritic have raised awareness that Metacritic seemingly acts selectively with getting reviews from places, requiring verification. Further, it also reaches very slightly different averages, indicating that some reviews are weighted more than others. Weighting is in fact a key point that we will come back to later.

Another issue is review scores, because that’s what Metacritic uses for an average, will be based on different criteria. A 7 from one site is a different set of criteria from a 7 elsewhere. But for Metacritic, a 7 is a 7. The reasoning behind the number could be completely different, but the context behind that number is ultimately lost.

The idea that Metacritic and other aggregators can give a consensus is a bit foolish. ure, it will say “Generally Favourable” or “Mixed” or whatever other word of the times it chooses, but is that accurate, when the context behind those numbers is lost? The average number is just a basis from generalisation. A game could come out with 80/100 and be “Generally Favourable” only for the reality underneath to be…well mixed. This is especially prevalent with mixed or divisive games, as outliers skew the data, and in statistics, significant outliers are anomalous. But Metacritic doesn’t care about anomalies and their context, just the number. More pull is assigned to the lower end of the scale, so even if a game has by all accounts more “Positive” reviews than “Mixed”, the “Mixed” weight it down. On top of THAT, not every game will have the same number of reviews, further skewing data.

I’m going to keep bringing up that number, because just like on this site and our refusal to score reviews (Again, context is key), that number in recent years has become the most contested aspect of any game.

The 4 point scale, admittedly nowadays more like 3 point scale, is a problem. Undoubtedly so in fact, to the point where now, a game below an 8/10 is considered bad. Yes, really, and I wish it wasn’t the case. A key factor in this is in fact aggregators have weighted (There is that word again) the averages.

Say you have a 10 point scale, in this case 1-100. If that was to represent a range of values from terrible, to bad, to average, to great, to excellent, why would 50% of that scale be assigned to “Negative” and below? Why is 50%-75% the range for “Average”? Why is the range for “Good to Excellent” only the upper 25%?

This doesn’t make any sense. The cream of the crop would stand out regardless, so why is there a significantly larger range for games to be considered bad, than the other 2 general ratings? Why is the general bar for “Okay” around, of all things, 75-80%?

This extends to the issue regarding the 4 point scale. As the averages are locked to this upper half of the board, and most games fall in that range, it starts to push the minimum for what gamers call “Acceptable” up and up over time. Once, it was 7. It’s closer to 8 now and heaven forbid it hits 9/10.

These scores, and the uneven distribution and attribution of values given to the scores, is simply nothing more than fuel for a fire, of my game is better than yours, and so on so forth, amongst gamers, or even attacks on developers. It’s okay to have high standards, but average is not 7/10.

Finally we are going to come to the other obsessed group: Publishers. Companies like EA and a handful of others, are known for tying bonuses for developers to a Metacritic score. Get a certain score, or no bonus. This is the dumbest, most disrespectful thing imaginable.

Sure, you should get a bonus for doing a good job or working extra hard. That is true of any industry. But developers go through crunch time, unpaid overtime, without union support. Worse to that, if the game has great visuals, and those artists, animators and modellers did the best they have ever done, but the programming leaves the game a mess with a low score, those visual development staff won’t get a bonus, even if it is their best work.

This is of course, assuming they still have the job afterwards, due to high turnover in the industry as well. Bonuses for a developer should be based on the work of the individual, and not held behind an arbitrary and without context number that a publisher wants to see, that can be broken down by a completely separate part of the development staff.

The industry has manifested a culture of abusing developers and not giving them their dues, based on what other people think. Not their work individually, not even what the publisher thinks, but what the rest of the world thinks, and the obsession with every increasing standards and a shrinking scale of what is acceptable means that this culture will only hurt developers in the end.

As always if you enjoyed this, give it a share and let me know what you think on social media. Until next time, Happy Gaming!

EA, Listen, Gamers Aren’t Thick!

14th November 201724th November 2021Sean Alexander 2 Comments

The gift that keeps on giving aren’t they?

Update: As Noted by Andrew Reiner on Twitter, there’s some hallmarks of mobile free to start games here too:

https://twitter.com/Andrew_Reiner/status/930209923505557504

Update 2: EA removed in-app purchases temporarily after backlash from Disney, said they would return later, and most recently had the same criticisms levelled at Need for Speed: Payback and a new UFC title. To compound this, after saying “They didn’t want to offer cosmetics because it violates Star Wars canon” for Battlefront 2, they were reminded not only did they do that for the first game in 2015, but Battlefront 2 has cosmetics in the game data!

Plus, violates canon? We have a game, this very game in fact, where Yoda can battle Kylo Ren on a planet that has been blown up.

So brace yourselves, Reddit has a new record for most down-voted post ever. It’s EA’s Official PR guys too, on the Battlefront sub-Reddit. Oh boy!

The intent is to provide players with a sense of pride and accomplishment for unlocking different heroes.
As for cost, we selected initial values based upon data from the Open Beta and other adjustments made to milestone rewards before launch. Among other things, we’re looking at average per-player credit earn rates on a daily basis, and we’ll be making constant adjustments to ensure that players have challenges that are compelling, rewarding, and of course attainable via gameplay.
We appreciate the candid feedback, and the passion the community has put forth around the current topics here on Reddit, our forums and across numerous social media outlets.
Our team will continue to make changes and monitor community feedback and update everyone as soon and as often as we can.

Link

EA said that!

So for those not in the know, Star Wars Battlefront 2 (The second one with that name, yes it’s confusing) has loot boxes and in–app purchases which in a $60 game as we have already discussed is a bit much. Now, people did some number crunching, showing that for a character like Darth Vader, you need to play for 40 hours, or cough up.

Now, EA has revised this down by 75% so the total number of “Points” is far less. This is good. Granted…it’s not for us. It’s for the shareholders.

You know, without a shred of doubt, a shareholder sat and saw that backlash, and felt his vault empty. Sure, it’s 490,000 people (It’s insane and climbing) but to an investor, that’s 490k $60 sales that just said “I might not buy it”. And then add in the lost revenue from in=-app purchases? Yeah.

Now there is no guarantee this will happen, because after all, who can say how many people just hopped on the train. But to a shareholder, there is no greater fear than the potential of lost revenue.

What’s more, that potential lost revenue is likely too great for them to sit back and worry. It’s now more valuable for them to cut the amount of micro transactions they’d have to sell, to instead maintain those $60 purchases. Just on the chance they lose sales.

Truthfully speaking, I expect the developers don’t even want this. They just want a game that’s good. But the money talks, and in this instance you can put some Monopoly bucks down on some tight-fisted gents breaking their fine china as their hands tense.

What bothers me about EA’s statement though, ignoring the background economics of the matter, is that “A sense of accomplishment” isn’t going to be earned from 40 hours of grinding, while people pay up around you and beat you down online.

Frankly, this model, or at least these extremes, are parting the player base like Moses parted the Red Sea: A huge gulf with no bridge unless you build it yourself , or pay the piper. On one side, people who pay, and the other those who don’t.

This ultimately was “Dictated by the Open Beta” but if EA paid attention, the feedback to that was of trepidation and concern around potential pay 2 win shenanigans. With the track record of a company like EA, well deserved, and now, proven.

What concerns me most is the phrase “Constant adjustments”. I don’t now what that implies…but it would seem like as they say, an effort to keep things attainable with engaging challenges. Now that to me, sounds like discounts of purchases, or rather, how many point you need.

Honestly, discounting the points needed for some time seems like a way to push purchases just a little more. Sell a lesser purchase to more people, making it attractive. This doesn’t sit well with me. That feels legitimately predatory, not to mention the upcoming (Announced before launch) discount to coincide with the upcoming Star Wars Episode 8.

Ultimately, I have mixed feelings. On one hand, great, EA listened. On the other, I know it is only self-serving in the end, and their statement has the potential to open a whole other bag of worms. Honestly, this entire game is surrounded with negativity and questionable motives.

But at the end of the day, it’s got Star Wars on the box, and when discounted in the hype of a movie, what will the average Joe go and buy? This game.

The tactic is going to work in the end, this is just a move to soften a blow to shareholders and keep gamers on board. The money from the average consumer will be huge regardless, but nothing sells certainty to money-makers than a show of faith, especially when the cash has legs and vows to run away.

I had a little too much fun writing this one up. If you have some thoughts why not share or comment on social media with your friends, and I’ll see you next time! Happy Gaming!

The Problem of AAA Development: Money and Vultures

11th November 201724th November 2021Sean Alexander 2 Comments

The news of EA buying Respawn Entertainment (May they rest in peace) has spurred a thought: Is AAA game development actually sustainable?

So EA closed Visceral in late 2017, suddenly but to the surprise of no one. As it happens this was just yet another in their hit list: Be it studios swallowed whole or internal studios biting the dust.

Now EA, not long after disbanding Visceral and their single player Star Wars project, has bought Respawn and the IP for Titanfall.

Titanfall 2 was actually surprisingly awesome, and it even made a little marketing push on having no DLC, no micro transactions, and just being a solid game you got the entirety of with one purchase.

And EA, the publisher, put it right in between Call of Duty, and it’s OWN Battlefield 1, effectively cannibalizing its sales. We now also know with this acquisition that Titanfall 3 is a thing in the works. Taking bets as to how that will turn? Well let’s look back at Dead Space.

EA wanted Dead Space to be a multimedia thing. It didn’t happen, but the first two games sold really well. Dead Space 3 however, needed 5 million sales for a future, and had micro transactions and modes added that frankly had no place in a game like that: Sales tanked, Visceral got moved to Battlefield Hardline, that didn’t do too well, and now they are gone.

You can probably tell what Titanfall 3 will be like can’t you? Oh, and the developers get bonuses based on how well the games review. Money talks apparently.

Respawn is just yet another studio with talented staff, good IP and a drive to make good games snatched up by proverbial vultures. When, and it isn’t a case of “If”, Respawn is closed by EA, it will be for not meeting expectations. But what are those expectations?

Let’s look at Activision’s Q4 2016 sales figures:

Activision Blizzard confirmed during their Q4 2016 Earnings Call that the entire company, across Activision and Blizzard titles, made over $3.6 billion just from in-game content sales. In-game content sales includes Call of Duty Points, Overwatch Loot Boxes, and more.

Link

Now let’s look at Take Two:

“We’ve said that we aim to have recurrent consumer spending opportunities for every title that we put out at this company. It may not always be an online model, it probably won’t always be a virtual currency model, but there will be some ability to engage in an ongoing basis with our titles after release across the board,” Zelnick said.

Link

EA themselves have quoted games as a service model as a key driver.

Let’s be honest though, is this shocking? No. Businesses exist to make money, but the more staff they have to hire, the more the consumer demands better graphics, the more capable the hardware for games becomes, and the longer games take to make, means bigger budgets, more wages, and ultimately, a need to sell more copies. Far, far more.

Part of this is the “$60” price tag of games. One time purchase, that’s it. No more money for the publishers and developers. So what do they do? Find a way to increase monetization: A constant stream of revenue. Lootboxes, In-app purchases, DLC, it all goes straight to them. But it doesn’t stop at covering costs, it continues to making as much money as humanly possible, often with minimal effort and some very dodgy practices.

Take Call of Duty: WWII for instance. The game has lootboxes, with a twist. Others can see what you get, with the aim of seemingly spurring jealously.

According to redditor cuzseile, who uploaded the video, the supply drop exists in the game world but other players can’t steal it, which you’d expect. But cuzseile reports other players can see what you get from a supply drop

Link

The psychology of reward and feeling good is at full use here, akin to gambling, and of course, Activision also has that patent, where matchmaking can be based on pushing you via losses and other players into purchasing lootboxes.

Publishers have leapt to the furthest end of the spectrum in seeking additional monetization. Honestly, as many have noted, if the game was free it could easily sustain itself on in-app purchases just on player base. Any game could in theory. In practice though, its not just a case of making ends meet as they claim: Now it’s predatory, and now it is about milking as much as possible.

Even smaller studios, to loop back to the start of the article, are in need of money. It is why studios are bought up: They need publishers, and a source of income. Why wouldn’t you take that opportunity if presented? But the publishers typically twist and gut the studio into their vision of maximised profits.

Personally, I would be fine with a $10 price increase on games. That could go a surprisingly long way to meeting costs and break even points. Sadly though, the big publishers have already tasted the blood in the water, and won’t settle for the more market friendly lesser revenue.

AAA gaming is a vulture. Or maybe a parasite is more apt? Either way, it swallows creativity whole, and turns studios most people knew and loved of all sizes into factories, producing not games but products.

As an aside, during my time studying Games Design at university, this is the model we were taught: Not to produce games, but products. Plan ahead from the mere conception of a game to form ways of further monetizing, be it DLC, removing content to sell later, or in app purchases. This is something I heartedly disagree with. Yes, in-app purchases have a place, mostly in free games, but not in a title already paid for.

The games industry is a ravenous beast, hungry for the taste of as much revenue as possible, and all the talent it can absorb to get that revenue. As consumers want more from games, studios need to fund that. They turn to publishers who want as much money as possible, then in a few years see more hardware come out, games look better, cost more to make, and the cycle continues.

The industry isn’t unsustainable, at least not yet. It needs change. Perhaps the biggest problem is that it is noticeably cannibalising itself, breaking down what talent it has and the bright futures and ideas of many, in the sake of the now, the money, the gain, and it isn’t looking to the future, where games are solely predatory and more expensive than ever, without any reason to be that way.

I’ve said it before, and I will probably say it forever: Minimal Effort, Maximum Profit.

As always if you enjoyed this article leave a comment with your thoguhts, share with your friends, and happy gaming!

Capcom, We Need To Talk…

8th November 201724th November 2021Sean Alexander 2 Comments

Capcom has a bit of an odd relationship with the industry but recently they are not only banking big on one single release, but watching others flop and ignoring key markets…

So Capcom. Sometimes I do wonder if you don’t like money. I mean, Marvel Vs Capcom Infinite would have been a great deal and a big success if it was properly funded…

Street Fighter V could have been big if it was a finished game with balanced methods of unlocking content.

And what is this excuse regarding Nintendo Switch support?

According to a spokesperson for the company, it noted that it’s general procedure for third-party software developers to make re-releases for a new console within the first year of launch, mainly because there’s just not enough time to work on new titles within the timeframe.

Link

Come on Capcom. Every has seen your early support for other systems. We know that’s BS.

Why not localise Monster Hunter XX? In your recent earnings report you listed it as a reason you did so well, along with Ultra Street Fighter 2! Oh, is it because of Monster Hunter World? Don’t worry, I’ll get to that.

A collection of Mega Man games came out on PS4, PC, Xbox One, and later, 3DS. The 3DS version sold the most units. Where is the second Collection at, Capcom? If not on 3DS then why not Switch? In fact data was found pointing to the 3DS version existing.

A dataminer named Greigamaster recently found some code that indicates a multiplayer battle mode for a supposed 3DS version. Additionally, code was found referring to saves and replays for an SD card, and the 3DS has its own directory file, too. As the source article points out, this either means that the game is coming to 3DS, was initially coming to 3DS before getting canned, or it’s completely unrelated to the collection at all and is just simply code belonging to another project by the same team.

Link

What? Okami HD (Again.)? That did pretty well back on Wii. Why not make a Switch port? Easy money again right?

Capcom, I know for whatever reason, you don’t want to make money. I know that taking a game to it’s biggest market is alien to you. But come on. Someone there has to see the writing on the wall. There are markets, not even just Nintendo, that would do wonders for some of your games, and others that wouldn’t. And yet you do the opposite of the logical thing.

Now let’s talk about Monster Hunter World.

You want your game to reach a global audience right? Increased revenue. Okay, fair enough.

This game will obviously cost far more to produce than the 3DS entries. It will need to sell far more to make back that investment. But part of me thinks this is a very dangerous move. Sure it could boost the popularity of the franchise internationally….but that will be at a cost.

The game is coming to PS4, Xbox One and PC. But only on PS4 in Japan. 5 million potential sales right there, in the biggest market for the game. Compared to the 20+ million for 3DS, but of a fall. We know Nintendo Switch is eating away at that too, already past 2 million units, but that’s neither here nor there.

But Japan isn’t really into stationary consoles. They want portable experiences, it’s part of their culture and lifestyle. You’re potentially alienating the domestic market, and largest market, for a franchise you just invested more than ever into.

And let’s not get started on the Western situation. The series hit untold highs in the West on 3DS, and it is well documented the series sells best on portables, even back in the days of PSP/PS2. Is there any guarantee that the Western console markets will pick this up and that fans will migrate from 3DS/Switch where the fanbase grew?

No. Not at all.

This is a huge risk Capcom, I hope you understand that. Taking the game from it’s proven largest domestic market, and it’s largest Western market, spending far more money to do so therefore demanding more sales…all in the hope of a bigger audience.

I hope you appreciate how insane that sounds.

Look, if it works it works. But for a company so averse to doing the logical thing and making more money than they would otherwise, this feels like a huge risk, and if it fails…well you better start rethinking your strategy at long last. I don’t think this can go the way of Street Fighter V.

Behind The Game: Splatoon 2

5th November 201724th November 2021Sean Alexander 1 Comment

In this edition of Behind The Game we look at the sequel that many say isn’t a sequel to one of the surprise hits of the past few years: Splatoon 2!

Marketing

Revealed January 12^th at the Nintendo Switch Event in Japan, showcasing the game, new hub area and characters. Response was positive, with lingering suspicion that it wasn’t unique enough or much of an upgrade over the original from 2015.

Playable at Nintendo Switch events worldwide leading up to the launch of the console, where feedback was positive, ringing along the lines of “It’s definitely Splatoon”, albeit most focus was on the hardware.

Late March brought the Splatoon 2 Global Testfire, following the trend from the original in creating a stress test in the guise of a playable demo for a weekend. This led to feedback directly from a wider range of fans on weapons and presented a limited taste of the game. This was later followed immediately before launch with a Splatfest World Premiere demo, acting as another stress test and highlighting the unique community battles aspect of the franchise, immediately before launch.

The game was also highlighted in Nintendo Directs, first as a follow-up to a more general game showcase that focused heavily on ARMS, a new IP, and Splatoon 2, which was pushed as a duet of main events, highlighting the pulling power of the franchise.

There was later a full ARMS direct with a Splatoon 2 Story Mode teaser at the end, once again highlighting the two being marketed in tandem, and the promise of the game being used to push a new product.

Finally, a full Splatoon 2 direct aired showing the new hosts, story mode, weapons, update plans, Splatfest plans, and laying out the roadmap and what to expect over two years with the game, as well as new modes and features. This followed on from a large E3 showing highlighting the changes and promise of Splatoon 2 as a competitive spectator sport, with a live tournament of some of the best Squid Squads from around the globe.

Right up to and after launch, consistent TV spots were played worldwide, highlighting the game to the general consumer, along with other multiplayer titles for the summer.

Critical Response

Critically Splatoon 2 fared well. Most loved the game, albeit the lingering feeling of not being fresh enough stayed, both visually and in terms of gameplay, as well as some nagging aspects that could have been better. This general response is an interesting change on the original which said there wasn’t enough content at launch, but the game was a shock the genre needed, and felt addictive to play, holding enough quick-fire gameplay in its matches to warrant returning again and again.

With the content roadmap clearly laid out, critically the game had less focus on amount of content overall, but how much was new, however, in very few cases did that seem to detract from the game being fun, and a general air of don’t fix what isn’t broken surrounds the game.

Fan Response

In the eyes of fans, Splatoon 2 faced much of the same backlash. Visually similar, with the differences early on being visible only side by side. The feeling that it wasn’t worthy of being a sequel lingered right until launch, when new information was pumped out, showing the freshness of this new title in the now series.

Post-launch the feeling changed, and the game is generally loved, though some fans of the original who played considerable amounts of the game, seem to feel a bit of burn out. Criticism is still levelled at how the game handles aspects like matchmaking and stages, and a lack of wholly original content, but the experience has been received as fun and again, just like with critics, an air of don’t fix what isn’t broken.

Sales

Despite being on a system only a few months old at the time of launch, compared to its predecessor, with less total users to possible sell to on launch, Splatoon 2 trounced the original game sales in both the UK and Japan. This shocked many detractors who, like with Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, believed that being so soon after the original, who would buy it? This again stems from the “Undeserving sequel” stance many took with the game, however, just like with Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, is already on its way to best its predecessor commercially, with over 3.6 million copies by the end of September 2017.

Future

As an evergreen title, with a content roadmap of 2 years and long life ahead of that for general play, as well as a blossoming competitive scene, Splatoon 2 is one of the shocks of the decade, from a new IP in a genre Nintendo never touched, to a hit on Wii U (Even with its low sales), to a sequel that is already on track to best it’s predecessor and live a long life on Switch. The future of the brand is clear, though the confidence in Splatoon 2 from its reveal, mirrors the found confidence after the reveal of the original, an idea that is fun, and works well, that proves the series can grow and reach even more people within the genre, and the inevitable Splatoon 3 will be a hit on Switch or whatever is next, as the franchise cements itself as both a system seller and crowd pleaser.

As always if you enjoyed this article be sure to leave some comments below letting us know what you think of Splatoon 2 as a package, and share this article with all your friends! Until next time!

Behind The Game: Mario + Rabbids Kingdom Battle

5th November 201724th November 2021Sean Alexander

As a fun concept, I thought we could take the lead-up to, and release of, a game and see how it shaped up commercially, critically, and with the fans!