You know what, as someone who hung around smashboards during the ultimate era, you’re probably right. Then again, I have actually seen tons of old smash boards Geno warriors at peace after this announcement, so I guess we’ll see once smash 6 or whatever is revealed
They don’t count accesoriess….and I doubt the numbers are anything to write home about
Well, for a start... The studio who did the remake basically doesn't make original games. They're a port/remake studio entirely. They made a handful of small, unlocalised DSIware games, but that's it. Expecting anything from them regarding a new title is a long shot, at best.
Don’t know about Japan but it seems like it’s selling out in most places, which isn’t surprising as PS accessories often do really well.
I dunno. Persona 3 Reload started active development in late 2019. By that point, the Switch was a massive worldwide success, it had proved itself a very good fit for JRPGs, people had been asking for Persona games on the system for a couple of years and Joker had already been announced as a playable character for Smash. With all those factors, the remake should have been developed with Switch in mind, but that clearly didn't happen.
why should that stop them from developing a new game? Nintendo overseeing, at least one of the directors returning, and a decent budget, ArtePiazza would do fine
From what I remember of talk during that time they even added a platform mid-dev so frankly no excuse here. Even then they had plentiful options to choose from if they couldn’t or didn’t wanna do it.
Even though the Switch wasn't the first hardware in mind when developing P3R, the game could have run very well on it. It uses UE4 with the same scope as Persona 5, it's full of corridors. If P5R runs well on Switch, so would P3R.
The game probably could run on switch, but atlus is probably focused on bringing the game to the switch 2, and are ignoring the first switch
www.famitsu.com
hey, as long as someone pays for it. which I think will stop happening after recent results
top 30
ゲームソフト販売本数ランキング | ゲーム・エンタメ最新情報のファミ通.com
PS5、PS4、Switch、3DS等の推定ゲーム販売本数ランキング30件です。2024年5月6日～2024年5月12日に集計された店舗データが元になっています。
hey, as long as someone pays for it. which I think will stop happening after recent results
what key positions? how is a ground up remake, which needs every position a new game needs, not the same as a new game? the only thing that separates Mario RPG from a hypothetical Mario RPG2 is the fact they have the blueprints already made vs having to make them. Nintendo has a wealth of staff who can work with ArtePiazza to make that.
Hey don’t let the rest of us suffer here
the switch can absolutely handle p3r just look at it. it's just another coked out atlus decision
Final Fantasy XVI first week sales: 336k
Tbf ff16 dropped like a rock in its second and third weekd
Final Fantasy is a huge series that flopped because they took Sony money instead of Nintendo money. Mario games and RPGs are both niche, so this is more impressive. Is it hard to understand?
Latest entry in the board game spinoffs of the Momotaro Densetsu RPGs that started back in the 80s. Dentetsu was a popular roughly-annual series from 1988~2011, but got caught up in Konami's great retreat from console gaming post-Dragon Collection. The originals were developed by Hudson Soft, predating a lot of other digital board games like Itadaki Street and Mario Party.
That's not quite right, they also developed Opoona on the Wii and Innocent Life on the PSP/PS2.
Staff of ~4000 versus staff of ~200. Just another small team embarrassing the AAA business model.
I'm not disagreeing that SMRPG's sales are more impressive though, I just find the comment funny with respect to SE. SE is never going to have the profit motive to pursue Super Mario RPG like they do Final Fantasy, even when you account for the similar sales and the fact that Final Fantasy is way more expensive, all of that profit goes to Square Enix, drives sales for their brand, and in a similar situation to SMRPG the dev cost was also partially covered by Sony. That's why I found the comment funny, not because SMRPG's sales aren't more impressive, but because FFXVI will probably make Square way more money than SMRPG anyways yet it's being labeled a "bomba" for them in this scenario. In terms of profit for SE, it's still the higher priority title, even if its sales were kind of middling.
This would be like saying SMRPG's sales are embarrassing when comparing the console install base of the two.
One of them costs exponentially less to make yet generates comparable revenue at retail. AAA development is the problem; it's a relic of the 90s that costs too much in time, labor, and dollars to produce efficiently. The bar is too high for XVI to sell well--when that many people are working on your game, you have to be one of the best-selling games of all time to "sell well."
What are you even going on about anymore. Was this argument just an excuse to hate on AAA games?
AAA development can be a problem but it doesn't mean it is a problem for every AAA game. Yeah, SE had weird expectations for this game, and they do for basically every game they sell. But it still sold very well. They wouldn't decide to start making 2 expansions after release if it didn't.
This would honestly hurt SE more then Nintendo at this point in time
It's not bait though. I agree SMRPG has more impressive sales and different expectations, but the post I was quoting acted like it was a bigger achievement for SE when it isn't, SE is almost certainly going to make way less money off it than XVI even with the smaller budget and even if the WW sales are comparable. $70, future PC port, expansions and all the revenue going to SE (aside from platformer holders) is too strong. Under that circumstance that was a silly comment, so I responded with a joke.Guys, @AngryAlchemist just wants to break his personal record of the most quoted post. He is obviously baiting you
Not games, the business model. The XVI-versus-Mario RPG comparison evidences a smaller, smarter way of development; fewer staff to similar or better returns as AAA games. If Square were to develop new Final Fantasy titles at a smaller less expensive and less time-intensive scope, they could release more games per decade at a similar price point. All their investment in cutting-edge fidelity isn't helping FF sell, it's just dragging out asset production and racking up costs while giving them fewer chances to be creative.
It broke even and taught a wider population what "amortization" means. Past FF games profited at launch, and even served as system-sellers. Square needs a new plan; you can't just spend the most money to make the most money anymore.
You say that as if it's a movie ending its theatrical run and it's not going to continue profiting (on top of whatever check Sony gave them for exclusivity). Dislike AAA games all you want, but the industry would be a lot less interesting if these bigger publishers weren't trying to take risks and push the limits of current consoles with games like FF16. Not every game of this size has to do BotW numbers to be considered a success. A lot of them have problems in their bigger budget approach, but this wasn't one of them. If FF16 actually failed then it'd be a totally different story.
Square Enix had many very AAA flops in recent times, like Forespoken, Babylons Fall, Marvel Avengers.
SE tends to have unrealistic expectations anyway. I think it’s fair to say FF16 didn’t set the world on fire; however I would hesitate to say it outright flopped. Forespoken I feel is also in that gray area. Babylon’s Fall is the only one I’d say was a sales failure.
Well they still have Taro Kudo involved as a contractor. I don't think it's likely, but I wouldn't say it's impossible either.
we'll probably get an update whenever they announce the PC version.
in the other thread, it was found that Cattle Call also assisted in development. so it's not like ArtePiazza is lacking in help to make a new game. granted ArtePiazza is only favored because of recency
