• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Do you have audio editing experience and want to help out with the Famiboards Discussion Club Podcast? If so, we're looking for help and would love to have you on the team! Just let us know in the Podcast Thread if you are interested!

News Soul Hackers 2 announced, coming to PS4/5, XSX/S, XBO and Steam this August

I'm expecting a late port like 13 Sentinels here, maybe they decided on Switch mid development and couldn't get it working in time

The issue with late ports is that then X company will say "Oh it not sell as well as we had hoped" Surprised Pikachu

Look at DQ11S. Fantastic game, looks and runs great on Switch but additional content. It did not light it on fire because it was way too late. Look how well DQ11 sold in Japan on the friggin' 3DS. Time has passed and numbers may have shifted as they do, but when it released, the 3DS version sold more than the PS4 version overall.

The issue with late ports is that, yeah, maybe folks like us double dip on games often, but most people don't.
 
salt.png


đź‘€

On a serious note: Sucks that there is no Switch version, might get it later on Steam or Xbox.
 
“Atlus should go multiplatform”


monkeys-paw-paw.gif


In all seriousness, Switch 2 will probably get some full priced deluxe version in a few years.
 
I'm not denying it is weird. But some people here act like the Switch is another Wii U, where it misses out on practicaly everything. That's not true when even now, publishers are doing everything they can to bring games over, even if they have to do a cloud version. This is just one jarring exception.

True.... but here is the issue. If it was another company, sure. But it's Atlus and Atlus makes really bizarre choices. Even Persona 4 Golden, which is my favorite jrpg, got a release on Steam but not Switch.

My other gripe, is that jrpgs are my jam. I see the support they have DS and 3DS, and it is night and day. If you look at my DS/3DS shelf, you would think my home is sponsored by Atlus. I get frustrated with them because aside from P5 which went HUGE and one can argue is their only AAA game with the amount of money they have poured into it and now being owned by Sega, they make the type of games you do not really see as much as you used to, which is AA sorry not sorry that are games are Japanese as hell games in the rpg and adventure space.

No one here thinks it is another Wii U, it is just certain companies making weird ass decisions, Atlus being a big one.
 
True.... but here is the issue. If it was another company, sure. But it's Atlus and Atlus makes really bizarre choices. Even Persona 4 Golden, which is my favorite jrpg, got a release on Steam but not Switch.

My other gripe, is that jrpgs are my jam. I see the support they have DS and 3DS, and it is night and day. If you look at my DS/3DS shelf, you would think my home is sponsored by Atlus. I get frustrated with them because aside from P5 which went HUGE and one can argue is their only AAA game with the amount of money they have poured into it and now being owned by Sega, they make the type of games you do not really see as much as you used to, which is AA sorry not sorry that are games are Japanese as hell games in the rpg and adventure space.

No one here thinks it is another Wii U, it is just certain companies making weird ass decisions, Atlus being a big one.
Atlus also isn't bringing P4A to Xbox, despite the original being on 360, so it's not just Nintendo.
 
obviously very early, but those snippets of the city sections and the team attacks in full res look like they might get choppy on the switch. I like how smtv looks but it runs pretty poorly and the maps are largely barren. they could probably port this, but it would take extra work, as per usual
Have you played SMT V or P5? Because none of those things are beyond what those games are doing and they're running on weaker platforms than this game

Well they could've just had the Switch version be the lead one...
 
Atlus also isn't bringing P4A to Xbox, despite the original being on 360, so it's not just Nintendo.
It's not, but again, still really weird. With how Xbox sells in Japan, and how jrps in general sell on Sony and Nintendo systems, I can sort of understand why Atlus may skip Xbox in general, BUT yes, games that were already on the 360 should also be ported over to the X. I agree.

But lets say the Switch sold Wii U or hell, Xbox in Japan numbers.... yeah, I would understand if no games came to Switch from them. This is just bizarre.
 
I agree that this most likely has nothing to do with the performance of TMS. However, the bolded shouldn't even be a problem if the Switch had been part of the development pipeline from the start. This is the same studio that was seemingly okay with making Vita the baseline for the Dancing games.

I don't think anyone here is in a position to say what should or shouldn't have been an issue in the development of this game. We don't know enough. Either way, that they had trouble getting it to run on Switch is more believable than the idea that Atlus has a grudge against Nintendo. The same Nintendo who has received far more exclusive games out of Atlus over the past decade than any other platform holder.

The idea that they somehow favour PlayStation, which is once again bubbling up out of this announcement, seems to come solely from the fact that they won't port Persona games to Nintendo consoles. As if Etrian Odyssey, most SMT spin-offs and mainline numbered SMT games haven't been locked to Nintendo platforms for years now. They clearly have major success and a dedicated audience on Nintendo platforms. They're not going to ignore that audience unless they have business contracts or legitimate technical reasons for doing so.
 
Have you played SMT V or P5? Because none of those things are beyond what those games are doing and they're running on weaker platforms than this game

Well they could've just had the Switch version be the lead one...
I beat SMTV, and got most of the way through P5 vanilla. SMTV runs pretty poorly, and the weakest platform P5 appeared on is the base PS4, which is more powerful than the switch

like I said before, I would prefer to play this on the switch, but the extra work required to port current gen games over to the switch can be a deal breaker
 
I beat SMTV, and got most of the way through P5 vanilla. SMTV runs pretty poorly, and the weakest platform P5 appeared on is the base PS4, which is more powerful than the switch

like I said before, I would prefer to play this on the switch, but the extra work required to port current gen games over to the switch can be a deal breaker

I know it's easy to forget given how late it launched, but Persona 5 was a ps3 game, I assume you meant persona 5 royal.
 
I don't think anyone here is in a position to say what should or shouldn't have been an issue in the development of this game. We don't know enough. Either way, that they had trouble getting it to run on Switch is more believable than the idea that Atlus has a grudge against Nintendo. The same Nintendo who has received far more exclusive games out of Atlus over the past decade than any other platform holder.

The idea that they somehow favour PlayStation, which is once again bubbling up out of this announcement, seems to come solely from the fact that they won't port Persona games to Nintendo consoles. As if Etrian Odyssey, most SMT spin-offs and mainline numbered SMT games haven't been locked to Nintendo platforms for years now. They clearly have major success and a dedicated audience on Nintendo platforms. They're not going to ignore that audience unless they have business contracts or legitimate technical reasons for doing so.
This. When you consider the other games Atlus released on Switch. One or two games from them skipping it isn't the end of the world.
 
I don't get moneyhat vibes from this but then again sony loves it's moneyhats so what do I know

I mean, it's kind of illogical. Why would Sony 'moneyhat' this game to keep it off Switch but allow it to remain on Xbox and especially PC/Steam where JRPGs tend to sell really well.

This. When you consider the other games Atlus released on Switch. One or two games from them skipping it isn't the end of the world.

Right? It's an initially confusing decision but they clearly have their reasons. Not the end of the world, though I understand the disappointment. I'm just glad we're getting a Soul Hackers 2, and that it looks as good as it does.
 
I beat SMTV, and got most of the way through P5 vanilla. SMTV runs pretty poorly, and the weakest platform P5 appeared on is the base PS4, which is more powerful than the switch

like I said before, I would prefer to play this on the switch, but the extra work required to port current gen games over to the switch can be a deal breaker
...the weakest platform P5 appeared on was the PS3 and, even if we ignore that, P5 isn't exactly an impressive game by any means. It looks great but that's more to do with the presentation and art style than anything else

Which I could understand if we're talking about your big western AAA game, not a niche JRPG that sells best on handhelds and PS consoles
 
I don't think anyone here is in a position to say what should or shouldn't have been an issue in the development of this game. We don't know enough. Either way, that they had trouble getting it to run on Switch is more believable than the idea that Atlus has a grudge against Nintendo. The same Nintendo who has received far more exclusive games out of Atlus over the past decade than any other platform holder.

The idea that they somehow favour PlayStation, which is once again bubbling up out of this announcement, seems to come solely from the fact that they won't port Persona games to Nintendo consoles. As if Etrian Odyssey, most SMT spin-offs and mainline numbered SMT games haven't been locked to Nintendo platforms for years now. They clearly have major success and a dedicated audience on Nintendo platforms. They're not going to ignore that audience unless they have business contracts or legitimate technical reasons for doing so.
Considering the games currently running on Switch, no I don’t think it is more believable that they couldn’t get this to run on Switch. And, we have seen games with “legitimate technical reasons” being ported to Switch anyway so that just leaves either then being weird or contracts. I rather just think it is Atlus being weird like always with these things.
 
I don't think anyone here is in a position to say what should or shouldn't have been an issue in the development of this game. We don't know enough. Either way, that they had trouble getting it to run on Switch is more believable than the idea that Atlus has a grudge against Nintendo. The same Nintendo who has received far more exclusive games out of Atlus over the past decade than any other platform holder.

The idea that they somehow favour PlayStation, which is once again bubbling up out of this announcement, seems to come solely from the fact that they won't port Persona games to Nintendo consoles. As if Etrian Odyssey, most SMT spin-offs and mainline numbered SMT games haven't been locked to Nintendo platforms for years now. They clearly have major success and a dedicated audience on Nintendo platforms. They're not going to ignore that audience unless they have business contracts or legitimate technical reasons for doing so.
I hear you but your point about EO and SMT spin off would be stronger if it had any bearing on their current Switch strategy. This is supposed to be a SMT spin off, and the previous game was a 3DS release. So clearly things have changed.
 
Considering the games currently running on Switch, no I don’t think it is more believable that they couldn’t get this to run on Switch. And, we have seen games with “legitimate technical reasons” being ported to Switch anyway so that just leaves either then being weird or contracts. I rather just think it is Atlus being weird like always with these things.
Regardless, people here need to stop thinking a game skipping the Switch means it somehow has troubles with third party support. It doesn't. By that logic, Xbox should have terrible third party support considering plenty of Japanese game still skip it despite Microsoft's efforts.
 
Considering the games currently running on Switch, no I don’t think it is more believable that they couldn’t get this to run on Switch. And, we have seen games with “legitimate technical reasons” being ported to Switch anyway so that just leaves either then being weird or contracts. I rather just think it is Atlus being weird like always with these things.
Yep in the the camp of it's Atlus being Atlus
 
Could just simply be they didn't have the resources to dedicate to a Switch version mid development. We were going through a pandemic after all, and it's not like the Switch doesn't get late ports all the time. Could be that it's being held for stronger hardware, or a Nintendo specific show to announce. The answers to these things are usually pretty mundane.

Ultimately there are multiple platforms to buy this on. It's unfortunate if your a Switch only gamer, but it's normal to miss out on stuff if you are.
 
I hear you but your point about EO and SMT spin off would be stronger if it had any bearing on their current Switch strategy. This is supposed to be a SMT spin off, and the previous game was a 3DS release. So clearly things have changed.

What has changed? I don't understand. The Switch got a SMT III Port, SMTV and Persona 5 Strikers just last year, day and date with other platforms. P4 Arena is coming to the system at the same time as the PlayStation version as well. Are we going to just ignore all of that because of Soul Hackers 2 and late ports of Catherine/13 Sentinels?

I'd argue that the only people who have any real ground to stand on when it comes to complaining about inconsistent or poor support from Atlus are Xbox players.
 
I kind of feel bad for people hyped or interested about this game in this community. All discussion will be about (at least for a while) is how there's no Switch version.

I'll probably mostly talk about it on other sites if it ends up that way. I do find discussions like that kind of frustratingly circular and pointless since it's not like Atlus will hear anyone, and I find circlejerking about how more nice it is to play games on Switch than other platforms sort of lame (especially since post-pandemic I haven't really been forced into situations where I have to use portable mode much so I can't really personally relate). But also, I get the impulse for people who are actually Switch-only owners, it sucks to not be able to play the game you want to play, especially one it looks like the Switch could run.
 
Yeah I'm sad it's not on the switch too and would rather play it there, but I will just go with the Steam version. The discision around it is very annoying.
 
...the weakest platform P5 appeared on was the PS3 and, even if we ignore that, P5 isn't exactly an impressive game by any means. It looks great but that's more to do with the presentation and art style than anything else

Which I could understand if we're talking about your big western AAA game, not a niche JRPG that sells best on handhelds and PS consoles
yup, I totally forgot that p5 came to ps3. not totally sure what we’re arguing about here, though; I too would prefer this game on the switch, and don’t think it’s an impossibility, but it would definitely take extra work on Atlus’ part. the talk about it being DOA because they skipped the Switch seems hyperbolic
 
I'm having conflicting feelings on this announcement:

1) It's definitely not what i had imagined. I thought with the Soul Hackers 2 name, it was going to be a direct sequel to Soul Hackers, showing some respect or consistency with the original game. Instead this is nothing like it, and the only thing in common is the GUMP (but then why not call it Devil Summoner 3? 🤔)

2) The style has changed so much. It looks good but dare i say, less unique? other than the bright neon yellow it looks like a mix of Caligula Effect 2 and AI The Somnium Files but more cell shaded. I definitely prefer the look of the 3DS remake.

3) The choice of platforms is very confusing: okay the attempt to aim for a global audience, but losing out the Switch version is very silly when like half of the audience in this genre is there and the other half on Playstation. I don't complain cause i can still play it on PC, as long as it meets the requirements.

I'm definitely curious to see more, but also a little less excited than yesterday.
 
Could just simply be they didn't have the resources to dedicate to a Switch version mid development. We were going through a pandemic after all, and it's not like the Switch doesn't get late ports all the time. Could be that it's being held for stronger hardware, or a Nintendo specific show to announce. The answers to these things are usually pretty mundane.

Ultimately there are multiple platforms to buy this on. It's unfortunate if your a Switch only gamer, but it's normal to miss out on stuff if you are.

It's just so infuriating that publishers keep doing this. You never see the PlayStation version held back for a late port from major publishers, if that versions not ready, either the entire thing gets delayed, or they dedicate extra resources from somewhere to correct it.

It's just absurd that the switch doesn't get exactly the same treatment.
 
This. When you consider the other games Atlus released on Switch. One or two games from them skipping it isn't the end of the world.
Most of those other games are late ports and remasters, the only new games were P5 Strikers and SMT V. Capcom released a ton of games on Switch, but their Switch support was still pretty damn weak before 2021 because almost all of those games were late ports and remasters. The same is currently true for Atlus, but arguably worse because their output is much lower than Capcom's.

Regardless, people here need to stop thinking a game skipping the Switch means it somehow has troubles with third party support. It doesn't. By that logic, Xbox should have terrible third party support considering plenty of Japanese game still skip it despite Microsoft's efforts.
If Microsoft's efforts were resulting in JRPGs selling closer to what they do on other platforms, then you would have a point with constantly comparing this scenario to Xbox. Third-party support being a lot better on Switch than past Nintendo consoles doesn't mean the platform has no issues with getting third-party games.

What has changed? I don't understand. The Switch got a SMT III Port, SMTV and Persona 5 Strikers just last year, day and date with other platforms. P4 Arena is coming to the system at the same time as the PlayStation version as well. Are we going to just ignore all of that because of Soul Hackers 2 and late ports of Catherine/13 Sentinels?

I'd argue that the only people who have any real ground to stand on when it comes to complaining about inconsistent or poor support from Atlus are Xbox players.
See my comments about Capcom and Xbox further up in this post. Atlus barely puts out new games in the hd era, so the Switch missing a game (especially a new SMT which Nintendo platforms historically get) is a bigger deal than the 3DS missing a game or two.

Xbox, while it carved out a niche for certain Japanese games during the 360 generation, has historically been a weak platform for Japanese games. It sucks for Xbox players who like Japanese games that the platform misses out on a lot of them, but that's because Microsoft has failed to build an audience for those games on their platform. Meanwhile, SMT V sold 800k units on Switch within two months of release and the latest SMT spinoff is skipping the platform.
 
It's just so infuriating that publishers keep doing this. You never see the PlayStation version held back for a late port from major publishers, if that versions not ready, either the entire thing gets delayed, or they dedicate extra resources from somewhere to correct it.

It's just absurd that the switch doesn't get exactly the same treatment.

SMT5 could very well be in the exact same situation actually; comes to Switch first, maybe will get a PS4/PC port later some day.

We've also seem similar situations with Octopath Traveler and Bravely Default 2, with a late PC port coming for both, and an Xbox port for Octopath. Maybe some day they'll get a PlayStation version too.
 
0
everyone gets it from atlus. p4g not being on PS4, p4 fighting game being on Xbox 360 but not on modern Xbox consoles and now this. can't say they don't dish out dog brain decisions unequally
 
It's just so infuriating that publishers keep doing this. You never see the PlayStation version held back for a late port from major publishers, if that versions not ready, either the entire thing gets delayed, or they dedicate extra resources from somewhere to correct it.

It's just absurd that the switch doesn't get exactly the same treatment.
I mean technically speaking you see that a lot, albeit with things that seem obviously paid for some level of exclusivity. Like the Team Asano games, or both MH Switch games. But the keyword is obviously. Maybe the Octopath team would be weirdly pro-Switch no-Playstation even if Nintendo weren't in their pocket (unlikely, but still).
 
everyone gets it from atlus. p4g not being on PS4, p4 fighting game being on Xbox 360 but not on modern Xbox consoles and now this. can't say they don't dish out dog brain decisions unequally
This is what i mean by Atlus being Atlus their decisions for the most part make no sense.
 
Last edited:
Much of the frustration also lies in regards to thinking of the future. When the Switch 2 or whatever they call it, eventually comes out, many of us are concerned that it will be the same nonsense regarding Atlus and not having Switch in mind unless it is a late port or remaster.

And truthfully, by the end of 2017. the writing was on the wall on how the Switch was going to do in the market, especially in Japan. Even companies that took until 2020 to be like "Oh shit, we miscalculated" got a major eye roll from me. You should have realized this in 2018.
 
Probably worth mentioning that at it's current date the game is sandwiched between two Switch exclusive RPGs, Live A Live and Xenoblade 3. That may also explain why a Switch version isn't releasing at that same time.
 
I mean technically speaking you see that a lot, albeit with things that seem obviously paid for some level of exclusivity. Like the Team Asano games, or both MH Switch games. But the keyword is obviously. Maybe the Octopath team would be weirdly pro-Switch no-Playstation even if Nintendo weren't in their pocket (unlikely, but still).

I get why paid exclusives happen like you said (though I'd argue octopath is a bad example as an obvious FF1-6 modernisation where the primary audience is Nintendo anyway), but this is a sequel to a game that was literally only released outside of Japan on Nintendo hardware. Atlus gonna atlus.
 
Most of those other games are late ports and remasters, the only new games were P5 Strikers and SMT V. Capcom released a ton of games on Switch, but their Switch support was still pretty damn weak before 2021 because almost all of those games were late ports and remasters. The same is currently true for Atlus, but arguably worse because their output is much lower than Capcom's.
You also have to consider that Atlus has changed a lot since the Sega buyout. Their output is like this on ALL platforms, not just Switch.

If Microsoft's efforts were resulting in JRPGs selling closer to what they do on other platforms, then you would have a point with constantly comparing this scenario to Xbox. Third-party support being a lot better on Switch than past Nintendo consoles doesn't mean the platform has no issues with getting third-party games.
Any issues the Switch has with getting games are far less significant than some of Nintendo's past consoles. Sure, it misses so e of the bigger AAAs and has a few confusing exclusions. But that's nothing compared to the days where Nintendo missed out on pretty much everything.
 
Probably worth mentioning that at it's current date the game is sandwiched between two Switch exclusive RPGs, Live A Live and Xenoblade 3. That may also explain why a Switch version isn't releasing at that same time.
I don't believe they actually made this decision based on two announcements made on a Nintendo Direct less than two weeks ago.
 
I'm operating under the assumption that Nintendo's partners are aware of their release schedule long before we are.
Even if they for some reason gave an estimate to sega/atlus of xenoblade 3, there's literally no way they did so for live a live, a game they're publishing in the west for square. They'd get in to a whole mess of legal trouble sharing information like that if they ever got caught.
 
0
You also have to consider that Atlus has changed a lot since the Sega buyout. Their output is like this on ALL platforms, not just Switch.


Any issues the Switch has with getting games are far less significant than some of Nintendo's past consoles. Sure, it misses so e of the bigger AAAs and has a few confusing exclusions. But that's nothing compared to the days where Nintendo missed out on pretty much everything.
So I counted 5 original (non remaster/enhanced versions) HD games from Atlus since the Switch released going by wikipedia, with Soul Hackers 2 now being the 6th. Only two of those have made it to Nintendo platforms despite having just as much of an audience for Atlus games as PS. PS4 will have seen 5 of these games. My point about their current output is that the Switch missing a game now is a bigger deal than when the 3DS missed some games, and a lot of their games are still either missing Switch at launch or outright skipping the platform.

Like I said, better support than in the past doesn't suddenly mean the platform has no issues with third-party support. This game is coming out in 2022. Atlus very well could have made this game with the Switch in mind (like a lot of smaller Japanese studios do) while still releasing it on every other platform it's currently coming to, but the fact of the matter is they didn't. I made the point because your post sounded dismissive of the idea that Switch doesn't still miss games it probably should get because the situation is currently better than it was in the past. I don't think out thoughts on this point are that different because you agreed there are still some games that confusingly skip Switch. However, just because the Switch is in a pretty good place for third-party support doesn't make it unreasonable to think it should be better.

Anyway, that's about as much as I'll say. Not interested in continuing the platform discussion because it usually ends up reading like console warring/port-begging, but just wanted to clarify because I don't think some of the comparisons being made in this thread really apply to this scenario.
 
1) It's definitely not what i had imagined. I thought with the Soul Hackers 2 name, it was going to be a direct sequel to Soul Hackers, showing some respect or consistency with the original game. Instead this is nothing like it, and the only thing in common is the GUMP (but then why not call it Devil Summoner 3? 🤔)
It has a hacking and cyberpunk theme just like Soul Hackers, it also features the Phantom Society which was very prominent in Soul Hackers. Thematically it's pretty much a sequel to Soul Hackers.
Also the Devil Summoner name is already occupied by Raidou now. It would not be Devil Summoner 3.
 


Back
Top Bottom