Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Archived Threads 2001-2004' started by Akira Zimmerman, Aug 21, 2001.
Whoops. Said something I shouldn't have.
Nothing In Particular
[Edited last by BrianB on August 21, 2001 at 05:15 PM]
Tekken:Fighting games::Final Fantasy:RPGs
In other words, both series' are exclusives to Sony, unless they are special versions, such as the online FFXI or the GBA Tekken. I doubt that Namco would put Tekken on the X-Box, since it is developing the game on the Sony arcade hardware thingy (246 or something).
It could happen though.
They can port lots of things, but what would the point be in that if its fanbase probably already has PS2s? They have Tekken Tag Tournament, and some fans would buy PS2s for that, FFX, DMC, SH2, MGS2, and some other Japan only games. The only financial benefit for porting it to XB would be for America since a lot of Americans will probably buy XBs (at least more than Japanese). Porting also costs money, and they might not make back what they spent (which is why the DC version of Half-Life was cancelled at the last minute, literally--they have copies of it in its completed form, but they wouldn't have made enough money off of it to make a revenue, so they just put it down as a tax write-off).
Just goes to show how the games industry is changing, more and more companies are going multi-platform to maximise revenue and less games are platform exclusive. I see these games appearing across all 3 platforms with little difference between them.
The fourth game is Tekken 4, it has already been demoed at arcades in Japan.
They would probably make a profit by porting it to the XB, but it would just be wasted money since it will be easy to port it to the PS2 from the arcade hardware. Porting it from the arcade or PS2 to the XB would require more time and money.
One thing I don't get: why is it Soul Calibur 2 if Soul Calibur was a sequel? Shouldn't it be called something else? Or maybe they should call it Soul Blade 3.
How can you see games across 3 platforms with little difference? SSX Tricky looks better on GCN and XB than PS2 graphically, and PSO for GCN has more features than PSOv2 for DC. Also, we haven't really seen anything from the XB and GCN that is finished and running right in front of us (most of us haven't at least) so we can't compare the ports. Also, making one port better than another is not a good idea. Say that Dead or Alive 3 for XB is great, then they make a graphically inferior version with added characters and levels for the PS2. That would make the PS2 version more desirable because of the features, but the XB version would look better. Making it the exact same game would be a good idea because then they don't get harrassing e-mail.
More games are exclusive, and less series' are exclusives. The only exclusive series' left are First or Second party ones (Mario, Sonic, etc.). I think Final Fantasy is one of the last third party exclusives, but FFXI isn't exclusive, and FF1-3 have been remade for the WonderSwan Color.
[Edited last by Morgan Jolley on August 21, 2001 at 06:01 PM]
Hang on, you really should check what you type...
"They would probably make a profit by porting it to the XB, but it would just be wasted money"
Just how is making a profit wasted money? that makes no sense.
If a games graphics are slightly better on one machine than another or one has different features surely the heart of the game remains the same...hence little 'real' difference. Tekken4 on XB, PS2 or GC is still Tekken4.
Putting the game on several consoles wouldn't change the game other than how it looks and what extras it has, but it costs money to port it. If most of the people who buy Tekken also buy Final Fantasy, it would be a better idea to put the Tekken games on the PS2 since people will buy a Ps2 for Tekken and Final Fantasy. Its just business strategy. If they were able to port Tekken 4 to the XB and GCN easily and at little cost, then it would be a good business strategy, too. I personally think that it wouldn't be a good business strategy to port it since the fanbase for Tekken was established on the PlayStation as were many other fanbases that continue on the PS2.
In terms of development costs, a port is a substantially smaller cost to make than starting from scratch on a new game. That's why they are getting more popular with developers, its easy money. The problem with multiplatform games is that the weakest target hardware brings down the potential of the game for the strongest target hardware.
I have no trust in Namco to stay with a console when they left Dreamcast in the dust because Sony got mad at them
What I do is I say things based on the information given to me. I won't say "SSX Tricky is better on the GCN than teh XB because it plays better and looks better" but I will say that I heard that. I haven't compared ports of any games, but rather placed doubt on some of the exclusive titles in their gameplay and would make my own judgements based on what I read and see from the games. I said DoA3 looked great, but didn't have the same impact as Rogue Leader to me. I said it will probably play great, but its based on a series of games and offers only better graphics and added players/levels, nothing is new to the gameplay. Not once did I say it would be bad, but I gave reasons why it doesn't impress me. I also said that Rogue Leader has a new gameplay experience because it mixes elements from different games together to give a new gameplay experience (based around other ones, but its not the same as them, unlike in DoA3).