3 Street Fighters as well really (II, IV, V). SF6 will get there too probably.Resident Evil has six titles and soon seven with RE4R, which sold more than KH3. Even DMC 5 sold more than KH3.
Q&A is now over. Check out a legendary 5-hour answering marathon here!
3 Street Fighters as well really (II, IV, V). SF6 will get there too probably.Resident Evil has six titles and soon seven with RE4R, which sold more than KH3. Even DMC 5 sold more than KH3.
No Steam version for KH3 and the last update said that it sold 6.7M by September 2021, so you dont know.Resident Evil has six titles and soon seven with RE4R, which sold more than KH3. Even DMC 5 sold more than KH3.
considering they had to make a 3DS version of 11 to keep the IP from collapsing, I'm fairly certain the DQ team has enough intelligence to not make that moveThe funny thing is that i can see Dragon Quest 12 coming to PS5 only as well. After all Visions of Mana will skip Nintendo so might as well make Dragon Quest 12 skip Nintendo as well. At least Switch 2 will have the new Bravely Default game that Team Asano teased recently.
After all Square Enix always seems to think they will be bailed out of their Japanese sales collapse by increasing sales WW, so they could think that Dragon Quest will become super popular in the west thus only needing PS5, that seems to be their mentality with every other title so could be the same with Dragon Quest.
No Steam version for KH3 and the last update said that it sold 6.7M by September 2021, so you dont know.
You can find RE games much cheaper on Steam and PS Store, while Square its not a fan of putting KH3 for 5-10U$
DQ12 has the potential to be the best-selling DQ game with NSW/PS4/PS5/XSX/PC or the worst-selling DQ game with the PS5 exclusive deal with Sony PlayStation.
The reason why i see DQ12 being worth it for Sony is because they are desperate to take market share from Nintendo in Japan and removing DQ from Nintendo and only having it on Playstation is the only major card they can pull off in that direction. That could force some Japanese DQ diehards into getting a PS5 and get them into PS ecosystem and to remove one of the most popular third party games in Japan from their Nintendo rivals.I spent more on Rebirth than I have on the last 16 Resident Evil games I purchased combined, thanks to bundles. If Square Enix cares about raw sales numbers they should sell 10 FF Steam keys in a bundle for $25, but they care about revenue and they think they earn more over the long run with less aggressive sales and bundles.
7 Remake is like the one exception, hence why the raw sales total for the game is going to be higher than most other FFs over the long run.
Has Sony ever paid for a DQ exclusivity? Would they do it for a a JP focused franchise? Is there any indication that SE thinks Sony should be their focus here? Do you think that the creators are going to reverse course from their previous statements? Do you think a DQ game is suddenly going to be a graphical showcase?
I think you're just making up scenarios to worry about, and even if it is some type of staggered release, it could end up selling extremely well like DQ11 did over time.
Also, bold that you slipped in XSX into your list. Did DQ11 even sell 100k on Xbox? Xbox seems almost totally inconsequential to the turn-based JRPGs for both regional differences and skews, as well as just the style itself.
I really want to see specific XBox numbers for JRPGs. Lots of online discourse is "it did well on Game Pass", which is vague and mostly meaningless. My guess is that SE has multiple lower budget games that didn't even hit 10k on the platform.
The reason why i see DQ12 being worth it for Sony is because they are desperate to take market share from Nintendo in Japan and removing DQ from Nintendo and only having it on Playstation is the only major card they can pull off in that direction. That could force some Japanese DQ diehards into getting a PS5 and get them into PS ecosystem and to remove one of the most popular third party games in Japan from their Nintendo rivals.
Nintendo should of course not allow that to happen if Sony tries to make it happen, but Nintendo seems totally unwilling to make such deals with third party developers and never enters into any exclusivity bidding wars with competitors.
Should Square Enix take such a deal from Sony? No, but their management with all their actions has proven that they are totally happy to sign exclusivity deals with Sony every game they make, if Sony offers them what they want.
An exclusive mainline DQ wont take any significant marketshare away from Nintendo though.The reason why i see DQ12 being worth it for Sony is because they are desperate to take market share from Nintendo in Japan
MH is another one. At this point though these games release so few and far in-between that never appearing on Nintendo consoles would have no significant impact on the market as whole.and removing DQ from Nintendo and only having it on Playstation is the only major card they can pull off in that direction.
That's essentially what SE and Sony has done with FF, how's that working out for them?That could force some Japanese DQ diehards into getting a PS5 and get them into PS ecosystem and to remove one of the most popular third party games in Japan from their Nintendo rivals.
Why should they? They totally control the market at this point, if SE wants to make DQ into the next FF domestically that's their perogative.Nintendo should of course not allow that to happen if Sony tries to make it happen, but Nintendo seems totally unwilling to make such deals with third party developers and never enters into any exclusivity bidding wars with competitors.
The health of DQ is SE's responsibility not Nintendo's. They get plenty of support from publisher's not AAA offerings, fighting for Japanese AAA scraps is irrelevant, they're so few in number at this point so as to be irrelevant.Should Square Enix take such a deal from Sony? No, but their management with all their actions has proven that they are totally happy to sign exclusivity deals with Sony every game they make, if Sony offers them what they want.
All this does is kill Dragon Quest in Japan. DQ is huge in Japan but Nintendo still has the bigger franchises, a single game doesn't make or break anything. It's the culmination of everything and SE knows this and everything they've done the past few years to course correct shows this.The reason why i see DQ12 being worth it for Sony is because they are desperate to take market share from Nintendo in Japan and removing DQ from Nintendo and only having it on Playstation is the only major card they can pull off in that direction. That could force some Japanese DQ diehards into getting a PS5 and get them into PS ecosystem and to remove one of the most popular third party games in Japan from their Nintendo rivals.
Nintendo should of course not allow that to happen if Sony tries to make it happen, but Nintendo seems totally unwilling to make such deals with third party developers and never enters into any exclusivity bidding wars with competitors.
Should Square Enix take such a deal from Sony? No, but their management with all their actions has proven that they are totally happy to sign exclusivity deals with Sony every game they make, if Sony offers them what they want.
I’m gonna be real Nintendo doenst need dq and dq isn’t saving Sony.The reason why i see DQ12 being worth it for Sony is because they are desperate to take market share from Nintendo in Japan and removing DQ from Nintendo and only having it on Playstation is the only major card they can pull off in that direction. That could force some Japanese DQ diehards into getting a PS5 and get them into PS ecosystem and to remove one of the most popular third party games in Japan from their Nintendo rivals.
Nintendo should of course not allow that to happen if Sony tries to make it happen, but Nintendo seems totally unwilling to make such deals with third party developers and never enters into any exclusivity bidding wars with competitors.
Should Square Enix take such a deal from Sony? No, but their management with all their actions has proven that they are totally happy to sign exclusivity deals with Sony every game they make, if Sony offers them what they want.
Is really in Europe?All this does is kill Dragon Quest in Japan. DQ is huge in Japan but Nintendo still has the bigger franchises, a single game doesn't make or break anything. It's the culmination of everything and SE knows this and everything they've done the past few years to course correct shows this.
Also, in the West, Dragon Quest is associated to Nintendo almost completely for fwiw and especially in Europe. A PS5 exclusive DQ12 would utterly bomb in Europe but we shouldn't worry as this isn't going to happen.
Where Dragon Quest releases isn't decided by those Square Enix executives. It is decided by Horii. Mana doesn't have any kind of connection to Dragon Quest. Completely different developer and producer.The funny thing is that i can see Dragon Quest 12 coming to PS5 only as well. After all Visions of Mana will skip Nintendo so might as well make Dragon Quest 12 skip Nintendo as well. At least Switch 2 will have the new Bravely Default game that Team Asano teased recently.
After all Square Enix always seems to think they will be bailed out of their Japanese sales collapse by increasing sales WW, so they could think that Dragon Quest will become super popular in the west thus only needing PS5, that seems to be their mentality with every other title so could be the same with Dragon Quest.
Like A Dragon: Infinite Wealth opened at number #10 on PS in the US, and #8 on Xbox.Also, bold that you slipped in XSX into your list. Did DQ11 even sell 100k on Xbox? Xbox seems almost totally inconsequential to the turn-based JRPGs for both regional differences and skews, as well as just the style itself.
I really want to see specific XBox numbers for JRPGs. Lots of online discourse is "it did well on Game Pass", which is vague and mostly meaningless. My guess is that SE has multiple lower budget games that didn't even hit 10k on the platform.
So you think something has changed on the Xbox ecosystem since back when Final Fantasy did these kind of numbers on Xbox?Like A Dragon: Infinite Wealth opened at number #10 on PS in the US, and #8 on Xbox.
PS5 is the bigger platform so it’s more valuable to chart on it than on Xbox. But relative to other games on Xbox there is nothing to suggest that a AAA game like Dragon Quest would find no audience just because it’s turn based. You’re confusing audience size being small for audience preferences being extremely dissimilar. For third-party multi-platform games Xbox is not competing against other platforms, it’s competing against the 0 units you get instead of being on Xbox.
This is not a sexy argument, but most rational businesses don’t give up 10-20 percent of revenue for no reason.
There are good reasons for not being on Xbox: development bandwidth, long term support cost, etc, depending on developer size. But the idea of a AAA game like DQXII being on Xbox if it’s multi-platform isn’t really that ridiculous. It’s what you’d expect from most competent publishers.
Is Dragon Quest even related to a certain system outside Japan? Last i remember DQ 11 sold like 6.5m with Japan alone selling around 3.5-4m physical add a bit of 20-25% digital and we could be looking at around 4.5-5mYeah, I don’t live in Europe, but I’m not sure that’s quite accurate here in North America, either. At least, anecdotally, I’ve not known Dragon Quest XI to have done better enough on Switch to establish a serious identity element.
Mind you, I don’t know the numbers. It’s not a sentiment I recall, is all. If anything, Dragon Quest might still click in people’s heads as a PlayStation thing. Before XI, it was only VIII that did notably decently here.
Yes, something changed. Xbox didn’t change, although it desperately tried to break into the Japanese market during the 360 days. PS changed by losing relevance in Japan, which was always the actual differentiator between the two consoles. For as much as both camps would hate to hear this, there is essentially no difference between Xbox and PS audiences in the west than size.So you think something has changed on the Xbox ecosystem since back when Final Fantasy did these kind of numbers on Xbox?
Final Fantasy XIII [PS3] - 1.516.532 / 1.905.979
Final Fantasy XIII-2 [PS3] - 605.660 / 917.412
Final Fantasy XIII-2 [360] - 8.766 / 26.705
Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII [PS3] - 301.181 / 427.498
Lightning Returns: Final Fantasy XIII [360] - 4.180 / 6.765
If that is the kind of ballpark figures for JRPGs on Xbox, no wonder most don't bother to put their games on Xbox at all. And that was before gamepass even existed.
What is killing Final Fantasy is not a lack of Xbox ports evidently, more a lack of Nintendo/PC ports.
Is Dragon Quest even related to a certain system outside Japan? Last i remember DQ 11 sold like 6.5m with Japan alone selling around 3.5-4m physical add a bit of 20-25% digital and we could be looking at around 4.5-5m
If anything, considering how apathetic the west is regarding DQ... i'd say that, if they really care about the IP, they will NOT do a PS5 excluisive. Don't get me wrong, DQ 11 was a big step in the right direction regarding west sales, but around 70% of the sales still come from Japan alone.
Like A Dragon: Infinite Wealth opened at number #10 on PS in the US, and #8 on Xbox.
PS5 is the bigger platform so it’s more valuable to chart on it than on Xbox. But relative to other games on Xbox there is nothing to suggest that a AAA game like Dragon Quest would find no audience just because it’s turn based. You’re confusing audience size being small for audience preferences being extremely dissimilar. For third-party multi-platform games Xbox is not competing against other platforms, it’s competing against the 0 units you get instead of being on Xbox.
This is not a sexy argument, but most rational businesses don’t give up 10-20 percent of revenue for no reason.
There are good reasons for not being on Xbox: development bandwidth, long term support cost, etc, depending on developer size. But the idea of a AAA game like DQXII being on Xbox if it’s multi-platform isn’t really that ridiculous. It’s what you’d expect from most competent publishers.
It’s just a rough percentage. Go ahead and delete that whole paragraph and respond the rest of what I posted if you feel like it, it’s still pretty coherent without that point.The idea that 20% of revenue for Dragon Quest would come from Xbox is just totally unfounded. What is your estimate for Switch, PS, PC, and Xbox? For DQ11 it was probably something 1 or 2 percent coming from Xbox sales, and is mostly reliant on Game Pass.
It’s just a rough percentage. Go ahead and delete that whole paragraph and respond the rest of what I posted if you feel like it, it’s still pretty coherent without that point.
considering smash was the first big moment for dragon quest in the west and considering the DQXI marketing its definitely Nintendo.Nah, I agree that at least in my experience here in the US, there’s no brand x console identity for Dragon Quest! I just meant that if there is even a trace of that, I might sooner be inclined to think it’s PlayStation.
Either way, if you want those games to succeed in the West, you certainly don’t do what Square has been killing FF’s native sales through (a PS5-exclusive approach). That would be so wild!
considering smash was the first big moment for dragon quest in the west and considering the DQXI marketing its definitely Nintendo.
DqXI on PlayStation 4 did well enough I guess.
but i'd sooner believe in Nintendo being the prefered platform for it considering overall the switch is the jrpg platform.
its pretty much just FF clinging to playstation now.
the last major DQ moment on playstation was really 22 years ago, someone can go from birth to college in that time.
Why when Nintendo don’t need them? This is not the Square of 1996; it would be pointless for Nintendo who can make it themselves and for SE they are basically being hired by a publisher for a game…they don’t get to publish.One thing Nintendo should do is enlist Square Enix to make an exclusive Mario RPG sequel for the Switch 2, with how well Mario RPG remake did it seems logical for both parties. The sequel could be more ambitious and a longer game than the original as well.
Just go straight to ArtePiazza. Unless Nintendo specifically wants SE staff, there's nothing SE offers that Nintendo couldn't get elsewhereOne thing Nintendo should do is enlist Square Enix to make an exclusive Mario RPG sequel for the Switch 2, with how well Mario RPG remake did it seems logical for both parties. The sequel could be more ambitious and a longer game than the original as well.
Given that Nintendo may miss out on some Square Enix RPGs even on the Switch 2 i think its a pretty good idea to try to get them to make a pretty ambitious Mario RPG for the Switch 2, in general i think getting the big Japanese studios to make some exclusive Switch 2 games is a pretty good way to have those studios support the Switch 2 even if they don't release all their games on the Switch 2, like when Capcom made Monster hunter for the Switch.Just go straight to ArtePiazza. Unless Nintendo specifically wants SE staff, there's nothing SE offers that Nintendo couldn't get elsewhere
Nintendo has been capable of making an ambitious mario rpg for decades now. What does SE give them?Given that Nintendo may miss out on some Square Enix RPGs even on the Switch 2 i think its a pretty good idea to try to get them to make a pretty ambitious Mario RPG for the Switch 2, in general i think getting the big Japanese studios to make some exclusive Switch 2 games is a pretty good way to have those studios support the Switch 2 even if they don't release all their games on the Switch 2, like when Capcom made Monster hunter wilds for the Switch.
Exactly! Reminds me of certain people years ago saying Nintendo should bring in Level 5 to "help" with Pokemon. Nintendo is a for profit corporation not a charity. What does SE bring to the table that Nintendo can't do themselves?Nintendo has been capable of making an ambitious mario rpg for decades now. What does SE give them?
My idea is better to enlist these studios to do something for the Switch 2 if they don't want to port over their AAA games to Switch 2. And enlisting Bandai and Square is not that different from enlisting the likes of Grezzo only difference is the bigger studios can be enlisted to make more ambitious and bigger games for the Switch 2 and thus free up Nintendo resources to focus on their prioritities while still getting these third party exclusives at the same time.Nintendo has been capable of making an ambitious mario rpg for decades now. What does SE give them?
This sounds like a similar deal with Bandai Namco, but I don't think anyone would call their work "support". It definitely doesn't replace their big games that skip Nintendo
Smash is an absolutely massive game and ip though. Bandai brings something to the table, manpower. What does SE bring that Nintendo can't get elsewhere? Like from the devs who actually made the remake?My idea is better to enlist these studios to do something for the Switch 2 if they don't want to port over their AAA games to Switch 2. And enlisting Bandai and Square is not that different from enlisting the likes of Grezzo only difference is the bigger studios can be enlisted to make more ambitious and bigger games for the Switch 2 and thus free up Nintendo resources to focus on their prioritities while still getting these third party exclusives at the same time.
Nintendo pipeline wouldn't function if Nintendo had to make Smash themselves without Bandai, and a Mario RPG is not a Nintendo priority so perfect to get the biggest JRPG developer to make that game instead.
SE would only really make sense if they wanted to make some gigantic Final Fantasy-scale Mario JRPG... for... some reason. Otherwise with the scope that Mario RPGs go for there's no reason to outsource to SE when they can just give the task to either internal developers or smaller studios that are both cheaper and can be overseen more easily.Smash is an absolutely massive game and ip though. Bandai brings something to the table, manpower. What does SE bring that Nintendo can't get elsewhere? Like from the devs who actually made the remake?
Its different remaking an old game like ArtePiazza did and to make a new game from the ground up. I personally think its more likely that Square Enix would make a good, new Mario RPG from scratch then a studio that mostly make remakes.Smash is an absolutely massive game and ip though. Bandai brings something to the table, manpower. What does SE bring that Nintendo can't get elsewhere? Like from the devs who actually made the remake?
Right. I can't see why Nintendo or SE would think such a project would be a good idea though.SE would only really make sense if they wanted to make some gigantic Final Fantasy-scale Mario JRPG... for... some reason.
Agreed.Otherwise with the scope that Mario RPGs go for there's no reason to outsource to SE when they can just give the task to either internal developers or smaller studios that are both cheaper and can be overseen more easily.
You might be right but I don't really agree, with Nintendo's oversight I think any number of studios can do a good job. As Kirby64 and you previously said a big ambitious game would make sense to partner with SE, not sure that would make financial sense though.I personally think its more likely that Square Enix would make a good, new Mario RPG from scratch then a studio that mostly make remakes.
If they want a large-scale Mario RPG, Monolith Soft is right there.SE would only really make sense if they wanted to make some gigantic Final Fantasy-scale Mario JRPG... for... some reason. Otherwise with the scope that Mario RPGs go for there's no reason to outsource to SE when they can just give the task to either internal developers or smaller studios that are both cheaper and can be overseen more easily.
I never knew I wanted something like this. Imagine a story lite entry with huge focus on exploration like Xenoblade X......If they want a large-scale Mario RPG, Monolith Soft is right there.
Why, they have monolith, hell they could just do it in house.Given that Nintendo may miss out on some Square Enix RPGs even on the Switch 2 i think its a pretty good idea to try to get them to make a pretty ambitious Mario RPG for the Switch 2, in general i think getting the big Japanese studios to make some exclusive Switch 2 games is a pretty good way to have those studios support the Switch 2 even if they don't release all their games on the Switch 2, like when Capcom made Monster hunter for the Switch.
to be honest i think nintendo might just buy geno and mallow from all the owners worldwide so they dont have to deal with the licensing from them, the other characters arent important enough to bring back.The only reason I think Square would be brought in is if they are making a direct sequel to SMRPG and need to license those characters again.
However, I think perhaps the more likely option is they look ta the success of the remake and do a new game in its style but separate from Square.
Well, a lot of those characters exist because the Mario universe was not as fleshed out with established characters and settings as it is now. I’m sure people will miss Geno and Mallow, but it‘s fine that their stories were self-contained in that game and Nintendo can use the opportunity to expand an existing character or create another.The only reason I think Square would be brought in is if they are making a direct sequel to SMRPG and need to license those characters again.
However, I think perhaps the more likely option is they look ta the success of the remake and do a new game in its style but separate from Square.
You know that Bandai's Tekken Team was mostly involved with 'balancing' and debugging work? Right?Nintendo pipeline wouldn't function if Nintendo had to make Smash themselves without Bandai,
I will be honest, I don't think that is the case.... It would mean that Nintendo would not have any control over the IP at all and that goes against the nature of the company.a Mario RPG is not a Nintendo priority so perfect to get the biggest JRPG developer to make that game instead.