WCG: Capcom titles skipping Xbox because lack of support for MT Framework.

America`s Most Wanted

Member
Disciple
Hope it is worth it's own topic, if not, just close.



Xbox fought hard and finally won support from Square Enix and Atlus, but now it is losing support from Capcom, who has ditched Xbox for Marvel vs. Capcom and other titles.

OPINION: https://www.windowscentral.com/gami...-square-enix-steps-up-with-several-new-titles

From the article:

UPDATE (June 18, 2024): We saw a suggestion from Jawmuncher on Twitter (X) that Capcom's MT Framework engine is to blame for the recent spate of Xbox omissions. Our sources indicate that this is correct. Right now, Capcom has no pipeline for porting older MT Framework titles to Xbox's modern ERA system, which makes it more expensive to deliver the same titles than it would porting them to PlayStation 4, Switch, or PC. Perhaps Microsoft could step in to lend a hand here? We can only hope.




this is true. btw.

capcom has no pipeline for porting (older?) mt framework games to xbox rn, and to fix that would require more investment than it would be worth, at least in their estimation.

i would like to see xbox step in to help, if it was possible, to shoulder the cost.
 
very weird since MT Framework is supported on Xbox

guess they just never added the current SDK to MT Framework since their xbox versions sell like shit anyway
 
Seems to me like MS is no longer granting publishers the option to release on Xbox One, which is probably what is gumming up the works, because XBOne titles should be able to play via backwards compatibility on XBS (and technically qualify for one of those fancy cross-gen "Smart Delivery" releases).
This limitation is also why all those games in the tweet only got PS4 releases, not PS5 ones. Capcom wants MT Framework dead on consoles once the Switch is done and over with and this is a casualty of that choice.
So until they want to spend the money to bring these games forward to RE Engine, releases aren't happening, and they don't appear to be in a huge rush to do that.
 
Seems to me like MS is no longer granting publishers the option to release on Xbox One, which is probably what is gumming up the works, because XBOne titles should be able to play via backwards compatibility on XBS (and technically qualify for one of those fancy cross-gen "Smart Delivery" releases).
No, that's incorrect. Even Capcom themselves have announced games just for XB1/PS4 and left it up to BC for the newer systems, like the just-announced AAI Collection.
 
Of course its a scandal that Xbox with its massive 23 million user base misses out on some games. Imagine selling 150 million Switch units and still missing out on games it can run though.
 
No, that's incorrect. Even Capcom themselves have announced games just for XB1/PS4 and left it up to BC for the newer systems, like the just-announced AAI Collection.
The tweet I mentioned doesn’t list AAI Collection. And it’s likely because it had been built in RE Engine, just like the Apollo Justice Collection at the beginning of the year, and RE Engine games are not in question.
 
The tweet I mentioned doesn’t list AAI Collection. And it’s likely because it had been built in RE Engine, just like the Apollo Justice Collection at the beginning of the year, and RE Engine games are not in question.
You said:
Seems to me like MS is no longer granting publishers the option to release on Xbox One
Which is completely false, and AAI Collection is just one example of how it is false.
 
You said:

Which is completely false, and AAI Collection is just one example of how it is false.
Yeah plus like COD, NFL, etc are all on Xbox One. Lots of Xbox One releases, free money for Microsoft-- no way they are blocking release on it.

Seems like a straightforward "hey this old engine that we only use occasionally isn't worth reworking for this platform where we aren't seeing the return we would like". Frustrating for a few fans, ultimately likely not a big deal.
 
Could be reliable info
but I don't see such a huge potential damage to Xbos here - more modern games are coming, even on GamePass (like their new IP) and the major sellers like MH, RE or even DD are developed with the Xbox ecosystem in mind
 
Of course its a scandal that Xbox with its massive 23 million user base misses out on some games. Imagine selling 150 million Switch units and still missing out on games it can run though.

It's a Microsoft-centric site reporting on a Xbox issue. No need to make this a contest when there's an obvious reason the site is reporting on this.
 
You said:

Which is completely false, and AAI Collection is just one example of how it is false.
Sorry, I should have said “not release on Xbox One only, without an equivalent re-compiled XBS package”.
There is such a clear divide based on supported engines with these releases that the issue would have to be some kind of Microsoft mandate rather than some Capcom decision that has the impossibly-unlikely coincidence of aligning precisely with the use of MT Framework after the release of Xbox Series consoles.
 
Sorry, I should have said “not release on Xbox One only, without an equivalent re-compiled XBS package”.
There is such a clear divide based on supported engines with these releases that the issue would have to be some kind of Microsoft mandate rather than some Capcom decision that has the impossibly-unlikely coincidence of aligning precisely with the use of MT Framework after the release of Xbox Series consoles.
No. Lots of games release only on Xbox One still. Turnip Boy Robs a Bank, Stalker trilogy just to name a couple.

At most, your argument would be 'they can't release unless they can prove that it is backwards compatible on Xbox Series S and X' but that would be a very odd thing to put on the devs and force them to buy more devkits. Versus it being an automatic platform emulator (which all evidence points to)

And there's zero other evidence there's such a requirement.

Seems much more reasonable to just say "hey we stopped putting these games on xbox and now it would take work to rework one of our old pipelines so we wont."
 
The MT Framework theory seems plausible.

As far as games skipping Xbox, as someone whose primary platform is Xbox I feel that's something you should be used to it. Sometimes a game you're interested in won't be there, and you get it where you can. I guess platform anxiety is natural as the industry (and especially Microsoft) is undergoing massive changes, but I've learned to accept not getting some games a long time ago. 100% port rate of everything you're interested in was never a thing, and I find it hard to get worked up about.
 
This is why some Japanese developers need to take a step back and reevaluate their support for Xbox. Once you start porting even the niche titles to the platform (like Ace Attorney), the Xbox audience will feel entitled to every other game regardless of the costs involved. Their mindset will just be "if they can justify porting a game that sells less than 5k on our platform, then that means every port is justified!" This means no amount of argument about development pipeline or costs from the devs will ever work again. It becomes a sunk cost fallacy and devs will be forced to continuously port to Xbox without regards for costs or how bad it'll sell. Otherwise, they get backlash.

This is why the whole "multiplatform no matter what" strategy doesn't really work. You're supposed to choose your platforms based on costs and sales. If you do it based on short-term deals (Xbox deals) or ideological pushes, the consumers will get the wrong idea and start thinking costs don't matter - that their platform deserves unconditional support based on an ideological perspective.
 
This is why some Japanese developers need to take a step back and reevaluate their support for Xbox. Once you start porting even the niche titles to the platform (like Ace Attorney), the Xbox audience will feel entitled to every other game regardless of the costs involved. Their mindset will just be "if they can justify porting a game that sells less than 5k on our platform, then that means every port is justified!" This means no amount of argument about development pipeline or costs from the devs will ever work again. It becomes a sunk cost fallacy and devs will be forced to continuously port to Xbox without regards for costs or how bad it'll sell. Otherwise, they get backlash.

This is why the whole "multiplatform no matter what" strategy doesn't really work. You're supposed to choose your platforms based on costs and sales. If you do it based on short-term deals (Xbox deals) or ideological pushes, the consumers will get the wrong idea and start thinking costs don't matter - that their platform deserves unconditional support based on an ideological perspective.
This makes no sense whatsoever. Capcom is plainly not being forced to do anything, as can be plainly observed. Capcom should forgo revenue from Resident Evil, Monster Hunter, Dragon's Dogma because in the future people will... post on twitter asking for another game? Pure nonsense.
 
This makes no sense whatsoever. Capcom is plainly not being forced to do anything, as can be plainly observed. Capcom should forgo revenue from Resident Evil, Monster Hunter, Dragon's Dogma because in the future people will... post on twitter asking for another game? Pure nonsense.
Lol no. Don't get your knickers in a twist so easily and actually read the post. I said they should choose the platform based on costs and sales. If they're making money from RE, MH, and DD on Xbox, then why would they forgo that revenue? It's the games that don't sell on the platform that doesn't need to be ported. The platform doesn't deserve unconditional support - no platforms does. Because then all you're have is a bunch of people getting mad when a single game skips the platform.

Only nonsense is you not reading.
 
Lol no. Don't get your knickers in a twist so easily and actually read the post. I said they should choose the platform based on costs and sales. If they're making money from RE, MH, and DD on Xbox, then why would they forgo that revenue? It's the games that don't sell on the platform that doesn't need to be ported. The platform doesn't deserve unconditional support - no platforms does. Because then all you're have is a bunch of people getting mad when a single game skips the platform.

Only nonsense is you not reading.
No need for such an aggressive reply.
 
Lol no. Don't get your knickers in a twist so easily and actually read the post. I said they should choose the platform based on costs and sales. If they're making money from RE, MH, and DD on Xbox, then why would they forgo that revenue? It's the games that don't sell on the platform that doesn't need to be ported. The platform doesn't deserve unconditional support - no platforms does. Because then all you're have is a bunch of people getting mad when a single game skips the platform.

Only nonsense is you not reading.
Is anyone not choosing to put their games on Xbox based on costs and revenue? You need to reevaluate your Xbox support for sure if you're not doing this, but as far I can see this is the case, and there's such thing as a port everything no matter what strategy. What's there to reevaluate?
 
Is anyone not choosing to put their games on Xbox based on costs and revenue? You need to reevaluate your Xbox support for sure if you're not doing this, but as far I can see this is the case, and there's such thing as a port everything no matter what strategy. What's there to reevaluate?
Uh, yes? Ace Attorney Investigations Collection is the best example of that. We know what the AA games sold on Xbox and I've mentioned that in my previous post. Without a deal, there is zero justification for the port. Not every port makes sense, and that's precisely why it gives people the wrong idea. It's why the Xbox audience keeps comparing the AAI port to the lack of MvC port. Same goes for other Xbox releases like Ghosts and Goblins or Monster Hunter World's Japanese Xbox release.

Capcom does mostly follow a multiplatform strategy regardless of revenue for Xbox. It's just that this time (along some other releases mentioned in the opening post) involves MT Framework, an engine they wanted to drop on all platforms based on wider strategic planning.

Square Enix will also start having this problem soon enough with their smaller titles, though there wouldn't be much of them after the recent restructure anyway.
 
Uh, yes? Ace Attorney Investigations Collection is the best example of that. We know what the AA games sold on Xbox and I've mentioned that in my previous post. Without a deal, there is zero justification for the port. Not every port makes sense, and that's precisely why it gives people the wrong idea. It's why the Xbox audience keeps comparing the AAI port to the lack of MvC port. Same goes for other Xbox releases like Ghosts and Goblins or Monster Hunter World's Japanese Xbox release.

Capcom does mostly follow a multiplatform strategy regardless of revenue for Xbox. It's just that this time (along some other releases mentioned in the opening post) involves MT Framework, an engine they wanted to drop on all platforms based on wider strategic planning.

Square Enix will also start having this problem soon enough with their smaller titles, though there wouldn't be much of them after the recent restructure anyway.
Microsoft paid for Ace Attorney Investigations port.
(When a Japanese game have the windows logo on the trailer it's almost 100% sure Microsoft paid for it).

Microsoft don't whant Japanese games to skip Xbox because it's Bad PR for them.

The idea that "you should not buy an Xbox if you like japanese games" have negative impact on Xbox hardware sales.
 
The MT Framework theory seems plausible.

As far as games skipping Xbox, as someone whose primary platform is Xbox I feel that's something you should be used to it. Sometimes a game you're interested in won't be there, and you get it where you can. I guess platform anxiety is natural as the industry (and especially Microsoft) is undergoing massive changes, but I've learned to accept not getting some games a long time ago. 100% port rate of everything you're interested in was never a thing, and I find it hard to get worked up about.
Yeah, especially since third party support on Xbox has arguably never been better. So much to play, it's hard to get upset.

Besides, Japanese dev supports only gone up this gen with clear benefits to devs and players, so I'm not too worried.
 
Uh, yes? Ace Attorney Investigations Collection is the best example of that. We know what the AA games sold on Xbox and I've mentioned that in my previous post. Without a deal, there is zero justification for the port. Not every port makes sense, and that's precisely why it gives people the wrong idea. It's why the Xbox audience keeps comparing the AAI port to the lack of MvC port. Same goes for other Xbox releases like Ghosts and Goblins or Monster Hunter World's Japanese Xbox release.

Capcom does mostly follow a multiplatform strategy regardless of revenue for Xbox. It's just that this time (along some other releases mentioned in the opening post) involves MT Framework, an engine they wanted to drop on all platforms based on wider strategic planning.

Square Enix will also start having this problem soon enough with their smaller titles, though there wouldn't be much of them after the recent restructure anyway.
This has no basis in fact when Capcom is clearly picking and choosing. You don't know the cost of Ace Attorney Investigations port, you don't know the projected lifetime revenue of it, you don't know of any potential deals between Microsoft and Capcom, and despite not knowing any of this you're declaring that it's a port made with no justification. Even though it's clear that in certain cases Capcom will consider an Xbox port not worth it.

And actually, no, you don't know the lifetime revenue of Ace Attorney on Xbox at all.
 
Microsoft paid for Ace Attorney Investigations port.
(When a Japanese game have the windows logo on the trailer it's almost 100% sure Microsoft paid for it).

Microsoft don't whant Japanese games to skip Xbox because it's Bad PR for them.

The idea that "you should not buy an Xbox if you like japanese games" have negative impact on Xbox hardware sales.

This.
The norm is these games missing Xbox.

Phil pays attention to the forums a lot and made it his MO to get these games, even if they might not make financial sense.
We saw that with the SEGA deal which led to Yakuza, Persona, SMT coming over and marketing for the former 2. Window Store ports as well iirc.
We saw it for SE with Visions of Mana, some tied marketing and another Window Store port.
We saw it for Capcom with AA Collection, another Window Store port.

Capcom is just waiting for Phil to pay for it, otherwise it doesn't make sense. Makes you wonder how much Phil is paying for these ports.
 
Source? The Windows Logo is not a source but just a conjecture.
It's a bit a guess but honestly why would a game release on windows store ?

Almost evry publishers don't care about windows store.
The standard on PC is Steam or in a way lesser extend Epic games store.
And evry Capcom AAA skip Windows store.

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-39-27-505-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-40-06-535-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg


Another argument I have is that after the ridiculous low sales of Ace Attorney Trilogy on Xbox one, Capcom decide to skip Xbox for the great Ace Attorney.

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-51-20-496-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg


My guess is that Xbox made an agrement with severall big japanese publishers to release selected games on Xbox and windows store.
Possibly with a GP deal in addition to these ports depending on the game.
 
It's a bit a guess but honestly why would a game release on windows store ?

Almost evry publishers don't care about windows store.
The standard on PC is Steam or in a way lesser extend Epic games store.
And evry Capcom AAA skip Windows store.

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-39-27-505-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-40-06-535-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg


Another argument I have is that after the ridiculous low sales of Ace Attorney Trilogy on Xbox one, Capcom decide to skip Xbox for the great Ace Attorney.

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-51-20-496-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg


My guess is that Xbox made an agrement with severall big japanese publishers to release selected games on Xbox and windows store.
Possibly with a GP deal in addition to these ports depending on the game.

The recent Neptunia ports also have Windows Store versions(I think they even release alongside Xbox and not the Steam release).
 
It's a bit a guess but honestly why would a game release on windows store ?

Almost evry publishers don't care about windows store.
The standard on PC is Steam or in a way lesser extend Epic games store.
And evry Capcom AAA skip Windows store.

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-39-27-505-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-40-06-535-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg


Another argument I have is that after the ridiculous low sales of Ace Attorney Trilogy on Xbox one, Capcom decide to skip Xbox for the great Ace Attorney.

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-51-20-496-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg


My guess is that Xbox made an agrement with severall big japanese publishers to release selected games on Xbox and windows store.
Possibly with a GP deal in addition to these ports depending on the game.
They put it on Windows store when it's play anywhere (buy 1x, can play on xbox and windows store). Could be to eventually have better GP deals, could be they don't want to give away PC versions for their big games.
 
Microsoft have made this a problem for themselves, because of the usual issues of conflicting messaging and intentions between the Xbox and Microsoft parts of the business. Spencer and the Xbox team orient around presenting themselves as authentic videogame enthusiasts -> Spencer spends Xbox budget securing various Japanese games regardless of actual sales potential as part of this push -> Nadella and co step in and stop the spending on smaller titles that aren't seeing a return -> customer expectations ("I can get Japanese 3rd party games on Xbox") are not met.

This is why some Japanese developers need to take a step back and reevaluate their support for Xbox. Once you start porting even the niche titles to the platform (like Ace Attorney), the Xbox audience will feel entitled to every other game regardless of the costs involved. Their mindset will just be "if they can justify porting a game that sells less than 5k on our platform, then that means every port is justified!" This means no amount of argument about development pipeline or costs from the devs will ever work again. It becomes a sunk cost fallacy and devs will be forced to continuously port to Xbox without regards for costs or how bad it'll sell. Otherwise, they get backlash.

This is why the whole "multiplatform no matter what" strategy doesn't really work. You're supposed to choose your platforms based on costs and sales. If you do it based on short-term deals (Xbox deals) or ideological pushes, the consumers will get the wrong idea and start thinking costs don't matter - that their platform deserves unconditional support based on an ideological perspective.
Mid-generation is pretty much the worst time you could do this, because people have bought into various platforms based on completely rational expectations at the time. That's fine for publishers as a business, but if that's their calculus they'll (correctly) have to face some level of customer blowback for doing so.

"Multiplatform no matter what" isn't the real issue here - the issue is the existence of 2 barely differentiated hardware platforms themselves, which there is no market justification for and just creates inefficiencies like these in reaching customers. As long as Microsoft keeps burning money to maintain a presence, rather than either building an organic base of support or leaving, the industry will keep relitigating VHS vs Betamax every 7 years regardless of who "wins" each round of format wars.
 
[...] - the issue is the existence of 2 barely differentiated hardware platforms themselves, which there is no market justification for and just creates inefficiencies like these in reaching customers.

What was the huge difference between the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 that comulated in extreme high hardware sales for both of them?
 
What was the huge difference between the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 that comulated in extreme high hardware sales for both of them?
Compare Microsoft's XBLA offering, pricing, and hardware specs to the shitshow that was launch PS3. These were very differentiated offerings with much more software differentiation than nowadays (with the caveat that most of PS3's hardware "differentiations" were simply worse). That's why Xbox punched well above it's weight going against an incumbent who was coming off the PS2. PS3 sold well primarily because of a combination of a desirable brand, fantastic international supply chains, and a stream of quality 1st party games in the 2nd half of life that turned the ship around - at precisely the time Xbox started taking it's eye off the ball.
 
The Xbox 360 hat the RROD in its first year. Pricing i give you, but XBLA and hardware specs? Come on. That does not cumulate in over 80.000.000 sales for both consoles.
 
Last edited:
The Xbox 360 hat the RROD in its first year. Pricing i give you, but XBLA and hardware specs? Come on. That does not cumulate in over 80.000.000 sales for both consoles.
Xbox 360 was first, cheaper, had multiplayer innovations, better hardware and a strong set of exclusive software in the first couple years (which mattered at that time):
  1. Directly at launch:
    1. Call of Duty 2
  2. 12 months following launch:
    1. TES4: Oblivion
    2. Gears of War
  3. 24 months following launch:
    1. Halo 3
    2. Forza Motorsport 2
    3. Mass Effect
(I know Viva Pinata and others have their fans, but my point is these are giant generation-defining exclusives.)

Why did PS3 recover?
  1. Price cuts
  2. Strong set of exclusive software, esp. in the back half
  3. Regional loyalty / fanbase in Japan, Europe, etc.
 
If you're fixating on why Sony and MS could both sell 80mil+ then but not now, then the obvious difference is that PC, Nintendo and mobile have all massively improved their presence in the traditional AAA space that PS3/Xbox360 would have had almost entirely to themselves. The market is totally different, and Microsoft totally squandered their success from that period.

My point still stands - if you look at 1st/3rd party software, services, hardware and pricing, you can see that Xbox360 had a justifiable presence in the market that Series X simply doesn't when you can get all their 1st party software on PC and a growing amount of 1st party software on PS. The Series X is little more than a PS5 but with poorer international market presence and shockingly bad production management of 1st party software. That's why it doesn't sell.
 
No. Lots of games release only on Xbox One still. Turnip Boy Robs a Bank, Stalker trilogy just to name a couple.

At most, your argument would be 'they can't release unless they can prove that it is backwards compatible on Xbox Series S and X' but that would be a very odd thing to put on the devs and force them to buy more devkits. Versus it being an automatic platform emulator (which all evidence points to)

And there's zero other evidence there's such a requirement.

Seems much more reasonable to just say "hey we stopped putting these games on xbox and now it would take work to rework one of our old pipelines so we wont."
Up until a bit after the release of Xbox Series, Xbox One had been receiving MT Framework games. SF 30th Anniversary Collection, the original AA trilogy, etc.

So Xbox One has compatibility with MT Framework, always has, that is not in question. MT Framework games stopped appearing on Xbox platforms after late 2022 for an inexplicable reason (the last confirmed MTF title to release on XBOne was Capcom Fighting Collection). In that same timeframe, all their smaller titles that were built in RE Engine saw a release on Xbox platforms. So we know Capcom would have the intention to release games of a similar scope on Xbox platforms if able to (with the single exception being AA titles, since GAAC skipped out on Xbox, but that's been discussed further up).

If that is not evidence that Microsoft is the obstruction, I don’t know what to say, because any alternative explanation beggars belief. While my theory may be incorrect, the why is less important than the who right now, so we don't have folks going off on Capcom as though this is their fault. And if it's not some demand for native XBS code, then something else is happening on MS' end.

Capcom made very clear over a decade ago that MTF was done. They bent that rule slightly to add Switch to the compatible platforms in 2017 (because they needed at least ONE engine up and running on Switch, their support for the platform would be worse than people think it is already had they not done that), but otherwise, they've focused as much of their attention on RE Engine as possible and it shows. In the interim while Switch, PS4 and Xbox One were viable platforms, using the last update of MTF for collections of games that were either developed on MTF originally or could be released with shared code bases from previous collections built in MTF made a reasonable bit of sense, because all those platforms already had support for the engine built in. So if Switch & PS4 (and PC/Steam) are getting a release and not Xbox, the rightful conclusion is that, whatever MS might have done, Capcom is not yet again resurrecting further work on MT Framework to resolve the problem, and there's a chance no amount of money will convince them to.

Especially when this would be a largely temporary problem to begin with. Once Capcom has no more titles to release for Switch (the last platform to get support for the engine), MT Framework will likely be mothballed forever (which they've said they intended to do back in 2014) and Capcom will release everything on RE Engine, which would resolve the problem anyways.
 
This is why some Japanese developers need to take a step back and reevaluate their support for Xbox. Once you start porting even the niche titles to the platform (like Ace Attorney), the Xbox audience will feel entitled to every other game regardless of the costs involved. Their mindset will just be "if they can justify porting a game that sells less than 5k on our platform, then that means every port is justified!" This means no amount of argument about development pipeline or costs from the devs will ever work again. It becomes a sunk cost fallacy and devs will be forced to continuously port to Xbox without regards for costs or how bad it'll sell. Otherwise, they get backlash.

This is why the whole "multiplatform no matter what" strategy doesn't really work. You're supposed to choose your platforms based on costs and sales. If you do it based on short-term deals (Xbox deals) or ideological pushes, the consumers will get the wrong idea and start thinking costs don't matter - that their platform deserves unconditional support based on an ideological perspective.
Oh no what if people start wanting games on the platform they own...? And then the big corporation becomes somehow forced to do so...??
Like what? This such and utter deranged nonsense that I can't even understand where this is coming from. Is it console warring? East vs West tribalism? Straight up some weirdo shit.
It's a bit a guess but honestly why would a game release on windows store ?

Almost evry publishers don't care about windows store.
The standard on PC is Steam or in a way lesser extend Epic games store.
And evry Capcom AAA skip Windows store.

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-39-27-505-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-40-06-535-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg


Another argument I have is that after the ridiculous low sales of Ace Attorney Trilogy on Xbox one, Capcom decide to skip Xbox for the great Ace Attorney.

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-51-20-496-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg


My guess is that Xbox made an agrement with severall big japanese publishers to release selected games on Xbox and windows store.
Possibly with a GP deal in addition to these ports depending on the game.
Although we don't have an official word, I would say this is a rather consistent explanation.
Up until a bit after the release of Xbox Series, Xbox One had been receiving MT Framework games. SF 30th Anniversary Collection, the original AA trilogy, etc.

So Xbox One has compatibility with MT Framework, always has, that is not in question. MT Framework games stopped appearing on Xbox platforms after late 2022 for an inexplicable reason (the last confirmed MTF title to release on XBOne was Capcom Fighting Collection). In that same timeframe, all their smaller titles that were built in RE Engine saw a release on Xbox platforms. So we know Capcom would have the intention to release games of a similar scope on Xbox platforms if able to (with the single exception being AA titles, since GAAC skipped out on Xbox, but that's been discussed further up).

If that is not evidence that Microsoft is the obstruction, I don’t know what to say, because any alternative explanation beggars belief. While my theory may be incorrect, the why is less important than the who right now, so we don't have folks going off on Capcom as though this is their fault. And if it's not some demand for native XBS code, then something else is happening on MS' end.

Capcom made very clear over a decade ago that MTF was done. They bent that rule slightly to add Switch to the compatible platforms in 2017 (because they needed at least ONE engine up and running on Switch, their support for the platform would be worse than people think it is already had they not done that), but otherwise, they've focused as much of their attention on RE Engine as possible and it shows. In the interim while Switch, PS4 and Xbox One were viable platforms, using the last update of MTF for collections of games that were either developed on MTF originally or could be released with shared code bases from previous collections built in MTF made a reasonable bit of sense, because all those platforms already had support for the engine built in. So if Switch & PS4 (and PC/Steam) are getting a release and not Xbox, the rightful conclusion is that, whatever MS might have done, Capcom is not yet again resurrecting further work on MT Framework to resolve the problem, and there's a chance no amount of money will convince them to.

Especially when this would be a largely temporary problem to begin with. Once Capcom has no more titles to release for Switch (the last platform to get support for the engine), MT Framework will likely be mothballed forever (which they've said they intended to do back in 2014) and Capcom will release everything on RE Engine, which would resolve the problem anyways.
Wonder if MS changed something on the Xbox dev end that caused all of this. Xbox should be moving mountains to not lose out on titles like Marvel vs Capcom, insane that they aren't, but you can't expect much from their management at this point.
 
Wonder if MS changed something on the Xbox dev end that caused all of this. Xbox should be moving mountains to not lose out on titles like Marvel vs Capcom, insane that they aren't, but you can't expect much from their management at this point.
Theoretically, this could occur due to the lack of upkeep work done on the engine (which is what is probably happening if Capcom does indeed have the mentioned aversion to preform any work on the engine) and updates to the console's SDK changing how some older APIs that Capcom might have used work (and MS is likely the most active company amongst console vendors in updating their tools). A combination of an unmaintained codebase and a deprecated API is an easy recipe for broken code.
 
Xbox 360 was first, cheaper, had multiplayer innovations, better hardware and a strong set of exclusive software in the first couple years (which mattered at that time): [...]

I know all of that, one of my points is that in my experience and opinion there is more difference between the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series today then it was between Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 back in the day. I just think the barely differentiated hardware these days is not that important for the failure of the Xbox Series.

[...], then the obvious difference is that PC, Nintendo and mobile have all massively improved their presence in the traditional AAA space that PS3/Xbox360 would have had almost entirely to themselves. The market is totally different, and Microsoft totally squandered their success from that period.

I agree that the market is different, but one thing i do not agree is that Nintendo had massively improved their presence in the traditional AAA space. Not the slightest. We have all the big names we mostly had on the Wii [with some exceptions like Splatoon], at least from Nintendo itself, but i rather see another point wich is improved: ALL of Nintendos games are on ONE console. Stuff like Metroid Dread or Link's Awakening or the upcoming Zelda are games who would be clearly on an Nintendo 4DS. That is in my opinion the biggest advantage of the Switch. Not only more games but more games consecutive over the entire year. Nearly every month there is a game from Nintendo, the exact opposit of the Wii. If you mean traditional AAA space from third-partys, then some yes, but not all. There is no Main-Final Fantasy, no Yakuza, no new Tales of, no new Resident Evil [except the cloud version] and so on on the Switch. Madden and Call of Duty are also not on the Switch, for example.

I agree that the one year headstart, the cheaper system and some of the games like Gear of War helped a lot in the first years of the Xbox 360, but like i wrote above, there is in my opinion more difference between the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series today then it was between the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 back in the day. And just for Info [no offense], i owned both of them back in the day.
 
Last edited:
I know all of that, one of my points is that in my experience and opinion there is more difference between the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series today then it was between Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 back in the day. I just think the barely differentiated hardware these days is not that important for the failure of the Xbox Series.



I agree that the market is different, but one thing i do not agree is that Nintendo had massively improved their presence in the traditional AAA space. Not the slightest. We have all the big names we mostly had on the Wii [with some exceptions like Splatoon], at least from Nintendo itself, but i rather see another point wich is improved: ALL of Nintendos games are on ONE console. Stuff like Metroid Dread or Link's Awakening or the upcoming Zelda are games who would be clearly on an Nintendo 4DS. That is in my opinion the biggest advantage of the Switch. Not only more games but more games consecutive over the entire year. Nearly every month there is a game from Nintendo, the exact opposit of the Wii. If you mean traditional AAA space from third-partys, then some yes, but not all. There is no Main-Final Fantasy, no Yakuza, no new Tales of, no new Resident Evil [except the cloud version] and so on on the Switch. Madden and Call of Duty are also not on the Switch, for example.

I agree that the one year hedstart, the cheaper sytsem and some of the games like Gear of War helped a lot in the first years of the Xboc 360, but like i wrote above, there is in my opinion more difference between the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series today then it was between Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 back in the day. And just for Info [no offense], i own both of them, and i owned both of them back in the day.
Yeah sorry, wasn't disagreeing but more explaining how both succeeded.

I agree, in no way do I see the space being the same today. I agree with Phil's diagnosis that console gamers are older / not growing and that digital libraries locked in people from switching platforms.

I think the Xbox Series not growing is a mix of: Some people just fully went to PC last-gen when Xbox put stuff there, General crossgen period woes, and Economic uncertainty this year. Seems pretty straightforward
Post automatically merged:

Theoretically, this could occur due to the lack of upkeep work done on the engine (which is what is probably happening if Capcom does indeed have the mentioned aversion to preform any work on the engine) and updates to the console's SDK changing how some older APIs that Capcom might have used work (and MS is likely the most active company amongst console vendors in updating their tools). A combination of an unmaintained codebase and a deprecated API is an easy recipe for broken code.
This is what some people appear to be reporting -- the SDK shifted to GDK (apologies if I'm misunderstanding) and things changed.

Code is not static, always requires upkeep and Capcom decided a bit of upkeep for a dying engine is not worth it.
 
This is what some people appear to be reporting -- the SDK shifted to GDK (apologies if I'm misunderstanding) and things changed.

Code is not static, always requires upkeep and Capcom decided a bit of upkeep for a dying engine is not worth it.
This and the windows store theory posted earlier do tie all this release weirdness together, makes sense IMO.
 
I know all of that, one of my points is that in my experience and opinion there is more difference between the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series today then it was between Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 back in the day. I just think the barely differentiated hardware these days is not that important for the failure of the Xbox Series.
The hardware is, objectively, massively different between PS3/360 compared to PS5/Series X, which are just variations of the same generation of AMD hardware that achieve results that are basically undiscernible from each other in 99.9% of scenarios most users will observe. You're right that a lack of differentiated hardware is not why Xbox has failed, but it is relevant to the question of what exactly Xbox is providing the market that PS5 isn't. In the 360 generation they provided a sanely designed hardware solution for developers and a way better service offering than Sony, but Sony have since addressed this. What they're left to compete with is Gamepass and a cheaper variant SKU, and neither of these has worked. The biggest change from the 360 generation is 1st party software - Microsoft have neither a Halo 3 level massive exclusive to rally around, nor do they even really have "exclusives" in an environment where everything goes to Steam and even Rare titles end up on PS5.

I agree that the market is different, but one thing i do not agree is that Nintendo had massively improved their presence in the traditional AAA space. Not the slightest. We have all the big names we mostly had on the Wii [with some exceptions like Splatoon], at least from Nintendo itself, but i rather see another point wich is improved: ALL of Nintendos games are on ONE console. Stuff like Metroid Dread or Link's Awakening or the upcoming Zelda are games who would be clearly on an Nintendo 4DS. That is in my opinion the biggest advantage of the Switch. Not only more games but more games consecutive over the entire year. Nearly every month there is a game from Nintendo, the exact opposit of the Wii. If you mean traditional AAA space from third-partys, then some yes, but not all. There is no Main-Final Fantasy, no Yakuza, no new Tales of, no new Resident Evil [except the cloud version] and so on on the Switch. Madden and Call of Duty are also not on the Switch, for example.

I agree that the one year headstart, the cheaper system and some of the games like Gear of War helped a lot in the first years of the Xbox 360, but like i wrote above, there is in my opinion more difference between the PlayStation 5 and Xbox Series today then it was between the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 back in the day. And just for Info [no offense], i owned both of them back in the day.
I'm not talking about the likes of Final Fantasy or Yakuza - I mean titles like Fortnite or Minecraft. Gigantic games which are accessible on PC/Nintendo/mobile outside of the old Xbox/Playstation paradigm from the 00's. That's the change in today's market from the 80 million+ selling generation MS and Sony had before - customers can actually avoid buying a PS/Xbox for a lot of major games nowadays (and those games are often highly addictive pseudo-platforms of their own with high user retention). For the record, I do believe there's room in the market for a direct competitor for PlayStation. But Xbox have continually ruined their own chances to be that and don't really look like they have a plan beyond Phil Spencer convincing his bosses to keep burning money.
 
Microsoft paid for Ace Attorney Investigations port.
(When a Japanese game have the windows logo on the trailer it's almost 100% sure Microsoft paid for it).

Microsoft don't whant Japanese games to skip Xbox because it's Bad PR for them.

The idea that "you should not buy an Xbox if you like japanese games" have negative impact on Xbox hardware sales.


Source? The Windows Logo is not a source but just a conjecture.

It's a bit a guess but honestly why would a game release on windows store ?

Almost evry publishers don't care about windows store.
The standard on PC is Steam or in a way lesser extend Epic games store.
And evry Capcom AAA skip Windows store.

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-39-27-505-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-40-06-535-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg


Another argument I have is that after the ridiculous low sales of Ace Attorney Trilogy on Xbox one, Capcom decide to skip Xbox for the great Ace Attorney.

Screenshot-2024-06-19-22-51-20-496-com-google-android-youtube-edit.jpg


My guess is that Xbox made an agrement with severall big japanese publishers to release selected games on Xbox and windows store.
Possibly with a GP deal in addition to these ports depending on the game.

Late reply , But I share a modified version of Astral_lion02 theory , Microsoft except in very rare cases like non-supported External Launcher games ( 2K , Rockstar ) prefers that a game that releases on Gamepass Xbox releases also on Gamepass PC , Games releasing on MS Store/Xbox PC Store without Gamepass is a rarity and very especially for Japanese Publishers , So Japanese games releasing on MS Store is a sign to me that there is a Gamepass deal involved even if its after Multiple Years

So IMO they aren't direct deals to release on Xbox/MS Store , they are indirect deals to secure games on Xbox/MS Store in the shape of gamepass deals with MS Store version releasing Day one in advance

MS can't do this for all games , But IMO Japanese publishers knows MS needs them far more than they need MS , so they are twisting their weak arm for a Gamepass Deal for Small/Medium/risky/Niche/non-Safe Games to their benefit , If no Gamepass deal involved , Then Japanese Publishers thinks they won't lose much of a value by not releasing on Xbox/MS Store for those kind of games
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking, the downside of Microsoft moving so heavily into gamepass is that it means its basically only worthwhile for third parties to port their games to Xbox if they get a gamepass deal, because the games sell next to nothing anymore on Xbox. That means that Microsoft has put themselves in a situation where they will have to pay for gamepass deals in the future in many cases for games to come out on Xbox at all. That seems like a huge waste of resources in the long run. Sony only has to pay up to get exclusive games, everything else gets ported to PS5 with them not having to lift a finger. While the abysmal sales of games on Xbox changes the equation for Microsoft where they will have to pay gamepass deals to get the games ported over at all.
 
I'm not sure how we have a conversation about why 360 & PS3 were a much closer battle compared to Xbox series & PS5 and not at all mention Kinect? That is flat out ridiculous and nothing more than core gamer bias. The headstart and pricing advantage (PS3's pricing was atrocious) in combination with PS3 selling far less than expected for a PlayStation home console due to the pricing, were the most important factors at the start. Kinect then gives it that final push to keep it competitive. We can actually look at the 360's trajectory and see it was being outpaced launch aligned by PS3 despite PS3's embarrassing sales for a PlayStation home console and the 360 miraculously peaking after Kinect. 360 was already in it's decline phase before Kinect and it boosted it like Pokemon boosted Gameboy. Microsoft's first party and better online multi-player are absolutely less factors vs. the headstart, pricing advantage, and Kinect carrying the console late life. Microsoft was so confident in Kinect, they forced bundled it with Xbox One.

Xbox series and PS5 could both launch at the same time, same price, and both equipped with a full arsenal of first party games and yet PS5 absolutely would cream it just simply due to the brand being bigger in more countries. Xbox should have never given up that headstart and they need a fluke like Kinect each generation just to compete head to head with poorly selling PlayStation. These brands aren't in the same hemisphere, it's why Microsoft can say stuff like "Nintendo is their dream acquisition". That was them blatantly admitting they don't believe in their own first party franchises.
 
Last edited:
I've been thinking, the downside of Microsoft moving so heavily into gamepass is that it means its basically only worthwhile for third parties to port their games to Xbox if they get a gamepass deal, because the games sell next to nothing anymore on Xbox. That means that Microsoft has put themselves in a situation where they will have to pay for gamepass deals in the future in many cases for games to come out on Xbox at all. That seems like a huge waste of resources in the long run. Sony only has to pay up to get exclusive games, everything else gets ported to PS5 with them not having to lift a finger. While the abysmal sales of games on Xbox changes the equation for Microsoft where they will have to pay gamepass deals to get the games ported over at all.
Yes, putting 3rd party content on gamepass is never going to work:

1) The cost of buying the content destroys profitability of the service
2) It has incentivised publishers to hold out for deals since they have already written off the hardware platform
3) The 3rd party content is the biggest blocker to actually achieving profitability for gamepass - i.e. it's what's stopping microsoft from putting it on steam/switch2/playstation, since it bypasses royalties those platform holders would have received for the same 3rd party content

If microsoft axed the 3rd party content from the service and made deals to offer gamepass on those platforms, it would become the most successful of the EA Play/Ubisoft+ type 3rd party sub services overnight and easily achieve profitability. The value proposition for a single sub that has COD/Sea of Thieves/Fallout/Doom/Diablo/Elder Scrolls etc is already incredibly good, it doesn't need 3rd parties at all - but it needs to be present on platforms most customers want to use (i.e. not Xbox hardware and not the Windows store). I can only assume this must be the plan but then Spencer talks about a fucking handheld as though the lack of that is the issue with xbox.

It xbox hardware has a future it's by positioning itself as the best-in-class experience for using gamepass and using that as a selling point - but the mass market needs to know what gamepass is and to do that, it needs to be on the other platforms.
 
Back
Top Bottom