Based on the PS3 version again?

[LemonRush7777]

Will this title this time be based on the PS4 version or will we get shafted once again with an inferior port?

[Tolwrath]

The graphics are actually slightly lower quality than the ps3 version. Many of the clothing and accessories that are supposed to have partial transparency are instead fully opaque. I can also say that from comparing DW8E PC version with DW7E ps3 version, that the CAW textures are better on DW7E ps3 version. I'll put up a comparison screenshot or two of a character that I managed to make in both games later as proof.

Speaking of, weren't we supposed to have a way to just import all of our CAWs from DW7E? What even happened with that?

[Pyrithe]

Originally posted by Fenrir007:

Originally posted by junglebookka35:

Just look at monster hunter series. They will never get full support on PC, no matter how awesome your PC is. Some series are tied to certain consoles, just accept it and let your anger go.

Never say never. People said the same thing about certain games before that are now on the PC, and with the console industry taking a nosedive and japanese developers focusng more and more on either mobile or PC, I don't think its impossible to see a non-MMO Monster Hunter on a PC at some point.

I think a lot of you are missing the point of what others were saying. Sometimes companies will strike deals and sign contracts making a game "exclusive" to a console. For example, Gears of War was signed as an Xbox 360 exclusive and when that contract with Microsoft expired, Epic were then allowed to port the game to PS3. I'm not saying that's the case here or not because I don't know nor care to investigate, but that may be what they are pointing out. Koei may have a contract with Sony stating only PS4 level graphics on PS4, but they can do whatever they want with PS3 level graphics. If that's the case, there literally is nothing Koei can do until that contract expires (if it even has an expiration).

Long story short, doesn't matter what the gamers want sometimes, if a contract is in play between two companies that contract comes first. Satisfying a few alienated gamers isn't worth a multimillion dollar breach of contract lawsuit that is GUARANTEED to cost them due to the biggest damning piece of evidence: The contract.

[LemonRush7777]

Originally posted by Pyrithe:

Originally posted by Fenrir007:

Never say never. People said the same thing about certain games before that are now on the PC, and with the console industry taking a nosedive and japanese developers focusng more and more on either mobile or PC, I don't think its impossible to see a non-MMO Monster Hunter on a PC at some point.

I think a lot of you are missing the point of what others were saying. Sometimes companies will strike deals and sign contracts making a game "exclusive" to a console. For example, Gears of War was signed as an Xbox 360 exclusive and when that contract with Microsoft expired, Epic were then allowed to port the game to PS3. I'm not saying that's the case here or not because I don't know nor care to investigate, but that may be what they are pointing out. Koei may have a contract with Sony stating only PS4 level graphics on PS4, but they can do whatever they want with PS3 level graphics. If that's the case, there literally is nothing Koei can do until that contract expires (if it even has an expiration).

Long story short, doesn't matter what the gamers want sometimes, if a contract is in play between two companies that contract comes first. Satisfying a few alienated gamers isn't worth a multimillion dollar breach of contract lawsuit that is GUARANTEED to cost them due to the biggest damning piece of evidence: The contract.

Even if what you are saying is true (and I'm hesitant to believe art assets were subject to exclusivity deals), they willingly signed the contract, so, ultimately, it is still their fault.

[Pyrithe]

Originally posted by Fenrir007:

Originally posted by Pyrithe:

I think a lot of you are missing the point of what others were saying. Sometimes companies will strike deals and sign contracts making a game "exclusive" to a console. For example, Gears of War was signed as an Xbox 360 exclusive and when that contract with Microsoft expired, Epic were then allowed to port the game to PS3. I'm not saying that's the case here or not because I don't know nor care to investigate, but that may be what they are pointing out. Koei may have a contract with Sony stating only PS4 level graphics on PS4, but they can do whatever they want with PS3 level graphics. If that's the case, there literally is nothing Koei can do until that contract expires (if it even has an expiration).

Long story short, doesn't matter what the gamers want sometimes, if a contract is in play between two companies that contract comes first. Satisfying a few alienated gamers isn't worth a multimillion dollar breach of contract lawsuit that is GUARANTEED to cost them due to the biggest damning piece of evidence: The contract.

Even if what you are saying is true (and I'm hesitant to believe art assets were subject to exclusivity deals), they willingly signed the contract, so, ultimately, it is still their fault.

Sometimes it's "sign the deal or don't sell your game on our console". Sure they'd still have the freedom of PC, but they'd be losing an even bigger sale of selling on a console. And pretty sure anything can be added to a contract, whether it's the full game, art assets, or even if Sony just wants Koei to bring them an iced latte every day, they can put anything they want into a contract unless it's something illegal. And just because it's not the "norm", it's not so implausible that Sony would restrict it, especially if it is something that would make their competition (PC) look better. How many here already said "Nope, just gonna buy it on PS4 and not here because it looks better." >.> Sounds to me like that strategy worked, if that was the case. In the end, not many people buy the same game on multiple consoles, so in the long run such a deal wouldn't hurt either party too badly. Sony gets more sales for a better looking version on PS4, Koei still makes the sale either way, and the consumer still gets the choice on what platform to buy the game for, unlike previously mentioned deals such as Gears of War with absolute console exclusivity. The way Koei probably saw the deal would be win/win/win all around.

Again, this is all under speculation and is in no way fact nor meant to interpret fact. Simply playing devil's advocate to further detail what others previously stated in a more detailed description and give people an idea of the possibility that this sort of thing is common practice between game developers, publishers, and other game companies. Sometimes what seems like a great idea at the time might not lead to the end result they envisioned, other times the deal is perfect for all parties. So yes, it is Koei's "fault" for making a deal that would land them bigger profits, and yes it's their "fault" for not being psychic and knowing how their fanbase would react to said deal (IF said deal truly exists). However, if none of this is the case and they simply did it for the lol's, then yeah, Koei does need to consider fixing their mistakes.

[LemonRush7777]

Originally posted by Pyrithe:

Originally posted by Fenrir007:

Even if what you are saying is true (and I'm hesitant to believe art assets were subject to exclusivity deals), they willingly signed the contract, so, ultimately, it is still their fault.

Sometimes it's "sign the deal or don't sell your game on our console". Sure they'd still have the freedom of PC, but they'd be losing an even bigger sale of selling on a console. And pretty sure anything can be added to a contract, whether it's the full game, art assets, or even if Sony just wants Koei to bring them an iced latte every day, they can put anything they want into a contract unless it's something illegal.

This is absurd! You are making Sny look like Yakuzas. But that's not even the problem here.

The problem is that any company doing that risks the devs giving them the finger and turning around, not releasing the game on their console and going for the competitors. The battle on consoleland rages on, and NO one there is on a comfortable enough position to snob titles, especially important ones like DW and DoA, and risk the eternal emnity of the devs. Also, never forget this could set a precedent in the industry and turn many devs off from releasing games AT ALL to a company that basically extorts and puts them on a string like mafiosos.

I find your hypothesis extremely tinfoily, albeit seductive due to the complete absurdity of releasing a downgraded version on the PC when the better one would be easier to port. However, we must remember that incompetence is a real thing, and that can explain what logic cannot in many cases.

[Pyrithe]

Originally posted by Fenrir007:

Originally posted by Pyrithe:

Sometimes it's "sign the deal or don't sell your game on our console". Sure they'd still have the freedom of PC, but they'd be losing an even bigger sale of selling on a console. And pretty sure anything can be added to a contract, whether it's the full game, art assets, or even if Sony just wants Koei to bring them an iced latte every day, they can put anything they want into a contract unless it's something illegal.

This is absurd! You are making Sny look like Yakuzas. But that's not even the problem here.

The problem is that any company doing that risks the devs giving them the finger and turning around, not releasing the game on their console and going for the competitors. The battle on consoleland rages on, and NO one there is on a comfortable enough position to snob titles, especially important ones like DW and DoA, and risk the eternal emnity of the devs. Also, never forget this could set a precedent in the industry and turn many devs off from releasing games AT ALL to a company that basically extorts and puts them on a string like mafiosos.

I find your hypothesis extremely tinfoily, albeit seductive due to the complete absurdity of releasing a downgraded version on the PC when the better one would be easier to port. However, we must remember that incompetence is a real thing, and that can explain what logic cannot in many cases.

You know what, I'm not going to argue with you. Especially if you are going to act so immature as to try and strawman me by turning my words from "Common business practice" into "You make them sound like crimelords!" So read carefully this time.

This sort of practice has ALWAYS been in effect. Don't take my word for it though, do the research yourself: NES had a strict policy in which they had to approve a game or it wasn't allowed to be sold and Nintendo maintained that practice for many years. Nintendo also signed a deal with Phillips to make a console known as the CDi and UNDER CONTRACT, Phillips was allowed to and did produce games on that which were attrocious using Mario and Legend of Zelda because it was permitted in the contract (but what would you expect from the Yakuza Nintendo's, damn them all!) There was also Halo and Gears of War which were Xbox 360 exclusives BY CONTRACT, BTW. Damn Microsoft Mafiosos, always snatching up good games. Oh, but wait, Sony got some exclusives too? What's this? 2015 ones as well? So they STILL do contracts? That hasn't changed? Oh my... Those damn, evil, corrupt business crime bosses, how dare they "snob" titles such as Infamous: First Light, Bloodborne, Uncharted 4, etc.

But before you reply, try giving this a read: http://www.sloperama.com/advice/article58.htm It will give you a bit more information on the contracts that are often commonplace in this oh-so-horrible world of Yakuza and Mafiosos you claim the industry to now be full of. If you do reply, try to be more educated on the subject so as to not make yourself look like a defensive "fanboy" as they would call it nowadays. And also, DoA started out in the industry as an Xbox launch title/exclusive. Back when it was a battle between PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube and the Dreamcast had already fallen. So I'd say the stakes were pretty high, considering they all needed good exclusives to make their consoles the best on the market. Sony even cornered such games as Final Fantasy X, the Grand Theft Auto series, and Metal Gear Solid 2. So I'd say you're whole "snobbing titles" argument goes out the window considering those 3 games were/are pretty big names to get as exclusives. You still think it's such a stretch that they'd want their game to at least LOOK better on PS4 than the PS3 and PC version to garner more sales for it?

Again, to others reading this topic, please understand I am merely pointing out the possibility of this, not stating any of it as fact. The actual reason for their choice of doing PS3 graphics over PS4 could be numerous other reasons such as: More comfortable with translating PS3 to PC over PS4, regardless of "ease". Saving time using the already ported DW8:XL assets rather than converting PS4 Empires completely. Thinking it possible not all gamers have high end PC's that can handle PS4 level graphics so they stuck with PS3 since it would be the smaller of the two (also size difference could come into effect there for HDD purposes). There could be a number of reasons as to why they chose this over that, but we do not know (and possibly may never know) what the true reason is. Some people simply speculated the idea and due to many misinterpreting what was said, I stepped in to clarify on their behalf. Personally, I do not care. The game could have PS2 or even PS1 graphics for all I care. What matters to me is the gameplay.

[Roy Batty]

Man, that wall of text just to highlight how much of a condescending prick you can be. Congrats, the people know. I am pretty sure nobody here doubted the existence of exclusives on consoles. That Koei would port the last gen release and manage to break graphical effects while doing so, suggests that mere incompetence is the most reasonable explanation for this whole mess. I seriously doubt that it's a contract with Sony that stipulated that. Hell, Sony are pretty good about not adding "intentionally cripple your game for the competition" contract rules, unlike MS.

[Pyrithe]

Originally posted by Roy Batty:

Man, that wall of text just to highlight how much of a condescending prick you can be. Congrats, the people know. I am pretty sure nobody here doubted the existence of exclusives on consoles. That Koei would port the last gen release and manage to break graphical effects while doing so, suggests that mere incompetence is the most reasonable explanation for this whole mess. I seriously doubt that it's a contract with Sony that stipulated that. Hell, Sony are pretty good about not adding "intentionally cripple your game for the competition" contract rules, unlike MS.

Did you read the discussion between us? I simply clarified the point OTHERS BEFORE ME TRIED TO MAKE. He argued it, I gave examples that it wasn't so farfetched. Up to that point I felt it was a reasonable debate, until he felt the need to defend his OPINION as if he was stating FACT. Not to mention the fact that he tried to dismiss everything by saying my information was "absurd". So sorry if I felt a little insulted by that.

As for your statement, I'd like to know what contract MS did that was "intentionally crippling for competition" and how you can accurately state that Sony does not do the same, since you clearly MUST have sources if you are able to state such things so matter of factly.

And yeah, I love how I avoid name calling, simply state factual points, express my opinions on some matters, leave disclaimers that I do NOT believe this theory myself, simply that there is a chance it exists, post sources, but what all did you even add to the conversation? An observation that I am a "condescending heart" due to one person who I replied to because instead of just simply either A) Debating further with more facts and adding something meaningful to the converstation besides calling my statements absurd and equating game companies to criminal organizations when the contracts they do are in no way illegal. Shady, perhaps sometimes they are, but in no way does that make game companies "Mafiosos" or "Yakuza" or B) Letting that post go since we had both stated our opinions.

In fact, I'd have to say that I prefered my debate with Fenrir more than you simply because there was still stuff in his posts TO debate. You call me condescending, yet here you are acting like YOU are better than ME. In my post to Fenrir, I simply stated that I didn't WANT him to be a fanboy, gave him a link to a page about contracts to give him more information on the more common ones that are thrown around the gaming industry on a daily basis, and while I did make a few comments which I suppose may be in a bit more of a snarky tone than I intended (mainly the last portion of the second paragraph), I at least expect more from the debate from Fenrir which I hope I would enjoy. Perhaps he knows something I do not. If you want to change my opinion of you, then show me the basis on your statement that Sony does not "intentionally cripple your game for the competition" yet Microsoft does. However if you cannot do that, then I will not be replying to any further comments from you.

[Roy Batty]

I contemplated whether or not to throw a jab at MS in the previous post, because I quite obviously can't provide solid evidence of confidential agreements between MS and publishers. The closest stuff I can point out is the silly publically known Xbox parity clause, where on-disc content and release date must be the same for their console. This easily means gimping games to be on the level the Xbone can support, even if other platforms might have allowed for more, unless they want to risk getting their Xbox release canceled. This mostly affects smaller releases I guess, as MS will allow big names to violate this rule.

[Pyrithe]

Originally posted by Roy Batty:

I contemplated whether or not to throw a jab at MS in the previous post, because I quite obviously can't provide solid evidence of confidential agreements between MS and publishers. The closest stuff I can point out is the silly publically known Xbox parity clause, where on-disc content and release date must be the same for their console. This easily means gimping games to be on the level the Xbone can support, even if other platforms might have allowed for more, unless they want to risk getting their Xbox release canceled. This mostly affects smaller releases I guess, as MS will allow big names to violate this rule.

Well I honestly had forgotten about that, but I guess that really goes more in the "companies shooting themselves in the foot with stupid deals" idea. Something Microsoft is getting pretty good at, I'd say they should earn a Marksmanship award with how good they are at it. However the previous deal was more in line with PC (which doesn't really have a company running it) and PS3 versus PS4. It would still be a viable option, since PS4 version looks better than PS3 and PC versions which coaxes those who love high end graphics to go for a PS4, then PS3 and PC versions still exist for those who do not (or will not) own a PS4, and Koei gets the cash from all 3 sets of sales. So it does still sound rather plausable, perhaps 5-10% chance.

Could also be incompitence or just plain laziness which I would bet on mainly due to the fact that they think the DW series is a dying franchise, so why put tons of money and effort into it, really. If you look at the older games, they were a lot more polished than a lot of the newer ones. I'm more leaning towards they ported DW8:XL, then when doing Empires just used the already ported XL assets and did the coding around that.

[LemonRush7777]

Originally posted by Pyrithe:

words

"NES had a strict policy in which they had to approve a game or it wasn't allowed to be sold and Nintendo maintained that practice for many years."

Not remotely the same thing. Curating content on YOUR storefront or hardware is a LOT different from enforcing what sort of assets you can or not release on another plataform.

"Nintendo also signed a deal with Phillips to make a console known as the CDi and UNDER CONTRACT, Phillips was allowed to and did produce games on that which were attrocious using Mario and Legend of Zelda because it was permitted in the contract (but what would you expect from the Yakuza Nintendo's, damn them all!) There was also Halo and Gears of War which were Xbox 360 exclusives BY CONTRACT, BTW."

Exclusivity is a whole different issue here. Exclusivity makes sense, as it allows you to get the upper hand on the competition. HOWEVER, you are saying about locking certain very specific art assets to a plataform that isn't yours, while still allowing it to be released there. And this, mind you, is on the PC, which is NOT the plataform game consoles are primarily concerned when it comes to competition. They are a LOT more worried about their console competitors, and perhaps even mobile gaming than PC. Also, when the game is released simultaneously on the PS4 and Xbone, are you suggesting Microsoft and Sony are joining hands to enforce this on their contracts? By the way, exclusivity deals usually happen under the guise of funding or a better marketing position, but those would make 0 sense in a multiplataform title.


"http://www.sloperama.com/advice/article58.htm"

I don't see anything there supporting your tinfoil. Care to quote the relevant part?

"And also, DoA started out in the industry as an Xbox launch title/exclusive. Back when it was a battle between PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube and the Dreamcast had already fallen. So I'd say the stakes were pretty high, considering they all needed good exclusives to make their consoles the best on the market. Sony even cornered such games as Final Fantasy X, the Grand Theft Auto series, and Metal Gear Solid 2. So I'd say you're whole "snobbing titles" argument goes out the window considering those 3 games were/are pretty big names to get as exclusives. You still think it's such a stretch that they'd want their game to at least LOOK better on PS4 than the PS3 and PC version to garner more sales for it?"

You seem to forget that many titles are not meant to come out of the consoles, and this goes in double for the japanese game industry, that never really considered seriously the PC as a gaming plataform, and only now are taking steps towards that direction with many console-exclusive devs, including makers of JRPG, jumping on board the PC train. So, when you mention exclusivity on titles that are consolebound, I fail to see ANY relevance this has on PC titles.

And again, EXCLUSIVITY of a title being released somewhere is very different from EXCLUSIVITY OF A LIMITED SET OF ART ASSETS OR OF A SPECIFIC TECH like the boob bouncing thing.

"Again, to others reading this topic, please understand I am merely pointing out the possibility of this, not stating any of it as fact. The actual reason for their choice of doing PS3 graphics over PS4 could be numerous other reasons such as: More comfortable with translating PS3 to PC over PS4, regardless of "ease". Saving time using the already ported DW8:XL assets rather than converting PS4 Empires completely. Thinking it possible not all gamers have high end PC's that can handle PS4 level graphics so they stuck with PS3 since it would be the smaller of the two (also size difference could come into effect there for HDD purposes). There could be a number of reasons as to why they chose this over that, but we do not know (and possibly may never know) what the true reason is. Some people simply speculated the idea and due to many misinterpreting what was said, I stepped in to clarify on their behalf. Personally, I do not care. The game could have PS2 or even PS1 graphics for all I care. What matters to me is the gameplay."

Yes, it could be, but I find the hypothesis you highlighted rather tinfoily and unsupported by anything beyond wild speculations, but that's just my opinion.

[Pyrithe]

Originally posted by Fenrir007:

Originally posted by Pyrithe:

words

Not remotely the same thing. Curating content on YOUR storefront or hardware is a LOT different from enforcing what sort of assets you can or not release on another plataform.

The contract wouldn't be so much locking competition OUT as it would be more locking the better assets for the PS4 version IN. So it goes hand in hand with what you just said here.
From the link I referred you to:
Warranties - The developing company has to swear that it won't use anybody else's source code (so the publisher won't get sued for something the developer did), and the publishing company has to swear that it has the right to ask developer to create this particular game (so the developer won't get sued for something the publisher did). And there's language about what will happen if there is a lawsuit.
This does still follow along with those terms. Keep in mind those were "common examples" of contracts, not every contract in existance. By Sony stating "Any source materials used for the PS4 version (IE: coding, assets, etc) of the game cannot be used in any other version of the game." within the contract, Sony safely secures the higher end graphics while still leaving the PS3 and subsequent versions thereafter completely open. Basically if Koei wanted to make for example a PC version and Xbox One version, they would have to completely rewrite the code for each one from scratch. However the exception, in this case the PS3 version, would be fair game to write once and distribute everywhere.

And in previous comments I referred to exclusives only as the most common form of contract in which they keep material (full games) from being permitted on other platforms. If they can take ENTIRE GAMES from being permitted to PC or another console, why is it so farfetched they can restrict coding and art assets from being used elsewhere?

[LemonRush7777]

Originally posted by Pyrithe:

Originally posted by Fenrir007:

Not remotely the same thing. Curating content on YOUR storefront or hardware is a LOT different from enforcing what sort of assets you can or not release on another plataform.

The contract wouldn't be so much locking competition OUT as it would be more locking the better assets for the PS4 version IN. So it goes hand in hand with what you just said here.
From the link I referred you to:
Warranties - The developing company has to swear that it won't use anybody else's source code (so the publisher won't get sued for something the developer did), and the publishing company has to swear that it has the right to ask developer to create this particular game (so the developer won't get sued for something the publisher did). And there's language about what will happen if there is a lawsuit.
This does still follow along with those terms. Keep in mind those were "common examples" of contracts, not every contract in existance. By Sony stating "Any source materials used for the PS4 version (IE: coding, assets, etc) of the game cannot be used in any other version of the game." within the contract, Sony safely secures the higher end graphics while still leaving the PS3 and subsequent versions thereafter completely open. Basically if Koei wanted to make for example a PC version and Xbox One version, they would have to completely rewrite the code for each one from scratch. However the exception, in this case the PS3 version, would be fair game to write once and distribute everywhere.

And in previous comments I referred to exclusives only as the most common form of contract in which they keep material (full games) from being permitted on other platforms. If they can take ENTIRE GAMES from being permitted to PC or another console, why is it so farfetched they can restrict coding and art assets from being used elsewhere?

That makes 0 sense because, ultimately, people are still going to be able to buy the exact same game, gameplay wise, on the plataform you just secured "art asset exclusivity" for at some unnamed cost (or do you think companies enter draconian agreements without some sort of compensation for them?). As far as compensation goes, what would they gain from Sony to do it? Funding to make the game better? But its a multiplataform, so it ends up going to the competing plataforms as well (and worst of all, you lost resources, while the competition didn't), so not the best strategy for Sony here. Hell, the better strategy would be to actually spend resources on securing REAL exclusivity on either games or even game content (not mere assets, mind you - I'm talking about the scummy practise of gating certain DLC to a plataform, though these usually end up being timed-exclusives now), with a focus on getting the jump on their arch-enemy and most direct competitor, the Xbone.

Let us not forget the bad blood such campaign would willingly cause between the company and gamers (as seen on the forums) for no particular reason. What are they trading for all these negatives? Finally, PC games tend to have a higher profit margin due to lesser overhead, thanks to an almost 100% digital distribution system (so no shiping, handling, stocking, transporting, manufacturing and employee fees or blueray licensing fees), less taxes (you can sell worldwide and skip on paying taxes on quite a few countries that aren't up to speed on the whole internet thing), lower digital distro tax (this is something I can't source, but I heard developers saying before its cheaper to sell on steam than on Xbox Live / PSN etc) and so on.

Let us not forget the fact that modders will still be at play upgrading the visual quality of the game, at least in some capacity, putting the final nail in the coffin.

If you are telling me "can this be put in a contract?", then you don't need to bother. Of course it can! You can make a legal agreement for almost anything. The paper will certainly not reject it. What i'm debating here is that this makes no sense from a business perspective.

This would make more sense if we had proof of Sony working alongside with Microsoft to tone down the quality of PC games, but this is crazy talk. Microsoft wouldn't work alongside Sony that easily, and Microsoft also has a presence (and according to them, is looking to expand it) on PC gaming. However, if this was an industry-wise conspiracy, and we had some measure of proof of it happening, I'd be more inclined to believe.

Deprieving entire games from being featured on the competitor hardware makes sense because it aggregates a lot of value to your system. You wanna play Uncharted? The absolute only way is to buy a Sony console! Wanna play Halo? Must buy a microsoft system or bust (unless you count Halo CE on the PC)! Wanna play Mario stuff? Nintendo or bust!

On these cases, the effect is big, because you cannot experience the content elsewhere. Same goes for DLC locked to a certain console. But in this case...? It isn't the same. You can still experience the exact same gameplay, albeit with less bells and whistles, and that will probably get some mod support to make it slightly better.

Too much to lose, too little to gain.

Edit: I forgot about one very big argument against this theory as well. They would be actively sabotaging THEIR OWN GAME on the plataform where they stand to gain the most from sales (since, like I explained earlier, they have a lot less costs involved on selling games on the PC).

[MastaMez]

This is a good game. It's just not worth $50. Ridiculous how Koei wants so much money for so little effort.