Street Fighter V

This is the first Street Fighter game I may not be looking forward to.

Why? Because it's an exclusive?

The politics behind it being exclusive, yes.

Politics how? What politics?

Well it's an emotional thing really. So I'll understand if you don't get what I'm saying and where I'm coming from. The Partnership with Sony pretty much means that Sony pretty much paid for Street Fighter V this time around, as in they provided the funds to create and distribute the game this is why they have exclusivity this time around. This be the first Street Fighter to never to have an arcade cabinet of any kind at all. This is also the first numbered Street Fighter that only appeared on one of the three main competing consoles. Street Fighter III appeared on Dreamcast, PS 2, and Xbox and eventually to all the 7th Gen consoles as well. We were sharing. We all had Street Fighter, it wasn't a Nintendo Game, or a Sega Game, or a Microsoft game. It was just a game we all had. It was available and easily attained by all. No matter what you owned you could grab street fighter. Now it's just a trophy for some company to lord over other companies heads.

Why can't everyone have Street Fighter anymore? It's been this way since SFII, we all had Street Fighter, and were happy. We didn't have to build a gaming PC, we didn't have to buy a console, we only needed the game.

This means we'll never see SF V on any other console besides Sony ones, maybe we'll see SF VI on some other console 10 years from now. But Street Fighter V will stay right there on a sony console. Updated rerelease, will remain right on the sony console of the time.

edited 17th Jan '15 6:23:41 PM by SilentlyHonest

I think that Capcom sees no money in developing for the Xbox brand. Despite its frequent pandering to Western audiences, Capcom is ultimately a Japanese company that makes games for Japanese audiences, and the Xbox has always tanked in Japan, regardless of which gen you're talking about. In addition, despite SF4 supposedly running better on Xbox consoles, according to VG Chartz, when combining the sales figures of every update, the PS3 versions sold about 4.1 million units in comparison to the Xbox 360's 2.8 million. They've probably taken these sales figures into account when considering who to develop SF5 for. To be honest, I'm actually pretty surprised that Capcom's even making SF5 for PC, as PCs aren't often seen as gaming devices in Japan and they haven't sold nearly as many copies of the PC versions 4 as the 360 versions. Granted, VG Chartz hasn't included Ultra into the equation yet, but it's still kinda weird.

There were more amiibo's and PS 3's sold in Japan over the holidays than Xbox 360 and One combined. Xbox is dead in Japan(hell their Xbox Japan boss quit due to the low numbers).

Xbox One gets Killer Instinct and PS 4+PC gets Street Fighter V. We all share Mortal Kombat X.

As I understand it, the X Box and X Box One never really sold in Japan in the first place.

Is it a poor system compared to others, or did the Japanese market just never see fit to give it a chance at all?

It doesn't have any exclusive RPG's(they had to pay for Tales of Vesperia and the updated version was only on PS 3), never stood a chance to break into the family games market due to Nintendo, focused on shooters when they've almost never sold well in Japan, you had to pay for the online even before PS 4 started too etc.

So a lot of mistakes, combined with not having the right kind of games, alongside not being able to make the kind of games people might have liked then?

Ah well.

~Obligatory PUT IN RAINBOW MIKA demand~

Granted, the way they handle it is likely different over there, but Microsoft never really seems to be interested in supporting Japanese gaming either - so it doesn't surprise me that they don't capture much interest over there themselves. Their localizations are typically poor or lacking in content, whenever they ever even do it.

Especially in terms of fighting games, it's especially pronounced because there are a lot of smaller Japanese fighting games coming out these days, which apparently aren't even on Xbox's radar.

Serious Question (which I asked in the other thread, but I want to ask again here):

Is SF 4 the Brawl of Street Fighter? Because a lot of people seem to remark on how slow SF4 is to other fighting games, and some Smash 4 and Brawl defenders like to point to SF4 to how a slow game can be competitive.

Also, I stumbled across this BS:

Wouldn't go that far, SF 4 doesn't have a random occurring mechanic that heavily factors the outcome of matches. Even so, there's a lot of design choices that people (SF 4 fans included) don't agree with so the comparison's not that far off.

I personally think part of SF 5 not having an XB 1 port is because of Steam. It has a huge install base (certainly bigger than the XB 1) and is much easier to deal with than Microsoft. Having PS 4-PC crossplay certainly helps. However, I am suprised with the lack of an Arcade release.

Or just that Sony is paying for and codeveloping the game, and having a Xbone port would make about as much sense as a Mario port for anything. That it'll be on Steam is what surprises me.

Ah should've said that better, I know Sony's paying for the game and whatnot. I think Capcom accepted Sony's offer because of Steam's existence making an XB 1 port unnecessary. Just a theory.

@Niitris: So would it be more like the Smash 4 of Street Fighter (which means that there's no randomness yet the game is still kinda slow and defensive)?

I think that Street Fighter 4 is more like a fusion of Brawl and Project M than anything else. Slow and with some questionable design choices, but with other great ones that ultimately sent people back to the series in droves.

Ah, so that's how they're paying for this. I was wondering about that.

@DragonGeyser: Keep in mind though: Yoshinori Ono said something that sounds eerily similar to what Sakurai has been saying about Smash.

Also, what are these "questionable design choices"? I'm not really an SF4 player (just SSF2 SNES), but I don't see anything like tripping in any iteration of SF4.

Mostly the odd pace, FADC being really sloppy most of the time, lenient inputs made separating fireballs and dragon punches wonky, trying to make an accessible game yet still making the game revolve around tight 1-frame links, the revenge meter, and a whole list of glitches that still grows to this day even with the release of Omega edition. There's a lot of odd choices that the games get criticized for.

I think SF 3 is closer to Brawl than SF 4; it's not so much just pacing and speed. They both have that one mechanic that changes the game entirely; obvious in Brawl's case, SF 3 has parrying which many people felt took away the essence of Street Fighter (and even go as far as to say ruined the game). I'd say SF 4 is closer to Smash 4; questionable design choices here and there but overall an enjoyable game that isn't "tainted" by one glaring inclusion. I admit I'm kinda speaking out my butt since I'm not too educated on the technical aspects of Smash.

Of course that would mean SF 2 (ST in particular) = Melee (signature games that fans swear by).

I feel like SF 2 gets by on grandpappy rep and nostalgia. 3rd Strike is the most popular with hardcore fans and SF 4 more with today's modern gamers in general.

I'd say SF 4 is the Brawl according to some fans, with 3rd Strike as the melee. SF 2 is probably more comparable to OG Smash.

Considering how blindingly fast SSF2T can be, I'd say that is the Melee of SF:

Are we going simply by game speed though? I thought we were talking about competitive/gameplay aspects in general, not just speed.

Or you could just abandon an analogy that doesn't work.