Topic: Tales of Symphonia PS2 US Bound afterall?

[joeamis]

Arg its like Viewtiful Joe all over again.  Tales Trilogy for PS2 in 2005?

[Aretak]

Not exactly a shock if it's true.

[joeamis]

well yea I just mean the whole thing about it's definitely going to be exclusive and they were supposed to be gc exclusive killer aps.

[KDR_11k]

I think Nintendo should secure contracts so they can sue should a third party tout a game as exclusive and later on not keep with the promise. Maybe couple that with decreased royalities for exclusives (provided they don't already do that).

On the other hand, this is IGN PS2.

[Mario]

Ugh.

There's no news here at all, it's entirely speculation.

[Uncle Rich AiAi]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
I think Nintendo should secure contracts so they can sue should a third party...

Dunno if that's a good idea.  The last thing Nintendo needs is a 3rd party developer to become pissed off at then and then refuse to develop any games for their system (Namco anyone?).

[KDR_11k]

Ai Ai: They have the right to sue a third party making false claims. If the third party negotiated with Nintendo about an "exclusive" game and Nintendo gave the third party benefits in exchange the third party is not allowed to just ake the game non-exclusive after a few months after having received the benefits, that's breach of contract. Attracting third parties is one thing, letting them exploit you is a wholly different matter. I mean, I heard Capcom is somewhat pissed at the guy who signed the RE 4 exclusivity contract, yet they still make new games for the GC. And what is it worth to attract third parties if they only come to backstab you? What if people got the impression that Nintendo cannot hold onto exclusives by this behaviour?
Let's put it like that: If Square ported FFCC to the PS2 and removed the GBA requirements in the process, Nintendo would be really f#ing pissed. After all, they let Square make GBA games in exchange for an exclusive game, if Square ported the game that would be breach of contract. If Capcom released RE 4 on the PS2 as well, that'd be breach of contract. If Rockstar released GTA on the XBox the same day as on the PS2 that would be breach of contract. I can tell you Microsoft would immediately file a suit and demand damages upwards of two billion dollars.

[Mario]

I think they did that with Billy Hatcher & The Giant Egg.

[KDR_11k]

Did what? Make a contract or sue?

[joeamis]

Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
If Rockstar released GTA on the XBox the same day as on the PS2 that would be breach of contract. I can tell you Microsoft would immediately file a suit and demand damages upwards of two billion dollars.

Why would Microsoft sue if they got GTA earlier than planned, at the same time as the PS2 release?  And more like 2 million, not 2 billion, even for Microsoft.

[KDR_11k]

No, I meant if someone breached a contract with Microsoft, sorry, wasn't clear about that.

[Ymeegod]

Usually contacts are time-based though.  Sort of the way Splinter Cell was for the xbox.

ToS for the PS2 is coming a year later than the GC version so I would assume that's why they still state exclusive for the GC still.

And yeah, why would Namco port the game to the PS2 just for the Japan?  So it's not surprising to see it coming to the US since we are the larger fanbase for real-time RPG anyhow.

[KDR_11k]

Hm, why port just for Japan? Hm, why make a game just for Japan? Can't find a reason for this but they still do it.

[Bill Aurion]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mario
I think they did that with Billy Hatcher & The Giant Egg.

Go figure it's a title noone else would care about... :\

[couchmonkey]

Did Nintendo and Namco every truly have an agreement for Tales of Symphonia?  I remember Namco announced it as a GameCube exclusive, but I thought that was out of the goodness of it's heart.  I don't recall reading anything that said Namco and Nintendo were partnered up on the game, and in that case, Namco can do whatever it pleases.  If someone can show me evidence that there was an agreement, I'll cheefully write a poem about how stupid I am!
I think a year's worth of exclusivity is still pretty good.  If you can wait an entire year for the game, you probably didn't want it  that badly anyway.

[KDR_11k]

I was merely proposing a contract for the future. Noone thinks ToS was bound in any way.

[couchmonkey]

It just seems like a lot of people think Nintendo is getting screwed.  It is disappointing that Namco changed it's mind about exclusivity, but I don't think that really counts as getting screwed since there was never any real agreement there.  I still think a year is really good, I can't think of any Xbox "exclusives" that remained exclusive for that long, and I'm sure Microsoft pays for most of those.
As for contracts in the future, that might be a good idea, but I think that contracts can strain relationships with third party developers.

[KDR_11k]

I meant that as having a contract that, if signed, lowers the royality fees significantly and grants Nintendo exclusivity until the release of their next gen system or something. Maybe make signing this contract a requirement for that "only for" thingie.

I think Namco is trying to maximize profits here. They know that cosole games don't get outdated and that exclusives sell better on the GC than multiplatform titles. They made Tales for the GC to avoid competition with the big PS2 RPGs (and maybe because of SCEA), reap the benefits of getting a big fish into the little pond that is the GC RPG market, increase sales by telling everyone the game is exclusive and after being done with that they throw it on the PS2 to reach the main RPG market and sell even more.