How many hunting games have been created and released for PS3/PS4/PSV?
The only one I can think of is the upcoming God Eater 2. Expansion of a game with ~400-500k sales on Vita. A game that was released on PSP, which was the main platform at the time of the announcement.
I can't think of any other. Maybe Gundam Breaker? Started on PS3, home of Gundam games this generation. Toukiden? Same as God Eater 2.
I edited the message just before you posted that to specify that I was talking about Vita.
And I sure expect Sony to pay and give incentives other than engines and devkits for certain games. I only asked because in your original message it seemed like you were implying that Sony was giving money for almost every Vita game in development and that's why 3DS wasn't getting them.
Sorry, I certainly didn't mean every title. I do think it's plausible they approached 15-20 different games at the beginning (when the system was REALLY desperate) though with offerings of various quality from developers they thought would be willing to go for it, and that after that point they turned those way down or stopped handing them out, with the exception of really high gain titles.
Basically I think they paid for the first wave of titles post launch to show up by getting things ported from PSP or PS3 earlier than they would have otherwise through a mix of technology and some small to moderate offerings (which would be very cheap in the grand scheme of things given the market and the platform) and then let momentum do most of the work afterwards.
I do think that the marketing campaigns around "Vita x Hunting Action" or whatever it was would be part of a co-marketing agreement to get titles that were on PSP or PS3 to also show up on Vita. I wouldn't be surprised if they got some breaks on licensing too, especially for something like Phantasy Star that was announced so far out on a platform that really wasn't looking super sure of itself at the time. It gave a "big game in the horizon" effect to help mindshare, and that to me seems like something they'd be willing to pay for.
If I implied they were paying across the board then I explained myself poorly, my apologies. I had a specific timeframe and scope in mind that I think I didn't share, and feel that set up the system for the support it gets now.
Similarly I think a lot of Japanese publishers are porting games to PS4 that they would have otherwise hesitated on due to some incentives from Sony, though by this I don't mean that I feel they're running up with millions of dollars to each publisher, rather offering an easy way to do it and perhaps offering co-marketing or other incentives regarding licensing fees as well.
I would expect that to largely stop if/once the PS4 finds some solid footing outside of really high value titles.
How were they one of the first?
Well (making the assumption of what you're implying) I do feel that Digimon and Monster Rancher were the first two chronologically, and had success for a while.
However, unless I'm forgetting something very obvious, I feel this was the third one with a really large transmedia, advertising, and merchandizing push to go along with the game, which I'd still consider to be one of the first.
To give context to what I mean by that statement, I wouldn't have considered Battlefield a serious competitor to Call of Duty (4 and after, not earlier when it was a much smaller series) until either Bad Company 2 or Battlefield 3 where they started spending $50-$100+ million on marketing, putting in all the expected features, and actually trying to get the game to sell like Call of Duty instead of simply being in the same conceptual space.
I think Activision once summed this up quite well on the competition between Call of Duty: World at War and Brothers in Arms: Hell's Highway:
http://kotaku.com/5020879/activisio...arboxs-hells-highway-a-crappy-war-game-update
Kotaku said:
Asked about Gearbox Software's take on the genre, the newest iteration of which will be Brothers In Arms: Hell's Highway, Heller said "I watched the trailer and I'm was like 'These guys aren't even in the same league.'" Heller has even more gentlemanly things to say about the Brothers In Arms series.
"We don't even think about them," Heller noted, giving his opinion about the other WWII hold out. "They're not a game we even think about when we're playing, we think about the best shooters, we play [Call of Duty 4] Modern Warfare, we play... Gears of War, we play Halo, you know, that's the competition. We want to look at the games that do great storytelling."
Heller sums up, "We don't want to look at someone who's just making a crappy war game."
Or, put less bluntly, simply being in the same genre doesn't make them a real competitor. World at War went on to obliterate Brothers In Arms sales by like 5-6 times IIRC.
That is and excellent point but it does differ from Resident Evil because the genre king is already on 3DS. Someone who was primarily fan of Monster Hunter but wanted a second series to play would have gone with God Eater or Phantasy Star on PSP. When this gen rolls around MonHun goes one way and the other two goes another; as they are primarily a MonHun fan they decide to just get a 3DS. Now their only option for a second series if FF Explorers so they invest in that. When the 4DS rolls around if all four series are on it are they going to go back to God Eater or Phantasy Star or stick with the two they have been playing most recently? On top of that there is the MonHun and FF Explorers developers are also likely going to get their hands on dev kits earlier and release their games earlier in which case people that went from Vita to 4DS might decide to grab one of those instead.
That hypothetical scenario would probably be quite pessimistic but is it not something that should be a concern?
It is certainly a concern. However, we are talking about an audience that likes the genre enough to be interested in buying a second game, was not interested enough to buy a Vita despite the large number of genre titles there, and is also not interested enough to consider all the available options if a bunch of "new" series suddenly show up on 4DS.
Like the question becomes how many people would have bought Toukiden, God Eater, or Phantasy Star if they were on 3DS, but not on Vita, are going to buy Final Fantasy Explorers, and will not be willing to consider those other series again in the future.
It could be a large number of people, but that's the kind of prognostication that each of these publishers have to make versus any opposite scenarios on the Vita plus any potential incentives they received. I think a publisher brimming with confidence in their series would have selected the 3DS and went for the biggest possible audience and then heavily marketed to them. I don't think there are many Japanese publishers that actually have that kind of confidence.
For further details on that, see my above response about Pokemon competitors.
The lack of ability to cross save and cross play would be a problem for PS4/4DS releases. It is likely the only reason MH Tri Ultimate was on Wii U instead of PS3 although some think MH 4 Ultimate will get a PS4 release.
I actually don't see this as an issue because for it to be a problem, that means the customers actually own both systems, at which point they can simply pick the one that makes more sense for them to play on.
The audience they would miss by not releasing on PS4 would be the audience that does not buy a 4DS, at which point they would simply get the PS4 version, and the audience they would miss by not releasing a 4DS version would not have a PS4, and would simply get the 4DS version.