Gaming News

I read Capcom’s integrated report for 2020, and i… do not understand them. Can someone explain the corporate logic to me?

Originally i posted this on Resident Evil sub, because all discussed issues are directly related to RE franchize, but it was deleted because of mentionining the leaks, and even pointing out that leaks were never a subject of this discussion mods there decided to turn ignore mode on. Hope it will get a better reception here, because i really want to hear what other people think about this all.

This is the report i am talking about:

I don't understand how those corporations work. Maybe anyone can explain it to me? Here is the parts that caught my attention:

In the paragraph called "The COO’s Discussion of Growth Strategies" they have a diagram that tells us that they pay attention to user's feedback, user analysys and game reception.

In reality, we see a completly different situation. When the entire community cries in Outbreak (not even a remake, just a group coop story game mode), they commit to remaking single-player games, and creating a CallofDuty-ish pvp mode for Village – literally the opposite of what community is asking them about. Have Umbrella Corps taught them nothing? They also doing the same thing with in-game updates – for example, when entire community in Resistance were screaming and leaving game because they thought that playing against gun-based Masterminds in a RE-themed game is boring, they… added a fully gun-focused Mastermind in next update, while nerfing all the creature builds to the ground, that caused really massive decline in player base. Or when people desperatly asked for story DLC in RE3 because of it's low length (and the fact that even Re2 had additional content), they decided to just move on to the next game instead.

"We ignore what you ask for, and we give you what you never asked for" seems to be Capcom's motto today. So who are those "players" from the diagram? QA testers from the company? Who's feedback they are listening to?

They mention "long-term product lives for major titles" when they talk about "Continionus updates", but RE3 isn't even in the list. Probably, because it had no real updates. So… it's not considered as a major title?

They say "Our level of overseas sales is improving through comprehensive use of the PC platform, which enables sales to the entire word", yet pc is most disregarded platform – for example, it excluded from Reverse beta, put no anti-cheat on Resistance, and they aslo made a really terrible Steam regional pricings that making no sense (here are details: And you know what's funny? They doing exactly same thing with Village: It costs 65$ in Ukraine and 35$ in Russia despite having SAME regional locked copy, and much lower average level of income in Ukraine. I can safely bet that everyone here will either ignore it ot buy from russian code re-sellers.

Read more:  YSB: Nier Automata (2017)

Is that how you treat a platform that allows you to expand your sales overseas?

In the "relationship with customers" paragraph they speak about dangers of gatcha and lootboxes, saying how they do not support either of those. They say "in our home video games, we provide any content required to enjoy the full game free of charge, while offering some additional content at low cost."

It's funny, because in Resistance you are getting not only skins, but also all equipment (that is crucial for winning games) ONLY from lootboxes. Yes, those can't be bought with real money. But exp boosters, that would allow you to grind those lootboxes much faster than regular players are only sold for real money. So technically they do not sell lootboxes, but they have them, and players paying with either time or money to get them, and then praying on rng factor to get items they want to have. Double standards, eh?

Speaking about Resistance… it's funny how it's not even mentioned a single time, and i supose there is a good reasons for that. Someone at Capcom did everything in their power to make this game fail:

  • First, and most massive mistake were bundling it with RE3. Even in their leaked documents Capcom acknowledge that target audience of Resistance were players who enjoy asymmetric games. And all of those games sold for 20$ or less. I wonder, who thought it would be a good idea to bundle it together with RE3, that has entierly different target audience, and sell it for 60$, so most of the customers who only wanted one game had no choice but to buy the other one as well? Ok, that could be done to increase starting sales, but why the hell those two are bundled together still, almost year after release and even after Resistance support were discontinued? Separate release would give them money with literally no expences at all.

  • Resistance Steam page is hidden from everyone but RE3 owners. First time i seeing developers want to hide existance of their game. What is the logic in this?

  • No anti-cheat in multiplayer game. Even despite free solutions like VAC. If your game can be hacked with cheat engine – no surpise that hight amount of cheaters destroyed pc playerbase really fast, and causing a lot of harm on consoles as well.

  • No dedicated servers, resulting in laggy expirience and even disconnects for many players. And of course they punish players for being disconnected because of those lags…

  • Lootboxes instead of shop that would allow people to buy in-game equipment only for in-game currency (with no way to speed it up for real money), and skins into two seperate groups: sold for real money (to support continious updates of game) and sold for in-game currency (to let players something to progress for).

  • No promoutions. At all. Except for the trailer, i haven't saw any promoutional materials for Resistance… anywhere. You can't sell your game well if nobody knows about it.

  • All crucial issues remain unfixed. For example, people still can shoot enemies trough walls with specific angles, or remain invunerable to BOW's attacks in specific places of the map, biocores can be sniped from locations not visible to cameras, etc.

Read more:  YSB Valheim

Even despite all those issues game was popular and still has active playerbase – more on consoles than on pc, because of issues stated above. Yet the support for this game were discontinued only 6 months after the release in favour of making the COD'is primitive shooter called REverse. First they made a really unique, unlike any others game that required strategy, planning, had high replayability because of build and tactics vairance, and could bring them a fortune if it was properly handled and updated with iconic content. Then, they do everything in their power for game to lose it's playerbase – it feels like they never planned for it to sucseed in the first place. And then they just dropping it to make the primitive rung and gun game… I wonder, will they also release it without anti-cheat, servers, etc, and then just end support?

Can someone explain me what is wrong with those people? They can write that elaborate report that would probably take a day to fully read it, put tons of various statistics and researches in it, but unable to realize such simple things as "sell games to the target audience", "promoute your games", "online games are made to give profit in long run, and not "drop and make another one" style", "if you manage prices in poor countries properly it will give you more profit", "online games need an anti-cheat"?

Read more:  Just finished - the Witcher 1 - great game

How can an entier huge company with 2300 employees be in such bubble to not realize any of those issues and write the report that pretends none of them exist? It can't be that i can see all that, and 2300 professionals who actually working in the company cannot. From the pictures there i see that all directors and very old people. Also i heared that older generation in Japan are very stubborn in their ways of doing things. Can it be that possibly be that everyone in company is aware about all this, and all the lost profits caused by such actions, but a person who makes all the important calls decided to be ignorant because he "knows better"? I cannot think of any other possible explanation behind Capcom's repeated mistakes of same kind, especially in attempts to develop a multiplayer title. It feels like person responcible for managing such projects never even played multiplayer games in first place, they simply have no idea what they are doing.


Similar Guides

More about Gaming News

Post: "I read Capcom’s integrated report for 2020, and i… do not understand them. Can someone explain the corporate logic to me?" specifically for the game Gaming News. Other useful information about this game:

Top 20 NEW Medieval Games of 2021

Swords, dragons, knights, castles - if you love any of this stuff, you might like these games throughout 2021.

10 NEW Shooter Games of 2021 With Over The Top Action

We've been keeping our eye on these crazy action oriented first and third person shooter games releasing this year. What's on your personal list? Let us know!

Top 10 NEW Survival Games of 2021

Survival video games are still going strong in 2021. Here's everything to look forward to on PC, PS5, Xbox Series X, Nintendo Switch, and beyond.

You Might Also Like

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *