Talk:Capcom Five/Archive 1

Comment
Are there numbers to back up the claims? Last I heard: Killer 7 did very poorly, well within 100,000 total worldwide, whereas Viewtiful Joe broke 1 Million Worldwide on the Gamecube alone.--AlphaTwo 16:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

The intro to this article is poorly written and misrepresents the facts. On December 10th, 2002, Capcom _USA_ said that all those games announced were for the Gamecube exclusive.

On January 23, 2003, Capcom USA stated they misunderstood the communication from Japan headquarters, and only Resident Evil was in talks to be an exclusive. To state that these were "intended to be Gamecube exclusives" is likely a misunderstanding on the original editor's part based on a rumour that took on life of it's own. I'll correct it to state more neutrally the events that _actually_ occured. I don't even need to cite new sources to back my assertion. The previous editor already cited them for me, bizzarely enough. SoheiFox (talk) 02:46, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Though the article has already been reviewed pretty heavily, one thing that bothers me is the line "Nintendo refused to include a character from Capcom as a direct result of Resident Evil 4's multi-platform release.", as its citation,, is a Rumor page on Kotaku.com with no sources cited whatsoever. OnReload (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Future directions
Some ideas for future expansion, if it pans out. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:00, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Capcom's 3DS support, particularly with Monster Hunter Tri G
 * http://andriasang.com/comypl/ Wii U support

Resident Evil 4's impact on the absence of Capcom's characters from Super Smash Bros. Brawl
I find the following sentence problematic. Nintendo refused to include a character from Capcom as a direct result of Resident Evil 4'''s multi-platform release. 

It states a fact but the source is labelled as a rumour and cites no verifiable sources. Furthermore, the rumour claims that Nintendo did not want any of Capcom's characters in SSBB, but Sakurai, who had total creative control over Brawl, was not part of Nintendo at the time Brawl was developed. So for the sentence in question to be true, we would need a reliable source citing that either Capcom or Sakurai did not want any of Capcom's characters in SSSB due to RE4's multi-platform release.
 * Kotaku is considered a reliable source, per WP:VG/S. Also, there is a difference between a rumor and an inside source. If their editors decide that info from their inside source is worth reporting on, then it's good enough for Wikipedia. Neither of your sources state anything specifically contrary to the Kotaku source, so they can't be used as justification for removal, per WP:OR. Axem Titanium (talk) 13:25, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * First, check the article again. Kotaku themselves labelled the story as a rumour, why are you reporting it as a fact? Second, the rumour clearly contradicts my sources. Sakurai states that he was the only one who decided on Brawl's content while Kotaku's rumour claims that Nintendo prevented the inclusion of Capcom's characters. Last but not least, regarding Kotaku's reliability per WP:VG/S; For posts before 2010, only those (significant) opinion posts that are written by established writers are allowed.  How is a rumour based on non-verifiable sources a (significant) opinion post? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.91.54 (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I saw you edit but that Kotaku's article is not considered a reliable source as per WP:VG/S and directly contradicts a reliable source. Please remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.91.54 (talk) 14:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) Brian Ashcraft is Kotaku's Senior Contributing Editor. The original Kotaku reliability discussion references him by name. The qualification of "(significant) opinion post" is in reference to disallowing "blog/geeky posts that have little news or reporting significance", which does not apply to this article. Hence, this article is reliable. What you are doing is using a few sources to draw conclusions about something that the sources do not explicitly state, a process called WP:SYNTH. Neither of your sources mention Nintendo-imposed sanctions but this lack of mention does not mean they did not exist. As outspoken as Sakurai might appear to be, neither you nor I could possibly know if he's under an NDA about this very topic and thus could not talk about it in your linked interviews (i.e. we lack evidence of absence). I realized that the article appeared to report Kotaku's insider source as fact, so I modified it to make the source of the information more clear. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * My bad, I misread. Still, how can you get more explicit than I decide what goes in the game; nobody else.? That single sentence leaves no room for any Nintendo-imposed sanctions on Brawl's content and cements Sakurai as the only decision maker. If Sakurai was under NDA, he could have simply refused to comment like he did later in the interview I had a lot more characters, for example... but sadly, I can't discuss which ones didn't make it!. You are suggesting that Sakurai is lying and I would like some proof solid of that. And I disagree that you made the source of information more clear. You phrased it in a very awkward way so as to give it more weight and hide the fact that it was reported as a rumour. It is rumoured that Nintendo refused to include a character from Capcom as a direct result of Resident Evil 4's multi-platform release., would have been much better if you had really intended to clarify the validity of the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.91.54 (talk) 19:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * How about "Kotaku reported on a rumor that Nintendo refused to include a character from Capcom as a direct result of Resident Evil 4's multi-platform release"? "It is rumored" feels WP:WEASELish. Another alternative is "Kotaku's insider/unnamed source reported..." Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Out of the examples you posted, I would go with "Kotaku reported on a rumour...". Otherwise you are omitting that Ashcraft labelled it as a rumour and did not report it as news.I believe that's a pretty big difference. Personally, I find naming the source in this case redundant as it doesn't add anything (all the sources on wikipedia should be reliable, rumours are rumours) and anyone who is interested is only one click away from the source list.--93.103.91.54 (talk) 22:09, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, done. Also, I think the desire to avoid weasel words outweighs any worry of redundancy. Axem Titanium (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

For Nintendo, Capcom's reversal on GameCube exclusivity, particularly with Resident Evil 4, was a betrayal that soured relations between the two companies for several years.
That statement is based on nothing but hearsay loosely based on rumors. There is in fact evidence to the contrary. Fact is Capcom has never stopped making games for Nintendo's consoles. They always supported the DS, Wii, 3DS and even the Wii U. And please take special note that many of those games were developed from the ground up, they weren't usually ports. There is also no clear verifiable evidence that Nintendo has ever given any sort of sign of feeling 'betrayed' by what Capcom had to do for the benefit of their own company. The whole "Nintendo blocked Capcom characters from Super Smash Bros" theory is downright ridiculous. Even if that rumor is based on what a popular blog wrote on the subject. Consider that Nintendo didn't include any Namco characters in that game. So could we also assume that Nintendo or Sakurai were trying to block that company from the game? They even allowed Link to make it into their Soul Calibur game. Anyway, after how Capcom has consistently trusted Nintendo with their successful Ace Attorney series of games and more recently with their Monster Hunter series and even making several Resident Evil games from the ground up for Nintendo systems (this after having made the mainline series exclusive to the GameCube), it really is hard to believe that bad blood between these companies due to the Capcom 5 debacle, even existed. Capcom's support on Nintendo systems never, ever stopped. Not even for 'years' as that section of the article implies. That's ridiculous. Therefore, I believe that that section from the article should be either removed or revised with actual data that can be verified. Thank you. Pikminister (talk) 08:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I tried to word the source as neutrally as possible, but the Kotaku article states "Several insiders tell us that Nintendo was apparently still upset about GameCube exclusive Resident Evil 4 going multi-platform, and thus, decided not to include Capcom characters in Super Smash Bros. Brawl during development". Even though we don't have access to Kotaku's anonymous sources, we trust that they are reliable because we consider Kotaku reliable and they wouldn't report on unreliable anonymous sources. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * But has there been ANY other source that corroborated that 'rumor'? See, here's the thing. This site is allowing one source (that has been proven wrong before and was even called out for spining & twisting words of famous industry people like David Jaffe or Hideki Kamiya, just to get pageviews) to explain something that has no solid proof. None whatsoever. The fact that there are no Capcom characters in SSBM or SMBB means absolutely nothing, considering that there are also no characters from Square-Enix, Namco, Atlus, or whatever other company you can name in that game either. What there is however, is hard evidence that Capcom and Nintendo have been working side-by-side for years. Capcom never, ever stopped making games for Nintendo systems. Not even for one year after the Capcom 5 situation happened. When it comes to Capcom and Nintendo, something unique happens: Capcom almost always makes games for the ground up for Nintendo's systems. Then you got the fact that two Capcom games - Resident Evil 1 (remake) and Resident Evil Zero have remained exclusive to Nintendo consoles for more than 10 years straight! So again I ask, where is the evidence that there ever was bad blood between these two companies? Because the track record between the two say otherwise. They're like best pals or something. What I see instead, is Sony and MS fans crying foul over what they perceive as favoritism by Capcom toward Nintendo systems. Like when they made the Resident Evil series exclusive to the Gamecube or more recently when they pulled away the Monster Hunter franchise from Sony consoles. I just don't see any bad blood there, sorry. The cooperation between the companies has been steady ever since the Capcom 5 thing went down. Pikminister (talk) 00:10, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I think there's an issue of directionality here. Capcom can make as many exclusive games for Nintendo as it wants (and it wants to because money), but Nintendo doesn't have to give Capcom the time of day when it comes to Smash Bros. Capcom will continue to make games for systems because that's what 3rd party dev/publishers do. However, from Nintendo's perspective, Nintendo (as the developer of SSB) has the power to decide who goes into their own game and may have held that grudge for many years, even as Capcom continued to show public support for Nintendo by making tons of games. At any rate, I'm speculating about the motivations of multi-billion dollar media companies. Regardless of what is actually the reason for what happened, the bare truth is we don't know. All we can do is report on what exists, which is this Kotaku rumor. I believe I've presented it in as sterile and neutral terms as possible. No one's going to be confused that it's anything more than a rumor. Brian Ashcraft is a reputable journalist and Wikipedia considers him reliable. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well then, if you admit that this is merely a rumor and we don't know if there is any truth to it, then that theory should be branded as such in the main article. I also disagree with what you said about "No one's going to be confused that it's anything more than a rumor". Because that part of the main article never suggest that its a rumor. No hints are given in the wording, that its a rumor. It is instead stated as a fact. And apparently, only because Brian Ashcraft wrote it and for no other reason. Like I mentioned before, there is no evidence that supports what Kotaku or Mr. Ashcraft wrote or said about Nintendo holding a grudge against Capcom. Or that it went on "for years". What's more, there is no evidence that Nintendo holds a grudge against "any" 3rd party developer. If anything, in reality quite the opposite happens. There is also hard evidence that Capcom and Nintendo have had a healthy relationship ever since the Capcom 5 happened. I also question your need to keep that theory as "neutral" in the main article. When its clear that its a rumor. And you should actually point out that it is one. Like you told me right here in this section. Its the right thing to do. Otherwise, Wikipedia could lose its focus and start adding rumors as facts, merely on the opinion that someone "reputable" like Mr. Ashcraft spread it around. I don't think that's the way to go. Thanks for your replies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pikminister (talk • contribs) 06:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? It clearly states "Kotaku reported on a rumor that..." and I don't think you can get any more clear-cut or upfront about it. Axem Titanium (talk) 15:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Please read the header of this very section. I'm talking about the part of the article that reads "For Nintendo, Capcom's reversal on GameCube exclusivity, particularly with Resident Evil 4, was a betrayal that soured relations between the two companies for several years." I'm talking about THAT. That part of the article states that Nintendo and Capcom's relationship went South because the Gamecube lost the Capcom 5's exclusivity and RE4. That's completely unrelated to the Smash Bros. rumor and what Kotaku wrote on that game. The only reason I've talked about it here is because its been used as an excuse to support the idea that Nintendo holds a grudge on Capcom. Which I believe is really stretching the facts and not a good argument to use for it. Like I've been explaining here, the relationship between Nintendo and Capcom did not suffer at all due to losing those (Capcom 5 & RE4) exclusivity deals. And it never went on for years either (there is no hard evidence of that ever happening). What instead went on for years, is Capcom's support for DS, Wii and 3DS. Even making many games from the ground up for said Nintendo systems. So, I once again ask that that part of the article (this part: "For Nintendo, Capcom's reversal on GameCube exclusivity, particularly with Resident Evil 4, was a betrayal that soured relations between the two companies for several years.") needs to either be removed or backed with a reliable source that proves that Capcom didn't support Nintendo all these years and/or Nintendo blocked Capcom from releasing their games on its consoles or just gave them the old evil eye. Anything that at least supports that part of the main article. Because as it stands, there is absolutely nothing that supports that claim. And yet, there it is. An unsupported claim being stated as a fact. Now, if its based on a rumor (like you said), then that part of the article should read: "An unsubstantiated rumor claims that for Nintendo, Capcom's reversal on GameCube exclusivity, particularly with Resident Evil 4, was a betrayal that soured relations between the two companies for several years." That's how you revise that part of the article. You have to mention that its based on a rumor from the very start. Not state it like a fact and then kinda hint that its based on an unrelated rumor (Sakurai blocking Capcom characters from Smash Bros). I really don't see what's so confusing about what I' asking for here. If something is based on a rumor, then clearly mention that its based on one. That's all. Thanks. Pikminister (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC)