Official Next Smash - Speculation & Discussion Thread

[Sucumbio]

I think it’s just my problem in that I tend to care less about things that are really popular. I’m not sure why I’m like that.

So you're a hipster!

 

[Louie G.]

I've been thinking about the major benefactors of "Everyone is Here", mainly these guys.



We know how important the Ballot was for deciding the roster, influencing the Everyone is Here mantra and painting a clear picture of just how popular certain characters are. With the latter point in consideration, assuming some characters are held in greater priority moving forward if they are demonstrably popular, do you think any of these characters are firmly here to stay?

I find myself treating many of them as relatively expendable but I wonder if the demand and any persisting popularity have convinced the team to treat any as a special priority... particularly Wolf and Ice Climbers. Snake is a third party so he ought to be judged separately, but I would predict he was the most popular one in the Ballot so perhaps there will be more initiative to get him back. I typically say we keep Simon if Konami has to be scaled down, but I dunno.

I just feel like it's been too easy for me to be like, yeah they got cut before they could get cut again and not take into account that a concrete display of popularity through that outrcry is why say... Mewtwo is such an obvious returnee now. Out of these I'd probably like to see Wolf come back again the most.

 

[Guynamednelson]

and Tour was giving them a bunch of resources they could repurpose.

Another thing I've considered in regards to Tour is that it never made as much money as MK8D.

Nintendo's never reported they've never made more than $200 million in profits from MKT microtransactions. Meanwhile, even if we act like the 43 million MK8D units sold by the time the Booster Course Pass was announced were all $30, it still made 6 times as much revenue.

But yes, MK8D was extremely lucky Tour had a ton of track models with almost zero overlap with 8's roster.

 

[Ivander]

With the Sega game announcements, do we know who's developing which games? Because I've been seeing mentions that Shinobi is being done by Lizardcube, who helped with Streets of Rage 4. Which already sounds like good news. But I've seen no confirmed confirmation yet.

 

[Sucumbio]

I've been thinking about the major benefactors of "Everyone is Here", mainly these guys.



We know how important the Ballot was for deciding the roster, influencing the Everyone is Here mantra and painting a clear picture of just how popular certain characters are. With the latter point in consideration, assuming some characters are held in greater priority moving forward if they are demonstrably popular, do you think any of these characters are firmly here to stay?

I find myself treating many of them as relatively expendable but I wonder if the demand and any persisting popularity have convinced the team to treat any as a special priority... particularly Wolf and Ice Climbers. Snake is a third party so he ought to be judged separately, but I would predict he was the most popular one in the Ballot so perhaps there will be more initiative to get him back. I typically say we keep Simon if Konami has to be scaled down, but I dunno.

I just feel like it's been too easy for me to be like, yeah they got cut before they could get cut again and not take into account that a concrete display of popularity through that outrcry is why say... Mewtwo is such an obvious returnee now. Out of these I'd probably like to see Wolf come back again the most.

I think the reason behind each of those characters being cut should inform us who is likely to not be cut due to them being cut before. Like why was ice climber cut? Cause smash 4 was in separate between 3ds and wiiU and the 3ds couldn't handle their animation or something? So like that's obviously not a problem anymore so I wouldn't assume just cause they got cut before it's likely to happen again solely for that reason but that's not to say there isn't some other reason they get booted of course. I think of all those Snake is the only one who didn't return not because of a system limits or even dev limits but simply because Konami didn't play ball but I have no actual evidence of this the timing just lines up with the whole Hideo meltdown. So he's unfortunately the one I'm most worried about.

 

[fogbadge]

I've been thinking about the major benefactors of "Everyone is Here", mainly these guys.



We know how important the Ballot was for deciding the roster, influencing the Everyone is Here mantra and painting a clear picture of just how popular certain characters are. With the latter point in consideration, assuming some characters are held in greater priority moving forward if they are demonstrably popular, do you think any of these characters are firmly here to stay?

I find myself treating many of them as relatively expendable but I wonder if the demand and any persisting popularity have convinced the team to treat any as a special priority... particularly Wolf and Ice Climbers. Snake is a third party so he ought to be judged separately, but I would predict he was the most popular one in the Ballot so perhaps there will be more initiative to get him back. I typically say we keep Simon if Konami has to be scaled down, but I dunno.

I just feel like it's been too easy for me to be like, yeah they got cut before they could get cut again and not take into account that a concrete display of popularity through that outrcry is why say... Mewtwo is such an obvious returnee now. Out of these I'd probably like to see Wolf come back again the most.

well ice climbers and the PT were cut due to 3ds limitations so the reason they didn't come back in the first place is gone. snake, we all know konami are hard to deal with so he's up in the air. young link and pichu do seem like they were only brought back cause of everyone is here so i doubt them coming back. even if pichu is arguably more iconic than some of the other pokemon on the roster. wolf, i dunno, he was only absent for one game so it's hard to judge, if it was two in a row like the previous 2 i'd doubt it

 

[Louie G.]

We all know konami are hard to deal with so he's up in the air

How hard is Konami to deal with though? They seemed like one of the most willing contributors to Ultimate if anything, letting the team pile on a ton of Castlevania content and their DLC involvement beginning and ending with a few Mii Costumes (contrasted with other companies like Square Enix getting ample content sold post release). We got that Bomberman AT also. It felt like they were especially eager and grateful to be back on board.

Maybe Metal Gear is its own sensitive can of worms, because of the whole Kojima thing, but Konami on the whole seems to be very easy for Nintendo to collaborate with. If Snake is cut again I personally assume it would be a matter of priorities being elsewhere, wherever they may be. If they gotta cut the third parties in half or something he may or may not be Konami's first billing.

 

[fogbadge]

How hard is Konami to deal with though? They seemed like one of the most willing contributors to Ultimate if anything, letting the team pile on a ton of Castlevania content and their DLC involvement beginning and ending with a few Mii Costumes (contrasted with other companies like Square Enix getting ample content sold post release). We got that Bomberman AT also. It felt like they were especially eager and grateful to be back on board.

Maybe Metal Gear is its own sensitive can of worms, because of the whole Kojima thing, but Konami on the whole seems to be very easy for Nintendo to collaborate with. If Snake is cut again I personally assume it would be a matter of priorities being elsewhere, wherever they may be. If they gotta cut the third parties in half or something he may or may not be Konami's first billing.

Hard to deal with was just a politer than money grabbing *******s

 

[Swamp Sensei]

ARMS and Astral Chain aren't getting sequels, are they?

 

[fogbadge]

ARMS and Astral Chain aren't getting sequels, are they?

hey you never know. I certainly didn’t think I’d ever see another code again

 

[Louie G.]

Hard to deal with was just a politer than money grabbing *******s

Right, but I'm not sure how true that is either. At least in the context of Smash, where they weren't concerned enough to push Castlevania over to DLC in the same way Square Enix is pretty miserly about their expanded content. I imagine Konami views Smash as good optics where millions of new players will be exposed to their series and that will be enough to profit longterm and keep fairly inconsistent or dormant IPs in discussion.

I mean hell, they added Castlevania to Brawlhalla. I know that game makes a surprising amount of money but I have to doubt they're putting up the same amount of cash and viewership as Smash Bros. So Konami is plenty greedy and slimy as a corporation, but maybe not in this specific context?

 

[Ivander]

ARMS and Astral Chain aren't getting sequels, are they?

I mean, if they are, I wouldn't expect them at TGA, with how Nintendo often introduces new games on their Nintendo Directs. Not to mention we haven't exactly seen anything regarding their new console yet, so who knows what hasn't been shown yet.

 

[fogbadge]

Right, but I'm not sure how true that is either. At least in the context of Smash, where they weren't concerned enough to push Castlevania over to DLC in the same way Square Enix is pretty miserly about their expanded content. I imagine Konami views Smash as good optics where millions of new players will be exposed to their series and that will be enough to profit longterm and keep fairly inconsistent or dormant IPs in discussion.

I mean hell, they added Castlevania to Brawlhalla. I know that game makes a surprising amount of money but I have to doubt they're putting up the same amount of cash and viewership as Smash Bros. So Konami is plenty greedy and slimy as a corporation, but maybe not in this specific context?

Yeah but all we know is how much stuff they put in smash not things like how much Nintendo had to pay or things like that.

I’ve always found the idea of SE content in smash being proof of their greed an odd one. Surely they’re constant making of gatcha games is a better example

 

[Speed Weed]

With the Sega game announcements, do we know who's developing which games? Because I've been seeing mentions that Shinobi is being done by Lizardcube, who helped with Streets of Rage 4. Which already sounds like good news. But I've seen no confirmed confirmation yet.

Based on everything we've heard over the years, JSR and Crazy Taxi seem to be done in-house at SEGA. As for the others, I've got no clue on Golden Axe, but a few months back there was a tweet from Komi Games, the Mighty Fight Federation devs, talking about how they were collaborating with SEGA on an action game - and in my opinion the new Streets of Rage looks a lot like them, so that's where I'd put my guess

 

[Louie G.]

I’ve always found the idea of SE content in smash being proof of their greed an odd one. Surely they’re constant making of gatcha games is a better example

Well, we're talking about greed in the context of Smash Bros. Both SE and Konami are greedy in ways outside of the roster, but those aren't especially relevant to whether or not they've shown this hand during negotiations with Nintendo.

Square Enix just has more precedent for this than Konami, since SE has sold all three of their characters as DLC at some point or another and Konami has never had a DLC character. Like I mentioned before, I feel like Konami just sees more equal exchange in letting their series get promotion via Nintendo and potentially making millions of new fans excited about future Castlevania projects or the new Metal Gear remake by proxy. But otherwise there's no reason to believe Konami has ever been especially selfish when putting their characters up for inclusion in comparison.

Granted we don't know what the future holds, just if these working relationships stay as they are right now I feel like it'd be easy enough to work with them again if they wanted.

 

[fogbadge]

Well, we're talking about greed in the context of Smash Bros. Both SE and Konami are greedy in ways outside of the roster, but those aren't especially relevant to whether or not they've shown this hand during negotiations with Nintendo.

Square Enix just has more precedent for this than Konami, since SE has sold all three of their characters as DLC at some point or another and Konami has never had a DLC character. Like I mentioned before, I feel like Konami just sees more equal exchange in letting their series get promotion via Nintendo and potentially making millions of new fans excited about future Castlevania projects or the new Metal Gear remake by proxy. But otherwise there's no reason to believe Konami has ever been especially selfish when putting their characters up for inclusion in comparison.

Granted we don't know what the future holds, just if these working relationships stay as they are right now I feel like it'd be easy enough to work with them again if they wanted.

I suppose

 

[Louie G.]

I suppose

...Sorry, force of habit.

 

[fogbadge]

...Sorry, force of habit.

well played

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

I think the thing with SE and Konami is that its contrasting financial philosophies. The former has very much zeroed in on the value of specific IP's and goes to great lengths to both maximize profits and maintain their broader public value. Final Fantasy (especially VII) and the likes of Dragon Quest are both major cash cows (the former more in the West, the latter in Japan), thus both get frequent spin-offs and are negotiated as DLC because of the likely direct monetary gains.

Konami is certainly very profit driven, but they also have their hands in many non-console gaming projects and tend to go for the path of least resistance with stuff like crossovers, especially for franchises more defined by Western appeal. Could they do a tough negotiation for Snake and the Belmonts to be DLC? Sure, but given that neither is necessarily the center of their focus (with the closest to a big AAA project for either being a recently announced remake of Snake Eater) there's no point in playing hardball when there's decent and easy money in just getting paid to include them in the base game. This is the same company getting steady income from Yu-Gi-Oh mobile releases and Momotaro Dentetsu sequels back in Japan; fighting to get major DLC profits from Smash could potentially be considered as just not worth the time and effort.

 

[chocolatejr9]

ARMS and Astral Chain aren't getting sequels, are they?

If I listed off all the games that'd apply to for me, we'd be here all day...

 

[SPEN18]

I've been thinking about the major benefactors of "Everyone is Here", mainly these guys.



We know how important the Ballot was for deciding the roster, influencing the Everyone is Here mantra and painting a clear picture of just how popular certain characters are. With the latter point in consideration, assuming some characters are held in greater priority moving forward if they are demonstrably popular, do you think any of these characters are firmly here to stay?

I find myself treating many of them as relatively expendable but I wonder if the demand and any persisting popularity have convinced the team to treat any as a special priority... particularly Wolf and Ice Climbers. Snake is a third party so he ought to be judged separately, but I would predict he was the most popular one in the Ballot so perhaps there will be more initiative to get him back. I typically say we keep Simon if Konami has to be scaled down, but I dunno.

I just feel like it's been too easy for me to be like, yeah they got cut before they could get cut again and not take into account that a concrete display of popularity through that outrcry is why say... Mewtwo is such an obvious returnee now. Out of these I'd probably like to see Wolf come back again the most.

Yeah, lots of vets did well on the Ballot, but it's pretty explicable.
For one, the Ballot was directed specifically at Smash fans, so of course the voter base is going to sway more towards liking Smash characters than a more general audience. When any given voter is practically guaranteed to be familiar with the character, and also have a clear idea of how they'd work in Smash, that's a clear and big advantage. I wouldn't underestimate these sorts of effects when it comes to polling.
But second, and perhaps more importantly, the timing of the Ballot played a huge role. The Ballot came right on the heels of these characters being cut, and their removals were fresh on fans' minds. We saw Pichu and YL get plenty of votes on the Ballot, but they were clearly hurt by not having been in Brawl either; being out for two games in a row made them less fresh on people's minds and also perceived as less likely to return. Trainer was hurt by the fact that solo Zard was already implemented. And after that, boom, there's not that many cut characters left to consider, just Wolf, ICs, and Snake, so of course lots of votes were going to get funneled towards them. Yet another circumstantial factor is the reveals of veteran DLC prior to the Ballot, which put the idea of returning vets even more squarely on people's minds.
What I'm trying to say is that, at least in retrospect, these characters doing well on the Ballot was fairly predictable just from considering situational factors that didn't have anything to do with their innate popularities.

But regardless of the above, the other absolutely crucial thing the Ballot cannot tell us is how these characters' popularities compare to vets who weren't cut to begin with. None of those were ever in direct competition with ICs, Wolf, etc. for votes. Particularly, we can't compare with other lower-priority characters who did end up making it. And it's also possible that having so few cut vets by the time of the Ballot prevented votes from being split between them too much. Had more vets not made it into 4, we could've very possibly seen votes for veterans spread more thinly. Or maybe still concentrated on a select few but not necessarily the same ones.

Anyway, it's something to at least keep in mind when thinking about the next roster. As an example, one thing I basically never see on these 50-character rosters people have been churning out is K. Rool being cut. Probably because of his Ballot performance. But I do see the likes of Ike and Lucario cut on these rosters much more frequently. Would K. Rool really be a bigger priority than Ike and/or Lucario? Greninja? Bowser Jr? That is something that K. Rool's Ballot performance cannot answer, because with EiH being a thing in the cycle he was added, he was never in any competition with those characters before now. Not saying K. Rool would or should be cut, and I don't think he will be, but like I said it's something to think twice about before you put him on your roster in the "no-brainers" stage but then proceed to leave any number of others off entirely.

 

[BritishGuy54]

Yeah, lots of vets did well on the Ballot, but it's pretty explicable.
For one, the Ballot was directed specifically at Smash fans, so of course the voter base is going to sway more towards liking Smash characters than a more general audience. When any given voter is practically guaranteed to be familiar with the character, and also have a clear idea of how they'd work in Smash, that's a clear and big advantage. I wouldn't underestimate these sorts of effects when it comes to polling.
But second, and perhaps more importantly, the timing of the Ballot played a huge role. The Ballot came right on the heels of these characters being cut, and their removals were fresh on fans' minds. We saw Pichu and YL get plenty of votes on the Ballot, but they were clearly hurt by not having been in Brawl either; being out for two games in a row made them less fresh on people's minds and also perceived as less likely to return. Trainer was hurt by the fact that solo Zard was already implemented. And after that, boom, there's not that many cut characters left to consider, just Wolf, ICs, and Snake, so of course lots of votes were going to get funneled towards them. Yet another circumstantial factor is the reveals of veteran DLC prior to the Ballot, which put the idea of returning vets even more squarely on people's minds.
What I'm trying to say is that, at least in retrospect, these characters doing well on the Ballot was fairly predictable just from considering situational factors that didn't have anything to do with their innate popularities.

But regardless of the above, the other absolutely crucial thing the Ballot cannot tell us is how these characters' popularities compare to vets who weren't cut to begin with. None of those were ever in direct competition with ICs, Wolf, etc. for votes. Particularly, we can't compare with other lower-priority characters who did end up making it. And it's also possible that having so few cut vets by the time of the Ballot prevented votes from being split between them too much. Had more vets not made it into 4, we could've very possibly seen votes for veterans spread more thinly. Or maybe still concentrated on a select few but not necessarily the same ones.

Anyway, it's something to at least keep in mind when thinking about the next roster. As an example, one thing I basically never see on these 50-character rosters people have been churning out is K. Rool being cut. Probably because of his Ballot performance. But I do see the likes of Ike and Lucario cut on these rosters much more frequently. Would K. Rool really be a bigger priority than Ike and/or Lucario? Greninja? Bowser Jr? That is something that K. Rool's Ballot performance cannot answer, because with EiH being a thing in the cycle he was added, he was never in any competition with those characters before now. Not saying K. Rool would or should be cut, and I don't think he will be, but like I said it's something to think twice about before you put him on your roster in the "no-brainers" stage but then proceed to leave any number of others off entirely.

People are going to be inherently more biased due to a multitude of factors, be it a series they are familiar with, a previous veteran who was cut, simply bandwagoning, or any other reason.

Roster cuts have to be done carefully, as too many people fall into the trap of underestimating more modern characters, such as Pyra/Mythra, or Byleth, which I don’t personally see getting cut in the near future. Likewise, getting rid of too many retro characters might not be a good move, so if Smash was to cut characters, it’s a careful balancing act.

Another common cut I see is Bowser Jr (seriously? He was in Wonder, and has returned to bigger prominence in other spin-offs).

The Smash Ballot was nearly a decade ago, so it’s clearly outdated now, with Nintendo having new characters, and updating older characters with new games, where they may have a better shot at getting into a new Smash game.

 

[Hadokeyblade]

I think Konami's thing is less that they are hard to work with, they clearly aren't if you look at how Ultimate represents them.

It's just that their really controversial lol

 

[Kirbeh]

Smash Ballot was nearly a decade ago

turns to dust

Really has been that long hasn't it?

 

[Ivander]

turns to dust

Really has been that long hasn't it?

Even when you are paying attention, time moves faster than it appears to be.

 

[Louie G.]

Another common cut I see is Bowser Jr (seriously? He was in Wonder, and has returned to bigger prominence in other spin-offs).

Honestly, I fell into this trap for a moment and promptly pulled myself out. I do think Bowser Jr is an evergreen and incredibly important character, who would likely be able to stick around. But I think with Bowser Jr, an area of concern is that he hasn't really.... I guess established himself the same way some other fighters have in Smash? His moveset is a bit impractical and outdone by several other characters in the game, and the inclusion of the Koopalings over the basic Bowser Jr skeleton means he doesn't get as much opportunity to emote and be himself.

I'd have to think harder about what adjustments and changes I would make to Bowser Jr, but I think my point is that people may be more comfortable ditching characters who feel off to them or get obscured by other more prominent or more "fun" characters. I think another testament to this is how often people are willing to do away with Wii Fit Trainer, an especially wonky and odd character who some people love for that very reason but others just don't "get". I do really like Bowser Jr conceptually, so I hope they'll give him some more attention and some more sauce in the future. He's just a little undercooked.

Pyra/Mythra, or Byleth

Min Min probably gets this the worst to be honest - would be cutting an entire "universe" from the Smash roster, and the only new Switch IP introduced in Ultimate. I don't see that happening at all. But yeah, I'm convinced we'll probably end up keeping these guys around. Especially Pyra and Mythra, those two are so immensely popular and that has transcended the progression of the series. Byleth will probably stay since the trajectory of FE right now doesn't even seem like we'll be seeing a brand new entry or protagonist for a bit anyway. Three Houses is also way more popular than Engage, if that was ever a question we needed to answer.

 

[SPEN18]

The Smash Ballot was nearly a decade ago, so it’s clearly outdated now, with Nintendo having new characters, and updating older characters with new games, where they may have a better shot at getting into a new Smash game.

I don't consider the Ballot to be completely irrelevant, as many of the characters which were popular on that Ballot are still popular now, and the Ballot in some cases was basically the key factor in making Nintendo potentially more aware of that popularity. At the very least it definitely rose awareness for certain picks, and that awareness from Nintendo would presumably still be relevant.

But yes, it is a big question mark how much they will continue to make use of that same Ballot, given how old it is now. I imagine they will have to at least take other measures of popularity into account as well, and give less weight to the Ballot. Though I don't think this amounts to throwing that data into the trash bin wholesale, especially since it's still likely the biggest sample size they'll have when it comes to gauging popularities.

 

[Ivander]

The Smash Ballot was nearly a decade ago, so it’s clearly outdated now, with Nintendo having new characters, and updating older characters with new games, where they may have a better shot at getting into a new Smash game.

It doesn't have newer characters from past 2015/16, but that's what I think makes it something to keep. Because a lot of Smash fans are still those who played much older games and still have nostalgia for those games. Do I think a new Smash Ballot would be good to do later down the road? Sure, it's nice to find out who is popular today after a whole bunch of new games.
But I would still keep the old one because it helps with which characters were popular and wanted during that time. Because those same characters may not be as high this time because of newer characters so it's good to know which characters were high before newer ones came into the picture.

 

[Hadokeyblade]

Some of the data on the ballot is probably a bit outdate given that people want too really see guys like Dante and Crash in the series.

Honestly, I fell into this trap for a moment and promptly pulled myself out. I do think Bowser Jr is an evergreen and incredibly important character, who would likely be able to stick around. But I think with Bowser Jr, an area of concern is that he hasn't really.... I guess established himself the same way some other fighters have in Smash? His moveset is a bit impractical and outdone by several other characters in the game, and the inclusion of the Koopalings over the basic Bowser Jr skeleton means he doesn't get as much opportunity to emote and be himself.

I'd have to think harder about what adjustments and changes I would make to Bowser Jr, but I think my point is that people may be more comfortable ditching characters who feel off to them or get obscured by other more prominent or more "fun" characters. I think another testament to this is how often people are willing to do away with Wii Fit Trainer, an especially wonky and odd character who some people love for that very reason but others just don't "get". I do really like Bowser Jr conceptually, so I hope they'll give him some more attention and some more sauce in the future. He's just a little undercooked.



Min Min probably gets this the worst to be honest - would be cutting an entire "universe" from the Smash roster, and the only new Switch IP introduced in Ultimate. I don't see that happening at all. But yeah, I'm convinced we'll probably end up keeping these guys around. Especially Pyra and Mythra, those two are so immensely popular and that has transcended the progression of the series. Byleth will probably stay since the trajectory of FE right now doesn't even seem like we'll be seeing a brand new entry or protagonist for a bit anyway. Three Houses is also way more popular than Engage, if that was ever a question we needed to answer.

I would personally cut Bowser Jr entirely because im sick of seeing the Koopalings lol

 

[dream1ng]

I've been thinking about the major benefactors of "Everyone is Here", mainly these guys.



We know how important the Ballot was for deciding the roster, influencing the Everyone is Here mantra and painting a clear picture of just how popular certain characters are. With the latter point in consideration, assuming some characters are held in greater priority moving forward if they are demonstrably popular, do you think any of these characters are firmly here to stay?

No, but that doesn't mean I think we'll inherently lose them all, just that I don't think any are basically tenured for perpetuity in Smash like Inkling and Villager and the original eight, etc. are.

Though, having said that, I do think all those characters (and, fwiw, Lucas and Roy) are among the more expendable. Pichu and YL the most, then Squirtle and Ivysaur, then ICs, Wolf, Lucas and Roy. Snake is a wildcard. I have no doubt he was among the most popular on the ballot, and that might help increase the priority of retaining him, but it also seems like they didn't even try for him until the ballot.

And he has the seniority when it comes to third-parties, which for Smash does seem important, but... that whole group is stacked, and some of the cuts there are going to happen regardless of stellar qualifications.

I find myself treating many of them as relatively expendable but I wonder if the demand and any persisting popularity have convinced the team to treat any as a special priority... particularly Wolf and Ice Climbers. Snake is a third party so he ought to be judged separately, but I would predict he was the most popular one in the Ballot so perhaps there will be more initiative to get him back. I typically say we keep Simon if Konami has to be scaled down, but I dunno.

I should've read this paragraph before responding because I just echo you a lot, ha.

But yeah, I think Wolf due to popularity and ICs due to being longstanding and unique have better odds of returning, but if the cuts do go deep, I still think they're both at a decent risk of not making it back. I could see Falco getting priority over Wolf, and it's not like the series itself is doing too good these days.

As for Konami, I actually don't think they're tough to deal with anymore. I think there was a rough patch when they were feuding with Kojima and generally being dickwads, but, while they're still kinda dickwads, it seems like, if anything, now they really don't give a **** about any of their properties if the money is there. I mean, if Dead Cells can license Castlevania, I don't think they're saying no to much.

I just feel like it's been too easy for me to be like, yeah they got cut before they could get cut again and not take into account that a concrete display of popularity through that outrcry is why say... Mewtwo is such an obvious returnee now. Out of these I'd probably like to see Wolf come back again the most.

That's valid but the thing is is that even with demonstrable demand via the ballot, the axe is still going to have to come down more thoroughly than in the past, and I think Sakurai is aware that whoever is on the receiving end will experienced renewed demand, yet not all voices will carry equally.

If you cut ICs and Wolf again, but you also cut, like, Banjo and Sora... the louder voices seem fairly obvious there.

I think the reason behind each of those characters being cut should inform us who is likely to not be cut due to them being cut before. Like why was ice climber cut? Cause smash 4 was in separate between 3ds and wiiU and the 3ds couldn't handle their animation or something? So like that's obviously not a problem anymore so I wouldn't assume just cause they got cut before it's likely to happen again solely for that reason but that's not to say there isn't some other reason they get booted of course. I think of all those Snake is the only one who didn't return not because of a system limits or even dev limits but simply because Konami didn't play ball but I have no actual evidence of this the timing just lines up with the whole Hideo meltdown. So he's unfortunately the one I'm most worried about.

I think that's a flawed approach, because 1) by that method, we never would've anticipated a cut like ICs (and potentially, indirectly, Squirtle/Ivysaur) given there was no history of a subsequent game being on weaker hardware than the two previous.

And 2) that operates via the roster being subject solely to the kind of growth we've seen before, which is, at worst, pretty minor cuts. But that kind of growth is unsustainable and eventually the way the roster pares down will be unprecedented and will resulted in cuts which are unprecedented, such as a significant number of unique characters who were cut simply because priority couldn't extend to them.

ARMS and Astral Chain aren't getting sequels, are they?

Did something happen?

I think Astral Chain is getting a sequel. Other than Nier (which Yoko Taro and Square seem in no rush to return to, and even if they did it might be without P*) Platinum's most successful titles are with Nintendo. And Platinum needs all the stability it can get these days.

ARMS idk. I don't think Nintendo wants to jettison it, but it might be like Golden Sun where it's successful, but just... not more successful than another game the dev could make instead, so it just never gets its turn. But hey, at least it did get a character.

Yeah but all we know is how much stuff they put in smash not things like how much Nintendo had to pay or things like that.

I’ve always found the idea of SE content in smash being proof of their greed an odd one. Surely they’re constant making of gatcha games is a better example

I think Smash is an imperfect gauge of greed, given it seems to have a very high budget for this kind of stuff, and at this point there are probably few characters it wouldn't be able to afford (refusal of cooperation, as is probable with Sony, being a different matter). It's probably more useful as an example of a high level of compensation to compare against lower budgeted games who couldn't land SE content, like PSASBR.

Anyway, it's something to at least keep in mind when thinking about the next roster. As an example, one thing I basically never see on these 50-character rosters people have been churning out is K. Rool being cut. Probably because of his Ballot performance. But I do see the likes of Ike and Lucario cut on these rosters much more frequently. Would K. Rool really be a bigger priority than Ike and/or Lucario? Greninja? Bowser Jr? That is something that K. Rool's Ballot performance cannot answer, because with EiH being a thing in the cycle he was added, he was never in any competition with those characters before now. Not saying K. Rool would or should be cut, and I don't think he will be, but like I said it's something to think twice about before you put him on your roster in the "no-brainers" stage but then proceed to leave any number of others off entirely.

One thing that gets skewed with characters like K. Rool, Waluigi, Isaac, BWD, to an extent Ridley, etc. is they may be the most popular requests, but they're only the most popular requests in the face of so many more popular characters already having gotten in, who would absolutely trounce them on ballots had they not. Like, for K. Rool, he only got popular after Diddy already got in. If Diddy still hadn't been included, it'd be like... K. Rool who? If we didn't have Meta-Knight, BWD would be an afterthought. Waluigi gets to excel because so much of his intra-series competition is in already.

So, I agree. I think a character like Ridley may be a priority, but a character like K. Rool... despite his popularity... well he's probably somewhere in the middle. Depends how deep the cuts go. He is undoubtably not ahead of DK and Diddy in his series. And it looks like Dixie is poised for a bigger role as well.

Another common cut I see is Bowser Jr (seriously? He was in Wonder, and has returned to bigger prominence in other spin-offs).

Honestly, I fell into this trap for a moment and promptly pulled myself out. I do think Bowser Jr is an evergreen and incredibly important character, who would likely be able to stick around. But I think with Bowser Jr, an area of concern is that he hasn't really.... I guess established himself the same way some other fighters have in Smash? His moveset is a bit impractical and outdone by several other characters in the game, and the inclusion of the Koopalings over the basic Bowser Jr skeleton means he doesn't get as much opportunity to emote and be himself.

The thing about Bowser Jr is he's sadly a fantastic example of having to look at things in terms of priority rather than in terms of individual resumes. Because of course, he's a major supporting Mario character. Which makes him a very recognizable face. But in terms of the Mario series in Smash, which is the biggest series, and therefore subject to, potentially, a decent amount of cuts, if they cut, like... three characters, he might be the third.

Because you cut PP, you cut Doc, then who do you cut? You could cut Daisy, she's a clone, and she's new. But she's also pretty relevant these days. If you don't cut her (or even if you do, but you have four cuts), who do you cut? Rosalina or Bowser Jr. And Rosalina's case is not only just as solid, but she seemingly has gotten priority over Bowser Jr in Smash before, with Bowser Jr seemingly being an "almost didn't make it" inclusion, while she was not.

So, yes, Bowser Jr's resume is perfectly worthy. But if the Mario series gets 3/4 cuts... he might still face exclusion.

Min Min probably gets this the worst to be honest - would be cutting an entire "universe" from the Smash roster, and the only new Switch IP introduced in Ultimate. I don't see that happening at all. But yeah, I'm convinced we'll probably end up keeping these guys around. Especially Pyra and Mythra, those two are so immensely popular and that has transcended the progression of the series. Byleth will probably stay since the trajectory of FE right now doesn't even seem like we'll be seeing a brand new entry or protagonist for a bit anyway. Three Houses is also way more popular than Engage, if that was ever a question we needed to answer.

The idea of cutting an entire universe sucks, but truthfully will probably happen going forward. And not just with the third-parties. Especially because Smash is a whole lot less kind to series which didn't continue since the last Smash game.

I know it's a different tier of importance, but a good deal of the AT cuts come from those unrepresented middle series who aren't retro but aren't current either, and then we just lose the biggest representation those IPs get.

 

[Sucumbio]

I think that's a flawed approach, because 1) by that method, we never would've anticipated a cut like ICs (and potentially, indirectly, Squirtle/Ivysaur) given there was no history of a subsequent game being on weaker hardware than the two previous.

I believe the weaker unit was the 3ds and since they've essentially married the technology between handheld and console this issue won't be repeated. So by that I think IC stays because they'd have stayed otherwise. Same for trainer. Snake sticks out bc Konami so let's just assume no 3rd parties are safe just by virtue of being 3rd party. Some of the cuts that weren't in base did eventually come back and even ones from games prior so that leaves ... Wolf? No idea why he was cut and yeah I guess there's still no good reason to assume it couldn't happen again.

And 2) that operates via the roster being subject solely to the kind of growth we've seen before, which is, at worst, pretty minor cuts. But that kind of growth is unsustainable and eventually the way the roster pares down will be unprecedented and will resulted in cuts which are unprecedented, such as a significant number of unique characters who were cut simply because priority couldn't extend to them.

Yeah, I'm actually starting to question the wisdom of assuming that EiH can't continue solely due to sustainability issues. Like, why? What precisely is unsustainable?

 

[dream1ng]

I believe the weaker unit was the 3ds and since they've essentially married the technology between handheld and console this issue won't be repeated. So by that I think IC stays because they'd have stayed otherwise. Same for trainer. Snake sticks out bc Konami so let's just assume no 3rd parties are safe just by virtue of being 3rd party. Some of the cuts that weren't in base did eventually come back and even ones from games prior so that leaves ... Wolf? No idea why he was cut and yeah I guess there's still no good reason to assume it couldn't happen again.

The point wasn't that situation specifically, it was an example that we can't base our predictions solely on precedent because unexpected and unprecedented circumstances arise which never happened previously.

If we only go off what has happened so far, we're going to proceed thinking we'll lose like... four, five, six characters between games. Maybe one third-party, basically all clones bar one or two characters. But that outcome makes no sense here, because in those past instances, we lost those characters because they rebuilt the roster and didn't have the time/resources to bring everyone back. But this time, if they rebuild the roster, they won't have the time/resources to bring back a whole lot more than a half-dozen fighters. Or, if they just build off Ultimate like they did 4, then no one gets cut except characters they couldn't relicense, which also conflicts with typical precedent.

Looking backward to determine cuts is useful when looking at which kind of characters may get lower priority (e.g. clones, the "less important" part of multi-character characters, unpopular characters, some third-parties), but it has to be reconciled with the fact that the roster is not at a stage anymore where losing five or six characters makes sense, unless they're all third-parties that couldn't be relicensed.

Yeah, I'm actually starting to question the wisdom of assuming that EiH can't continue solely due to sustainability issues. Like, why? What precisely is unsustainable?

Well, aside from the fact that simply from a design approach, Nintendo and Sakurai typically don't just keep building indefinitely off the same base rather than eventually start again from the ground up, with games like Ultimate being the exception rather than the norm, and aside from Sakurai repeatedly warning what Ultimate achieved likely won't happen again, he's also given reasons such as changing dev teams (which doesn't seem like it's happened this time, but may one day be a factor) and, more pertinently, advancements in technology since the previous Smash rendering the past data of limited use (which will happen eventually if they keep using the same base) resulting in starting from a more foundational level again being the more effective course.

 

[NintenZ]

I don’t think Astral Chain is getting a sequel because most of the people who worked on it during development have since left Platinum and the foundations of the company have been very unstable since that game’s release with several inconsistent releases.

Well I should probably rephrase, I think a sequel could happen, but if it does, there’s a possibility it might not be by Platinum themselves. Nintendo did scoop up the IP from them after all.

 

[Louie G.]

The idea of cutting an entire universe sucks, but truthfully will probably happen going forward. And not just with the third-parties. Especially because Smash is a whole lot less kind to series which didn't continue since the last Smash game.

You're right, but I still stand by this in respect to my original statement about Min Min. ARMS' fate is kind of up in the air sure, but all three of the first party DLC characters served to keep the roster fresh and up to speed with the new things Nintendo was up to during the current era - hell, it's still the current era and presumably the roster plan may fall somewhere around now or like next year.

None of these strike me as a one and done deal, I think they'll want to at least give them another shot on the next base roster and keep whichever limited Switch characters that they were able to establish. So that's more what I meant... I could see some universes getting snipped off, particularly those with limited content, but ARMS is practically the only "new school" Nintendo IP in the game other than Splatoon and I think Sakurai will see it important to maintain that.

 

[chocolatejr9]

I don’t think Astral Chain is getting a sequel because most of the people who worked on it during development have since left Platinum and the foundations of the company have been very unstable since that game’s release with several inconsistent releases.

Well I should probably rephrase, I think a sequel could happen, but if it does, there’s a possibility it might not be by Platinum themselves. Nintendo did scoop up the IP from them after all.

That's definetly the main thing with Astral Chain: Nintendo actually cared enough to get full ownership of the IP, so you'd think they'd have SOMETHING planned. But given the current state of Platinum and Nintendo's habit of letting IPs die, it's impossible to tell...

 

[Hadokeyblade]

Im sure Nintendo has considered an Astral chain sequel, they wouldnt have bought the IP otherwise.

 

[dream1ng]

I don’t think Astral Chain is getting a sequel because most of the people who worked on it during development have since left Platinum and the foundations of the company have been very unstable since that game’s release with several inconsistent releases.

Well I should probably rephrase, I think a sequel could happen, but if it does, there’s a possibility it might not be by Platinum themselves. Nintendo did scoop up the IP from them after all.

That's definetly the main thing with Astral Chain: Nintendo actually cared enough to get full ownership of the IP, so you'd think they'd have SOMETHING planned. But given the current state of Platinum and Nintendo's habit of letting IPs die, it's impossible to tell...

Im sure Nintendo has considered an Astral chain sequel, they wouldnt have bought the IP otherwise.

I'm gonna preface this with the fact that I actually do think we're going to get an AC sequel, and I wouldn't be surprised if one was already in development. Even with Platinum's turbulence. (I think Nintendo is, if anything, a rare source of stable, generally profitable employment for them). And yes, people involved like Kamiya have left, but the director of AC is still there, and has been working on something for a couple years already, which has yet to be revealed.

That said, I think Nintendo acquiring the Astral Chain IP might be sending misleading signals. Given how that has never really happened in any other instance, and it happened in a relatively concurrent timeframe with them relinquishing the Wonderful 101 IP, I'm going to posit that an unconventional deal was struck by Platinum and Nintendo to swap their dual partial ownerships for separate sole ownerships. And given that negotiation seems like it was spurred by Platinum's desire to give W101 another chance, I don't think the impetus was Nintendo itching to get sole ownership of Astral Chain.

So I don't think the motivation is quite as... intense and deliberate as it might seem if you look at Nintendo breaking status quo, negotiating full ownership of a split-ownership property. But I do think it at least shows Nintendo sees value in the IP. And again, I do think it will return. Possibly soon.

Also, tangentially, if that was the deal, it was a pretty bad deal for Platinum.

 

[osby]

ARMS and Astral Chain aren't getting sequels, are they?

My baseless assumption is that if they were to get sequels, they'd be on the next Nintendo console - which we do not know anything about yet.

If Switch Turbo Deluxe doesn't have them in its first year... I'd start worrying.

 

[Ivander]

If Switch Turbo Deluxe doesn't have them in its first year... I'd start worrying.

I mean, it took like, what, 4 years for Metroid to get a title on Switch? I mean, even Fire Emblem Three Houses released 2 years after the Switch release.

That said, IIRC, the Mario Kart 8 team was behind ARMS, right? If so, I honestly wouldn't be surprised if after ARMS, the next Mario Kart began taking so much of their time, between it possibly being moved to the next system since MK8D was still doing fantastic and putting all the time into making sure the next Mario Kart is packed and prepared for the next system.

 

[fogbadge]

I think Smash is an imperfect gauge of greed, given it seems to have a very high budget for this kind of stuff, and at this point there are probably few characters it wouldn't be able to afford (refusal of cooperation, as is probable with Sony, being a different matter). It's probably more useful as an example of a high level of compensation to compare against lower budgeted games who couldn't land SE content, like PSASBR.

which is why i'm using other things as well. i base their greed on all things they do