Sora Unlocks the Door! (Roxas as an Echo?)

Sora's chances of getting in?


  • Total voters
    220

Ryder16

Smash Rookie
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
7
You must not have been following the news that closely. There were 7 names that were mentioned more often than others in the leaks (one of whom being Sora) and According to the source, Erdrick's name was mentioned the most. The leakers only assumed that Erdrick was the SE rep because of how often his name was mentioned (although that could've changed since the time that info was released. I haven't really been keeping up with the news).
I do know about that I was saying what I think. my saying was personal bias sorry if there was any misunderstanding

And another thing about the SE character rumor is that Square has been known to give people troll answers in order to prevent leaks in the first place. Like maybe they told a few people Geno was coming, and another few Erdrick was coming, and another few that Sephiroth was coming, etc. So who knows who the SE rep will be if there even is one, but no one is a solid lock right now
yep. that why I said I would not be surprised if they lied about their character getting into smash.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2015
Messages
10
I do know about that I was saying what I think. my saying was personal bias sorry if there was any misunderstanding



yep. that why I said I would not be surprised if they lied about their character getting into smash.
I didn't catch your edit originally sorry
Also the Source Gaming Unofficial DLC Poll results got revealed and guess who's in the top 3
This list even included impossible characters and Assist Trophy characters and he's still up there so yeah that's really cool
 
Last edited:

MonkeyDLenny

Smash Ace
Premium
Joined
Aug 11, 2018
Messages
606

[Translation]: Today I met Shinji Hashimoto, vice president and producer of Square Enix (including FF and KH) at a conference at my future school #Genimage it was great. I took a lot of notes.
PS: We asked him the question and no, Sora is not planned in SSBU.

This really sucks, Sora's been one of my top picks for awhile
 

RineYFD

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
225
Location
THE HYPE TRAIN OF COURSE

[Translation]: Today I met Shinji Hashimoto, vice president and producer of Square Enix (including FF and KH) at a conference at my future school #Genimage it was great. I took a lot of notes.
PS: We asked him the question and no, Sora is not planned in SSBU.

This really sucks, Sora's been one of my top picks for awhile
I'll just leave these arguments here.
Edit:
We also don't know the guy who originally tweeted that post is actually telling the truth or not too. I'm not giving up hope until the last DLC character.
 
Last edited:

Double0Groove

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
329
Dropped by from the Banjo Thread to apologize for the Loss guys, if that tweet is as legit as it seems.
It's a very much appreciated sentiment. Thanks dude.
I'll just leave these arguments here.
Edit:
We also don't know the guy who originally tweeted that post is actually telling the truth or not too. I'm not giving up hope until the last DLC character.
However, I'm still keeping to the hope that Sora might still make it in. There was this phrase that our community clung onto: "Don't let the dream drop", and I'm certainly not gonna let this phase me.
 

Nerd Saga Nate

Part-Time Youtuber, Full Time Nerd
Joined
Feb 5, 2013
Messages
6,498
Location
Smashville
Gonna be real with y’all I think people are overreacting and this means pretty much nothing in the context of Sora being in Smash or not.

To me it’s just typical PR talk here, which is something Hashimoto is NOTORIOUS for.
^ This

Gonna be real here I think the same for Dante, 2B, Master Chief, etc. - NDAs are fickle things.

Plus this is Hashimoto. The guy who said "Yes!" Sora in base roster.
 

MyDude213

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
274
Gonna be real with y’all I think people are overreacting and this means pretty much nothing in the context of Sora being in Smash or not.

To me it’s just typical PR talk here, which is something Hashimoto is NOTORIOUS for.
also is no one gonna mention how it wouldn't even be him that Disney would go to get final say if Sora got in or not in the first place and, that it's Tetsuya Nomura as stated by the Disney Japan President, In HMK's original interview with him? Cause I feel like people are kinda glossing over that a bit.

I'll just leave these arguments here.
Edit:
We also don't know the guy who originally tweeted that post is actually telling the truth or not too. I'm not giving up hope until the last DLC character.
All of this is exactly my thoughts on this whole Shinji thing personally I think people are jumping to conclusions too quickly.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
1,606
My biggest issue about this new news is that it breaks NDA if it is true. Because it's Shinji talking about stuff that would probably get Square sued. Also, Shinji is a notorious troll and has ****ed with the square community before.
It doesn't break an NDA if true. NDAs prevent people from revealing their involvement in a project. If it's true he's not under an NDA because either Square isn't involved with the DLC, or it's not revealing Square's role in the DLC, and if he's lying it's still not breaking NDA because he's still not revealing Square's involvement with Smash. The idea that an NDA prevents comments of any kind is untrue and just community misconception.
 

MyDude213

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
274
It doesn't break an NDA if true. NDAs prevent people from revealing their involvement in a project. If it's true he's not under an NDA because either Square isn't involved with the DLC, or it's not revealing Square's role in the DLC, and if he's lying it's still not breaking NDA because he's still not revealing Square's involvement with Smash. The idea that an NDA prevents comments of any kind is untrue and just community misconception.
My point is that IF it was true then it would break NDA technically because it would be giving out legit information, that he shouldn't have disclosed. Granted it's really the only way he could answer that but the reason I said that is cause I've seen a lot of people thinks it's just legit factual information when really we don't know.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
1,606
My point is that IF it was true then it would break NDA technically because it would be giving out legit information, that he shouldn't have disclosed. Granted it's really the only way he could answer that but the reason I said that is cause I've seen a lot of people thinks it's just legit factual information when really we don't know.
If it is true then Sora is not in the game and so there's nothing NDA wise to prevent him from saying so if Square has no characters as DLC. If Square does have a character as DLC and it's not Sora and he said that comment it still doesn't break NDA because he didn't "Sora's not in because X is". NDAs are about not disclosing work on the project saying X character isn't in doesn't reveal any information about Square contributing to the project.
 

Double0Groove

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
329
also is no one gonna mention how it wouldn't even be him that Disney would go to get final say if Sora got in or not in the first place and, that it's Tetsuya Nomura as stated by the Disney Japan President, In HMK's original interview with him? Cause I feel like people are kinda glossing over that a bit.
I'm pretty sure that doesn't matter here since he's the co-creator of the KH franchise. If nothing else, he'd at least be privy to that information.
 

ShadowTheHedgehogZ

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 24, 2018
Messages
339
Location
King Kai's Planet
3DS FC
4227-4459-2606
Switch FC
2267-2995-1302
Why haven't I found this thread until now? I fully support Sora in Ultimate and if he's anything like how he is in Smash Flash 2 then I'll be ecstatic. Even though I barely played Kingdom Hearts I'm definitely getting the 3rd one when I get a PS4
 

Double0Groove

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
329
Couldn't have explained it better myself. The support for Sora continues!
Hope rising, hype overflowing, **** eating grin maximized!
Geez, I'm happy again. Although, if nothing else, I will say that I can't get behind the notion of trying to discredit Hashimoto. Specifically speaking, that bit about it being Disney's decision since they hold the rights to his character even though the same person informed us that Disney would run the idea through Nomura and SE.
 
Joined
Apr 10, 2015
Messages
1,606
also is no one gonna mention how it wouldn't even be him that Disney would go to get final say if Sora got in or not in the first place and, that it's Tetsuya Nomura as stated by the Disney Japan President, In HMK's original interview with him? Cause I feel like people are kinda glossing over that a bit.
Actually, his video showed it would 100% be Disney that Sakurai would need to go to. Plus the person's statement was not that Nomura has final say, but that they consult with him when using Sora as part of their high standards to make sure they are portraying the character correctly, not out of any legal obligation. Basically they do it because they want to not because they have to.
 

Pallex

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Oct 28, 2014
Messages
167
Location
United States of America
Twilight Town stage?

It would be just like Super Smash Flash 2.


Someone saying it's fake.
Is it real or not?
 
Last edited:

Double0Groove

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
329
Twilight Town stage?

It would be just like Super Smash Flash 2.


Someone saying it's fake.
Is it real or not?
I'll believe that it's fake and somebody is making fun of us after we took a serious blow with that Hashimoto comment. If it wasn't for the fact that BRAVE stopped popping up in the code, I would've definitely believed it, but as it stands, Sakurai has learned his lesson and won't be giving us any hints in the code.
 

fogbadge

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
5,767
Location
Scotland
Twilight Town stage?

It would be just like Super Smash Flash 2.


Someone saying it's fake.
Is it real or not?
im going with fake

though it could have been for midna
 

Ryder16

Smash Rookie
Joined
May 13, 2019
Messages
7
as soon as anything says its a leak I don't believe it there all fake to me. can't get my hopes up to let my soul shader too.
 

BluePikmin11

Akko is my dear daughter!
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
28,160
Location
https://twitter.com/BluePikmin11R
NNID
blue
A user in the Banjo thread linked to a Twitter post stating that It makes me wonder if Sora would have to be negotiated more than Erdrick with this statement:

"Negotiations are always brought up to denounce characters, but Erdrick, and DQ as a whole, has it rough. Bird Studios, Armor Project, Square Enix, Akira Toriyama, and Koichi Sugiyama. That's FIVE whole parties needed to be in the discussions."

Lemme see how Sora goes.

There is Square Enix, Tetsuya Nomura, Yoko Shimumura, and Disney of Japan. Wait, that is literally it. Holy crap.

Two of those people are ones he collaborated with before in Smash, so Sora negotiations should be easier.

Just something I wanted to bring up.
 

fogbadge

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
5,767
Location
Scotland
A user in the Banjo thread linked to a Twitter post stating that It makes me wonder if Sora would have to be negotiated more than Erdrick with this statement:

"Negotiations are always brought up to denounce characters, but Erdrick, and DQ as a whole, has it rough. Bird Studios, Armor Project, Square Enix, Akira Toriyama, and Koichi Sugiyama. That's FIVE whole parties needed to be in the discussions."

Lemme see how Sora goes.

There is Square Enix, Tetsuya Nomura, Yoko Shimumura, and Disney of Japan. Wait, that is literally it. Holy crap.

Two of those people are ones he collaborated with before in Smash, so Sora negotiations should be easier.

Just something I wanted to bring up.
surely disney is the only one they have to negotiate with? normua and square enix would be advisory on how the character should be and yoko shimmoura would just be making awesome remixes of her already awesome music
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
696
surely disney is the only one they have to negotiate with? normua and square enix would be advisory on how the character should be and yoko shimmoura would just be making awesome remixes of her already awesome music
Which begs the question: is Disney really that hard to bargain with? I mean, I’m willing to bet that they were before Disney Infinity shut down, but now? I’m just curious.

EDIT: Apparently I discovered that Justin Scarpone, Vice Prez and General Manager of Disney Japan would be fine with Sora in Smash Bros. That would make negotiations with Disney easier.
 
Last edited:

fogbadge

Smash Hero
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
5,767
Location
Scotland
Which begs the question: is Disney really that hard to bargain with? I mean, I’m willing to bet that they were before Disney Infinity shut down, but now? I’m just curious.

EDIT: Apparently I discovered that Justin Scarpone, Vice Prez and General Manager of Disney Japan would be fine with Sora in Smash Bros. That would make negotiations with Disney easier.
ooh intriguing if true, might i ask for a source? its a good sign over all
 

TCT~Phantom

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
2,085
NNID
TCT~Phantom
The thing is Disney opens a whole new can of worms into negotiation. It is mainly due imo to Disney being very... controlling. Look at Marvel Vs Capcom. Took the DLC off of the store and delisted both games for a while. Was very heavy handed in the selection for MvCI. Disney can be kind of difficult because they are very protective of their IPs. This would likely make Sora a bit harder to negotiate for.

Granted, I still want Sora. But the rights are a hurdle and a half.
 

MyDude213

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
274
The thing is Disney opens a whole new can of worms into negotiation. It is mainly due imo to Disney being very... controlling. Look at Marvel Vs Capcom. Took the DLC off of the store and delisted both games for a while. Was very heavy handed in the selection for MvCI. Disney can be kind of difficult because they are very protective of their IPs. This would likely make Sora a bit harder to negotiate for.

Granted, I still want Sora. But the rights are a hurdle and a half.
The problem with Marvel VS Capcom is that the first three games were made before Disney acquired Marvel. Disney did not own the full rights to the X-Men until recently before MvCI was made. Disney literally could not let Capcom use the X-Men because THEY DID NOT FULLY OWN THE PUBLISHING RIGHTS TO THEM. All Disney owned up till recently was the television rights to the X-Men nothing else. But nobody ever talks about that and always use that as a reason for why "Disney is hard to deal with". But they just legally could not allow those characters to be in the game. Not because they didn't want it but because legally, they couldn't let it happen. Why do you think the X-Men and Fantastic Four in general still to this day haven't had any real major content outside of comics? Despite being a huge names that would make Disney **** tons of money? It's cause Disney didn't own the full rights to them. But now they do cause they bought up the parts of 20th Century Fox that own those characters. I guarantee you if MvCI was announced and released after recent events that it would have featured those absent characters. Disney is literally known for loving to crossover their IP with eachother. Do you seriously think them telling Capcom to not add those characters, which again I want to restate DISNEY DID NOT OWN THE FULL RIGHTS TO was because they were being stingy? Crossovers are literally Disney's like favorite thing that makes no sense at all. Why do people think they did that because they were being stingy?

People always look at that as if it's an anti consumer thing but it was something that Disney had no real control over. Also the whole thing that Disney is very protective of their IP... uuuh ya no ****? That's literally every company ever they want to make sure their brand is protected. Nintendo is the exact same way in fact they're even worse than Disney about it sometimes. Why do people always bring that up as if it actually means something? All Disney wants is for their IP to be accurate to their brand just like any other company would want their character to be represented if they were to be added to Smash or any game for that matter. I feel like people only say that about Disney in particular because people think that they'd **** with the game some how. Despite them really not doing anything of the sort with prior game crossovers they've done with other games outside of MvCI because of reasons I've already stated. Or because people think Disney would buy out Nintendo if they starting having business talks and to that all I have to say is... Well first of all Disney at one point was considering it years ago and two. What would that change exactly in how Nintendo does things exactly though? They are literally the Disney of gaming already that is a just a straight fact. Nintendo is so kid friendly the only company that even rivals them at this point IS Disney. If there's anyone that you should be fine with picking up Nintendo it's Disney cause little to nothing would really change outside of say just getting more Nintendo stuff than we already do due to how Disney advertises and how much more effective they are at it than Nintendo. Outside of that as companies go they'd remain largely the same in terms of how they carry themselves. Cause they already carry themselves in pretty much the exact same way as each-other.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Sep 17, 2017
Messages
696
The problem with Marvel VS Capcom is that the first three games were made before Disney acquired Marvel. Disney did not own the full rights to the X-Men until recently before MvCI was made. Disney literally could not let Capcom use the X-Men because THEY DID NOT FULLY OWN THE PUBLISHING RIGHTS TO THEM. All Disney owned up till recently was the television rights to the X-Men nothing else. But nobody ever talks about that and always use that as a reason for why "Disney is hard to deal with". But they just legally could not allow those characters to be in the game. Not because they didn't want it but because of legally they couldn't let it happen. Why do you think the X-Men and Fantastic Four in general still to this day haven't had any real major content outside of comics? Despite being a huge names that would make Disney **** tons of money? It's cause Disney didn't own the full rights to them. But now they do cause they bought up the parts of 20th Century Fox that own those characters. I guarantee you if MvCI was announced and released after recent events that it would have featured those absent characters. Disney is literally known for loving to crossover their IP with eachother. Do you seriously think them telling Capcom to not add those characters, which again I want to restate DISNEY DID NOT OWN THE FULL RIGHTS TO was because they were being stingy? Crossovers are literally Disney's like favorite thing that makes no sense at all. Why do people think they did that because they were being stingy?

People always look at that as if it's an anti consumer thing but it was something that Disney had no real control over. Also the whole thing that Disney is very protective of their IP... uuuh ya no ****? That's literally every company ever they want to make sure their brand is protected. Nintendo is the exact same way in fact they're even worse than Disney about it sometimes. Why do people always bring that up as if it actually means something? All Disney wants is for their IP to be accurate to their brand just like any other company would want their character to be represented if they were to be added to Smash or any game for that matter. I feel like people only say that about Disney in particular because people think that they'd **** with the game some how. Despite them really not doing anything of the sort with prior game crossovers they've done with other games outside of MvCI because of reasons I've already stated. Or because people think Disney would buy out Nintendo if they starting having business talks and to that all I have to say is... Well first of all Disney at one point was considering it years ago and two. What would that change exactly in how Nintendo does things exactly though? They are literally the Disney of gaming already that is a just a straight fact. Nintendo is so kid friendly the only company that even rivals them at this point IS Disney. If there's anyone that you should be fine with picking up Nintendo it's Disney cause little to nothing would really change outside of say just getting more Nintendo stuff than we already do due to how Disney advertises and how much more effective they are at it than Nintendo. Outside of that as companies go they'd remain largely the same in terms of how they carry themselves. Cause they already carry themselves in pretty much the exact same way as each-other.

What. A. Post! Bravo, my good man! Bravo!
 
Last edited:

TCT~Phantom

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 10, 2013
Messages
2,085
NNID
TCT~Phantom
The problem with Marvel VS Capcom is that the first three games were made before Disney acquired Marvel. Disney did not own the full rights to the X-Men until recently before MvCI was made. Disney literally could not let Capcom use the X-Men because THEY DID NOT FULLY OWN THE PUBLISHING RIGHTS TO THEM. All Disney owned up till recently was the television rights to the X-Men nothing else. But nobody ever talks about that and always use that as a reason for why "Disney is hard to deal with". But they just legally could not allow those characters to be in the game. Not because they didn't want it but because of legally they couldn't let it happen. Why do you think the X-Men and Fantastic Four in general still to this day haven't had any real major content outside of comics? Despite being a huge names that would make Disney **** tons of money? It's cause Disney didn't own the full rights to them. But now they do cause they bought up the parts of 20th Century Fox that own those characters. I guarantee you if MvCI was announced and released after recent events that it would have featured those absent characters. Disney is literally known for loving to crossover their IP with eachother. Do you seriously think them telling Capcom to not add those characters, which again I want to restate DISNEY DID NOT OWN THE FULL RIGHTS TO was because they were being stingy? Crossovers are literally Disney's like favorite thing that makes no sense at all. Why do people think they did that because they were being stingy?

People always look at that as if it's an anti consumer thing but it was something that Disney had no real control over. Also the whole thing that Disney is very protective of their IP... uuuh ya no ****? That's literally every company ever they want to make sure their brand is protected. Nintendo is the exact same way in fact they're even worse than Disney about it sometimes. Why do people always bring that up as if it actually means something? All Disney wants is for their IP to be accurate to their brand just like any other company would want their character to be represented if they were to be added to Smash or any game for that matter. I feel like people only say that about Disney in particular because people think that they'd **** with the game some how. Despite them really not doing anything of the sort with prior game crossovers they've done with other games outside of MvCI because of reasons I've already stated. Or because people think Disney would buy out Nintendo if they starting having business talks and to that all I have to say is... Well first of all Disney at one point was considering it years ago and two. What would that change exactly in how Nintendo does things exactly though? They are literally the Disney of gaming already that is a just a straight fact. Nintendo is so kid friendly the only company that even rivals them at this point IS Disney. If there's anyone that you should be fine with picking up Nintendo it's Disney cause little to nothing would really change outside of say just getting more Nintendo stuff than we already do due to how Disney advertises and how much more effective they are at it than Nintendo. Outside of that as companies go they'd remain largely the same in terms of how they carry themselves. Cause they already carry themselves in pretty much the exact same way as each-other.
MVC3 came out after the marvel buyout in 09. Not having X-men or Fantastic Four was a conscious choice for MVCI. I agree with the sentiment. Sora isinmy top 5 most wanted. But don’t lie. Disney did have a strong role in the roster for MVCI. They consciously chose to exclude the X-Men. It was not for licensing reasons or anything like that, we have MVC 3 to prove it. It was so the focus was on characters prominent in the MCU. Outside of Nova and Venom (though even Venom might get incorporated into the MCU) the roster is a big ad for the MCU. I don’t like that fact either, but it is evidence.
 

TriggerX

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Nov 5, 2018
Messages
84
MVC3 came out after the marvel buyout in 09. Not having X-men or Fantastic Four was a conscious choice for MVCI. I agree with the sentiment. Sora isinmy top 5 most wanted. But don’t lie. Disney did have a strong role in the roster for MVCI. They consciously chose to exclude the X-Men. It was not for licensing reasons or anything like that, we have MVC 3 to prove it. It was so the focus was on characters prominent in the MCU. Outside of Nova and Venom (though even Venom might get incorporated into the MCU) the roster is a big ad for the MCU. I don’t like that fact either, but it is evidence.
I would say yea, this is definitely the case for Disney in this situation. Any character Disney couldn’t push would end up being axed if it did not help promote the MCU.
But that’s just smart marketing, and a logical choice to make for a company trying to get their scattered licenses back. It’s strategic decisions like that, that made the whole fox deal more likely to happen.

There’s no point in promoting someone else’s product ya know.


However I’d say Sora’s case is much different. It’s free promotion for a product they own and chances are they profit from it.

If anything this is an opportunity for Disney to cut the middle man out(square Enix) in order to profit off of character they own.

I could see Nintendo not wanting to side step square Enix for sora’s Inclusion. It would probably sour their relationship. Cuz if Disney does truly own Sora, that’s a possibilty. Unfortunately, Sora is probably as expensive as Cloud.
 

MyDude213

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
274
MVC3 came out after the marvel buyout in 09. Not having X-men or Fantastic Four was a conscious choice for MVCI. I agree with the sentiment. Sora isinmy top 5 most wanted. But don’t lie. Disney did have a strong role in the roster for MVCI. They consciously chose to exclude the X-Men. It was not for licensing reasons or anything like that, we have MVC 3 to prove it. It was so the focus was on characters prominent in the MCU. Outside of Nova and Venom (though even Venom might get incorporated into the MCU) the roster is a big ad for the MCU. I don’t like that fact either, but it is evidence.
Oh I agree they did don't get me wrong but again Disney still didn't have full rights to those characters they had the rights to the comics, and TV rights FOX had the movie and game rights. So again it wasn't a case of them just being outright against it the fact that MvCI exists at all clearly contradicts the idea that Disney was being a complete hard *** about it. Again i'm sure Disney had some suggestions and played a part in rights for the game obviously. But i don't believe that they just outright didn't want to be reasonable or were being complete hard ***** to the game's dev team and Capcom about it. Disney likes to keep their relationships with other companies they do business with good not **** them up.
 
Last edited:

MyDude213

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Nov 1, 2018
Messages
274
geez you guys may be debating far harder than nintendo and disney are for sora in smash
Doesn't every community debate this hard about anything regarding 3rd party stuff regardless of what company is in question though? I mean it's kinda in the nature of... well debating. You're trying to get a point across and get people to agree with you so you're obviously going to go hard when you're making your claim. Cause the harder it is to argue your claim the easier it is to make people agree with you that's what debating is.
 
Last edited:
Top