Capcom has confirmed that a new version of the iconic Street Fighter series is in the works after unveiling a teaser video of Street Fighter 6. The last game in the series, Street Fighter 5, was received poorly by fans upon launch so the Japanese company is hoping to find success with the sixth entry in the long-running series. Yoshinori Ono has left the series and the new project is being spearheaded by the main producer behind the Monster Hunter series. It’s currently scheduled to be released this summer.
Video: Capcom officially announces Street Fighter 6
Calling it now, if SF6 comes to Switch its via yet another cloud version.
“the new project is being spearheaded by the main producer behind the Monster Hunter series.”
Ryozo Tsujimoto then. Anyone know what his previous works outside of MH are? The only one I know is that old PS2 racing game from the early 2000s.
Of course it’ll be the cloud version. No way the Switch is gonna handle this. Even if it can in Theory, it’s Capcom we’re talking about. They aren’t even gonna try.
^Yeah I know. I didn’t say otherwise.
Hope they can get their act together with this one. Street Fighter 4 just had wayy too many “Super, Ultra, Arcade” versions, too confusing to follow honestly. Then Street Fighter 5 did the exact same thing, in addition to a terrible base game and making every other character DLC. I’m tired of these fighting games releasing with lackluster content, pathetic base rosters, and then releasing content we should’ve already had at the start in the form of “seasons” and “battle passes”.
The nature of a competitive fighting game requires tweaking over time as very small incremental changes to the number of animation frames of individual moves have massive ramifications for the gameplay. The reason the season structure is what is used, is fighting games need persistent support anyway, so drip feeding content in to fund the ongoing support makes natural sense. It isn’t ideal, but the likely alternative is to just not have competitive fighting games. If any modern fighting game got little to no support after release, maybe just one major patch, not one would them would be successful.
Launching a competitive fighter already having a massive roster is an extremely dangerous idea. Smash Bros. gets away with it because nobody expects or cares that huge portions of the Smash roster aren’t viable and are basically useless. If Street Fighter 6 launched that way, the players would not tolerate it. A much higher degree of care is taken on the individual character vs. character matchups in a way that isn’t true in most genres, which naturally takes longer by a multiple of how many characters there are. IMO, 16-18 is the sweet spot. You can have every character be unique, every character be relevant, and within a certain margin, viable without spending a decade in development.
I didn’t say fighting games shouldn’t get support after release. I’m saying that you shouldn’t release game with minimal base content, and then have players constantly pay for future content, which should’ve been in the game in the first place. Dragon Ball Fighterz, Blazblue Cross Tag Battle, & Street Fighter V are the prime examples. Launched with a terrible base game, and all future content is locked behind seasons, passes, or dlc so you can “support” the developers. They put only the basic characters in the base roster, while characters that were in previous games all become DLC. it’s a terrible practice.
I understand what you’re saying, but I largely disagree with it. 16-18 characters is just nowhere near the sweet spot in my opinion. I honestly don’t care about character viability or the competitive blah blah, never did, I used to but not anymore. For example, take Guilty Gear Strive (15 characters in the base roster) & Granblue Fantasy Versus (13 characters in the base roster); I know I’m in the minority for thinking this, but these suck. You can talk all you want about how much effort was put into the graphics, the music, the gameplay, or how we need to support the devs, but it doesn’t justify bare minimum content followed by everything else being locked behind a paywall.
If you want to make a set price for an “expansion” of sorts that includes all future content, then do that, it’d work better. But the price needs to be dependent on the base game’s value. I’m not paying $60 for Dragon Ball Fighterz, which only consists of the most basic and obvious choices for the base roster, and then paying $80+ for the other half of the roster (20 characters). If Fighterz had a larger base roster, and an “expansion” that included all fighter passes for a price that doesn’t exceed the game itself, then that’d work. When a game constantly needs to be re-released in different versions, or when the DLC far exceeds to price of the game itself (primary content like characters, stages, etc. NOT Cosmetics), you have a problem.
Just to clarify, although I don’t care about competitiveness and such, I completely understand what you’re saying. Fighting games need constant tweaks, improvements, and support, I get all that loud and clear. However, having the playerbase pay for essentially “breadcrumbs” of content to fund ongoing support is not the way to go. What this model essentially is, is a cake, you’re paying full price for only 1/4 of the cake, while the remiaining 3/4 get sold to you for bits and pieces at a time, which eventually exceed the full price you paid for only a fourth of it in the first place. You can easily improve on this, rather than ditching competitive games as an alternative.
“I didn’t say fighting games shouldn’t get support after release.”
I didn’t say that you did. The assertion that there’s a problem with releasing multiple versions though sure implied it.
“I’m saying that you shouldn’t release game with minimal base content, and then have players constantly pay for future content, which should’ve been in the game in the first place.”
Many versions of fighting games for predates this practice.
I agree with you here in theory. The problem being how you defined “should’ve been in the game in the first place.” How are you making that determination? I don’t really see how DB FighterZ falls in this category. It has a robust story mode, an arcade most, and a respectable roster at launch. Street Fighter V clearly does fall into this category, but that’s Capcom these days in general. They’ll under deliver and over charge no matter the business model.
“or dlc so you can “support” the developers.”
You agreed to the premise that these games need people working on them after launch……. how exactly do you see that working if they don’t release paid content? This is moon logic. You can’t have it both ways.
” I honestly don’t care about character viability or the competitive blah blah, never did, I used to but not anymore. ”
So you’re openly arguing for objectively bad game design, so long as you got a LOT of it? Do I need to form a rebuttal to this? You basically freely admit you’re wrong and just declare that you don’t care that you’re wrong.
“how we need to support the devs”
You keep attributing this to me as though its what I argued. I’m not suggesting you have any obligation whatsoever to see that the devs have a job. I’m saying that the game needs the devs well after launch. An idea you already agreed with. So……. how do you see that working? You want them to do it for free, or do you want to see the genre die because the games are garbage because they never fixed some Sagat frame trap?
They used to do that by selling you a whole new game under a slightly modified name. You complain about that. Now they do it by selling seasons. You complain about that too. Ok…… so what’s your idea? How do they pay for it?
“but it doesn’t justify bare minimum content followed by everything else being locked behind a paywall.”
Defined by what? What’s the bare minimum of content, how are you determining this? Right now your argument is “I want more, I have no idea how much more but I don’t want it to cost money, and I don’t care how low quality it is.” I just really hope Capcom doesn’t listen to you because this is impressively terrible advice. This is how you get to free to play.
” But the price needs to be dependent on the base game’s value. ”
As determined by what? If people are willing to spend that much on the content, the content has that dollar value. That’s what a valuation is. I don’t want to overpay for low quality games either but for the purposes of discussion you are making demands without defining the demands and that isn’t very communicative.
“I’m not paying $60 for Dragon Ball Fighterz, which only consists of the most basic and obvious choices for the base roster”
Would you rather instead DB FighterZ never get made? Because its a distinct possibility under your terms. The way these projects get greenlit is on a cost/profit analysis. If it takes an extra 2 years to release the game, that’s not just 2 years extra salary for everyone to pay, that’s 2 extra years of comparing the profit you ultimately make against anything else. At roughly 6-8% per year compared to the market average for investment, on two additional years of investment, you’re talking the game would have to sell SPECTACULARLY better than it otherwise would in order to be a success, which the suits take into consideration when determining whether or not to make the game at all.
Why do you think Konami is more or less out of the business entirely?
” If Fighterz had a larger base roster, and an “expansion” that included all fighter passes for a price that doesn’t exceed the game itself, then that’d work. ”
A strange example, as barely a month has gone by without FighterZ on sale for basically exactly this anyway.
“You can easily improve on this, rather than ditching competitive games as an alternative.”
Go ahead. Shoot. Offer your improvement. All you’ve done is make demands and ignore all of the obstacles towards those demands becoming reality.
Yeah, I already offered an improvement in the later half of my response and the follow-up response. All you did was pay attention only to the 1st paragraph and claim that I’m ignoring everything………
So, you refuse to acknowledge what the problem with DB Fighterz is, you missed my point entirely, you made false claims about me, assumed I’m just making mindless demands, and you’re just picking & choosing little bits of what I said to rebuttle… Ignorance at it’s finest lol.
*Sigh, I guess it must be really difficult for people online to engage in civil discussions and debates without needing to resort to assumptions or willful obliviousness
I want super street figher 4 on switch digital at least and not on cloud because the 3ds could run it.
Yeah this isn’t coming to switch it was already leak some time ago that a PS5 and pc will be the way to play this I heavily doubt Nintendo would be able to have a cloud version.
You know, if the Street Fighter games went with a more realistic look (like Mortal Kombat) instead of the over-the-top cartoony look (with exaggerated bodies), and added finishing moves that you could pull off, I might not have ever strayed from the series. But they just stayed with that look and I was never interested anymore. Though to be fair, I haven’t really played any fighting games since Mortal Kombat IV. Aside from a few minutes in some here and there.