Talk:Capcom

The Roblox Company Incentive

The Roblox Company Incentive is a company founded in 1984. in 2004, Capcom decided to acquire The Roblox Company Incentive for $4.4 million in cash and stock. in 2009, the acquisition of Capcom is completed, it is merged into Twisted Pixel Games.--2600:1702:4B28:F760:D07E:A361:F738:9F78 (talk) 06:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Why are you adding this to Wikipedia?

It goes on Dream Fiction! ~ --Everyonegoes2018 (talk) 01:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC) (Nintendon't)

"Team Little Devils" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the redirect Team Little Devils should be deleted, kept, or retargeted. It will be discussed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 March 25#Team Little Devils until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 15:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Status of QLoc as QLOC redirects here

I was using the link to QLOC from the Cyberpunk 2077 article and was redirected here. Within this Capcom page QLoc is mentioned only once, as to Capcom working together with them. From the information in the current text it is not really clear to me whether QLoc is a subsidiary or an affiliate of Capcom or indeed a separate entity of its on. Does someone know the status and can clarify within the text? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.94.241.0 (talk) 14:31, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

QLOC is defintely not a subsidery for Capcom they even have there own website and it seems link they are an porting house.

Home - QLOC (q-loc.com) NakhlaMan (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

"QLOC" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect QLOC. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 November 4#QLOC until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Pichpich (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Data breach

Shouldn't the data breach be its own section? Seems to be extremely noteworthy right now, considering the copyright infringement lawsuit.Havok (T/c/e) 09:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Divisions need to be updated

The current revision states that Capcom's game development is split into 3 divisions. However, upon looking at the source from Capcom's website, there are only ever mentioned 2 Consumer Games Development divisions: https://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/company/officer02.html

Using Wayback Machine to go back to 2016, it did used to say that there were 3 divisions, with one of them being led by Yoshinori Ono: https://web.archive.org/web/20160619021951/http://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/company/officer02.html

The source of my confusion stems from this interview with Ryozo Tsujimoto: https://www.capcom.co.jp/ir/english/interview/2019/vol01/ Where he mentions that "Capcom’s game development is split up into two large groups, and the Iceborne team is part of Consumer Games Development Division 2, which has around 700 people".

Hopefully, someone can investigate this further and clarify the divisions as of 2021 :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prid (talk • contribs) 01:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Platinum Titles list.

This list was removed by IceWelder (talk · contribs) because of alleged WP:UNDUE WEIGHT on 12 February 2022. I kinda understand the basis but I do not think UNDUE fits well in this case: it's the 10 top selling games of a major developer, on its article and using its own sources.I think it's relevant enough. Also the "Top sellers series" list was not removed for the alleged same reason. Lone Internaut (talk) 11:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It is undue weight in that we prioritise a few hand-picked titles based on one arbitrary internal metric, which is not necessarily representative of the games' overall importance, and completely forego those games that had a similar (or greater) impact, just with less sales. Basing it completely on a primary source adds to this problem and you're right that the series sales table should also be removed unless there are secondary sources that give it this much weight. Regards, IceWelder [✉] 11:54, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I understand but it's not like we are putting the table somewhere else or on other developers article. I doubt we could have the list by secondary sources; it might happen that sometimes the updates to the list are reported by video game news outlets per reporting Capcom games sales increase but it's not like they are reporting their own numbers like Famitsu. And I mean, the section text, even without the tables, already prioritise only few games in that they are the most sold. At this point some might argue we should remove the entire section. Lone Internaut (talk) 13:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Should Whoopee Camp be added to the list of companies founded by former Capcom employees?

It seems like Tokuro Fujiwara's company, Whoopee Camp, should be added to this section, particularly considering that Capcom collaborated with Whoopee Camp on Ghosts 'N Goblins Resurrection much in the same way that they collaborated with Arika and Inti Creates on various projects. 173.217.239.112 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Capcom Five into Capcom#History

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was not merged. I have withdrawn the proposal due to the obvious WP:SNOW keep. At the least it resulted in a new source being found. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 09:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

---

It might seem positively blasphemous that I'd be suggesting a featured article be merged, but the lion's share of this page is devoted to summarizing each game with information that is already on the pages of each respective game. There isn't much new information in this article; RE4 is well-known for revolutionizing the survival horror genre, but that's already discussed on its page. It then goes into speculation territory on how the other games of the Capcom Five may have influenced game development, but RE4 is the only real standout in terms of industry impact, and that can be discussed on its own page.

In other words, it's fairly unclear what this article is suggesting, as besides RE4, the Capcom Five did not have a tremendous impact, with one being cancelled and the other three becoming heavily niche cult classics. It can be summed up on the Capcom page as "in 2002, Capcom announced an unusual 5 Gamecube games".

I am also aware merging it may render the Capcom Five Good Topic superfluous, but we don't normally bundle together every little batch of games that gets announced as a group, and this doesn't offer a pressing argument why it's different. Several of the games already have their own series or auteur that can potentially become a Good Topic instead - the Viewtiful Joe series and collective games of Suda51 and Shinji Mikami, among others. The idea that these games were announced together is more like a momentary curiosity. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 13:34, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - Outside of the obvious fact that this is an FA and the center of a GT, saying it could be summed up as "in 2002, Capcom announced an unusual 5 Gamecube games" completely ignores the greater nuance of the topic and its role within the GameCube's history. The GameCube did not have a lot of third party support, and Capcom going out of its way to support the GameCube with titles that were not typically seen as games that would be on Nintendo platforms. Then there is also the fact of Dead Phoenix, which would have no clear merge target. Maybe we could put more emphasis on this, but the individual game sections only take up about 34% of the article according to my calculations (after removing images and captions, tables, and the table of contents). Finally, WP:SUSTAINED means coverage, not "industry impact" which seems overly vague of a term.

One more thing, I have tagged User:Axem Titanium, as they were the one to get this article to both FA and as a Good Topic. @Axem Titanium: (Oinkers42) (talk) 04:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I did acknowledge that it was a Featured Article, yes. But arguing that is why it should be kept is a version of WP:EFFORT. There have been many former FA's that have been deleted or merged because standards were different before, in this article's case 12 years ago.

Your argument about third-party support would make sense if Capcom's games had a massive impact on the Gamecube's success. But the article itself admits that Capcom reneged on the exclusivity. "Ultimately, the GameCube failed to reinvigorate flagging support from third parties". The only particularly lasting effect is that it temporarily made Nintendo angry at Capcom (but they have obviously since made up entirely).

So there isn't a major provable lasting effect of the Capcom Five as a whole, compared to each individual game. Dead Phoenix can also be mentioned in passing on the Capcom page assuming it's not notable enough for an article (I don't believe it is based on what I've seen). ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:47, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

You refer to "many former FA's", but you'll note that the article is a current FA. Are you insinuating that this article does not meet today's standards for FAs? Perhaps you would like to share what you think is lacking about the article with respect to the featured article criteria? I'm happy to address any concerns you might have. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted what I was saying, or are trying to read something into it. After the article is redirected, it is a "former FA". I was not trying to imply that this article does not meet the standards, as I think that it does. An article can meet FA standards and still be redirected or deleted for other reasons, which I explained in my rationale. I have no doubt this article was fine for 2012. Standards have simply changed, to the point this article is an outlier. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:18, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Again with the backhanded compliments. "Fine for 2012"? So it's not fine for 2024? Standards have simply changed, but changed to what? Can you point me to these standards so I can read them and evaluate for myself if the article meets them? Your merge rationale seems to hinge on these supposedly self-evident 'standards' but they're not very self-evident to me. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the most relevant guideline is at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Video games#Remakes, expansions, and series articles. Specifically, it says to "Avoid creating a series article that only repeats what sources say about the individual games, and instead base the article on what reliable sources say about the series as a whole". The Capcom Five is akin to a "series" in that they were all interlinked. However, there is not much about the real world impact of the Capcom Five (really, four) as a group. For the most part, they all impacted gaming separately, in a manner unrelated to this arbitrary grouping. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:15, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

And yes, I did check the Kotaku article. It seems like the conclusion the author draws there is that it had approximately zero impact on the Gamecube. Actually, it outright says, "In the end, though, did it really matter? It's not like any of them could have saved the GameCube". So it goes to my original issue of the Capcom Five being an unnecessary spinout article that could be summed up in the GameCube article itself. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 21:24, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm familiar with that section of MOS:VG; I wrote the damn thing! As I said before, the article consists primarily of unrepeated content from the "series" members' respective articles. And I think you're conflating the fact that the effort failed with "having no impact". Unsuccessful things can have plenty of impact, for example, on the way the companies do business (i.e. "what not to do"), both for Capcom, which rearranged its development strategy, and for Nintendo, which tried to court more third parties (acknowledged in the Kotaku article). At the end of the day, there are enough sources that discuss the Five as a group to satisfy GNG and any potential merge target (to Capcom or GameCube) would result in an unbalanced article. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Oppose (thanks for the ping, Oinkers). I'm trying to take this proposed merge in good faith but I'm struggling to see how the rationale corresponds to reality. Fully 2/3 of the article is about background and legacy (the "impact" you're looking for), a far cry from the "lion's share devoted to summarizing each game" that you claim. You're also insisting on looking at the impact of the games individually as opposed to as a collective. The Capcom Five is the story of a failed moonshot business venture and Capcom (and Nintendo) have learned from this failure. The impacts of the individual games can be described on their respective pages, but the impact of the whole can only be told in the depth that sources entail here. Sources discuss the Five as a distinct entity and so should we. I think this proposal is a solution in search of a problem. Axem Titanium (talk) 09:21, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What I am confused about is the proof that Capcom Five was planned as a "moonshot business venture". That appears to be original research. The lede says they were made with the "apparent goal of boosting hardware sales", "apparent" being the key word that it is speculation. The Legacy section says "The Capcom Five announcement came at a time when Nintendo had been struggling with its new console, with the apparent goal of supporting the fledgling system." It uses apparent again, indicating it is purely speculation on your part. There is no proof that they were anything but a coincidentally large amount of coinciding games. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:31, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm using that phrase in an informal sense on a talk page on Wikipedia; it does not appear in the article and it's not productive to accuse editors of original research on talk pages. WP:NOR is a policy about content in articles, not a shibboleth used to stifle discussions. What is supported in the article are sources that demonstrate the learnings that each company attained. I use the word "apparent" because that's how sources describe the effort, e.g. from Kotaku: "That was the year the infamous "Capcom Five" were announced by the Osaka-based publisher, a range of titles seemingly (emphasis mine) designed to give Nintendo's fledgling GameCube a shot in the arm, and which ended up doing nothing of the sort." I also use the phrase "generating the perception" earlier in the article. These phrases are all synonymous to each other. It's not original research. You can also just read Capcom's statement in the quote box; it's also pretty clear that they wanted to boost GameCube! And irrespective of that, this collection of games is commonly discussed as a group by multiple retrospective sources. It clearly passes the bar of GNG. I don't know what more you're looking for. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:36, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I see the issue with the article being too original as the VG WP has evolved. It appears more about the impact on third party relations on GameCube and I question the notability of the Capcom Five concept. But is merging here feasible, maybe a section on Gamecube would work based on impact sources? IgelRM (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

@IgelRM: I didn't notice GameCube#Third-party support before, but it would make a lot of sense as a merge destination too. The announced games were all GameCube and the article essentially argues that the "Capcom Five" is notable precisely because they were for an "unpopular" system. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 10:08, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I see and it doesn't appear to explicitly mention the Capcom Five. IgelRM (talk) 22:06, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

What question do you have about the notability of the concept? There are plenty of sources in the article, both contemporary and retrospective, that discuss them explicitly as a group. Is there anything about those sources that you find unsatisfactory? Axem Titanium (talk) 19:44, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking for most notable sources by headline, there are 2 IGN articles on the 2002 announcement and 2003 exclusivity misspoke. Kotaku published a retrospective in 2011 and there is NintenDojo and Gamer.nl (dead link). (Forbes article is WP:FORBESCON) I suppose it's also fine since Capcom games impact on Gamecube support doesn't fit into one section. IgelRM (talk) 21:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

I also found Nintendo World Report, which I must have missed during my source search for this article. I'll try to find a place to incorporate it. I marked the Gamer.nl article as a dead link (the archive still works). Axem Titanium (talk) 22:41, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, the Nintendo Life article was written in November 2011, after the Wiki article was mostly complete, and its content is rather similar. I feel like this could be WP:CITOGENESIS in that the Nintendo Life author assumed the Capcom Five was worth noting due to this article itself. There's obviously no way to prove this, but some language is almost identical. From the Wiki page: "Players would take control of a winged man as he flies around shooting massive enemies". From the Nintendo World Report article: "The game was to feature a winged man flying around large environments, shooting and attacking waves of enemies, both big and small." From the Wiki page: "IGN speculated that the game may have been retooled as a new Kid Icarus title". From the article: "IGN posted an article questioning if its sudden disappearance might mean that it was being reworked to become a new Kid Icarus game".

This isn't to pull the "it doesn't count" card, but just something I noticed that could indicate the article on Capcom Five itself made it more notable than it formerly was. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

It's hard to say whether the writer was inspired by this article or not, but it doesn't meet the definition of citogenesis because everything in the Wikipedia article is properly cited, there are no false claims that are being circularly perpetuated, and the writer of the article inserts his own commentary throughout. And journalists use Wikipedia articles as the starting point for their research all the time, just like anybody else. Just because they did doesn't mean their commentary lends any less weight. The writer used his editorial judgment to decide to write about the topic because it's notable (in the non-Wikipedia sense). The Wikipedia article didn't hypnotize him into doing it. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:35, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose. The issue isn't the blasphemy - certainly plenty of Frankenstein'd articles of questionable worth on Wikipedia, so questioning that is fine. But... this is way too much sourced content to be a good idea to merge elsewhere. And there's sourced content that refers to it as a group. Too big to merge, too notable to delete. Seems fine as is. SnowFire (talk) 04:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. This entire conversation and the rationale being used for a merge confuses me. I think everything I would say about this has basically been summarized by other voters, the subject has simply too much material and influence to merge properly. It's clearly got the material to exist standalone. Additionally, this is a merge discussion, and the person proposing the merge is instead giving weird commentary seemingly against the articles FA status. Is this a merge proposal or a FAR? λ NegativeMP1 04:52, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Oppose. The rational that the article is majority game description is verifiably untrue just at a glance, so I am extremely confused as to why this was claimed. It seems like an extreme misunderstanding brought about by carelessness, an extreme misstatement, or simply misleading. Looking at the topic, it's clearly notable and receives significant coverage. It was responsible for a reported souring of relations between Nintendo and Capcom, responsible for Capcom to develop a more multi-platform focus, and it received sustained coverage. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 08:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.