Rednal wrote:*Scratches head* I have to admit that I really don't understand this view or where it comes from. ^^; Why do you think that NISA wants to make cuts, or will do it to every game, every time?
Because making cuts lets them avoid any PR backlash, and doing it is cheap.
I mean, yes, they'll do anything they have to in order to make sure a product can be released. That's, er, completely normal and standard business practice that happens pretty much everywhere in every single industry. A product that can't be released can't make any money, after all, so that's sort of a minimum level of qualification. Outside of that, though... I just can't see how a company making a clear effort to edit as little as possible keeps getting accused of wanting to do edits and do them more in the future. It's completely contrary to what they've actually done.
Unless there was some sort of ESRB stipulation that required them to censor it, which to my knowledge there isn't, then it's not necessary to ensure it's released. That being the case, it's not "as little as possible," it is more than that.
Everything I've seen is the minimal amount of editing they can get away with while still being able to release the game. Editing content out of a game costs time and money to do. Worse, the more it's done, the more unhappy people tend to get - most gamers do not like edited content very much. It's counter-productive to do it any more than it absolutely has to be done, and I think NISA's actions demonstrate that they are very aware of this detail. It will not help the company to edit things "every time", especially because most of their games don't need edits at all. This is one very specific case, for a very specific reason, not a trend or change in company direction.
Give a man an inch, and he'll take a mile.If they know they can make cuts without any sort of financial backlash, they'll be more and more likely to do it. It's worth noting here that chopping out content will save them money from having to translate and voice those parts, so it won't actually cost them anything. Note that when I said every time, I didn't mean every game, but every borderline case.
When I hear this position, it just sounds like "I think the company will spend lots of money doing something they know will make them sell fewer games and fail as a company". That's... suicidal for a business to do. I just can't understand why people seem to think they're like that, instead of considering how limited this really is. ^^; Maybe it's because gaming companies only release a few products a year, so it seems bigger and more common than it is...? What do you think?
You say that, and yet here we are; MS bombed because of edits, and they're doing it again.