The official story: "Microsoft does not comment on rumors or speculation." -- Microsoft rep. As for Capcom...see below
What we heard: It's no secret that Microsoft wants to break into the Japanese game market--badly. When the Xbox 360 launched in late 2005, it allocated a third of its launch stock to the island nation--where half of it gathered dust on store shelves while bored shopkeepers stood by picking their noses.
Microsoft has also tried the software approach, hiring Japanese game-design legends such as Final Fantasy creator Hironobu Sakaguchi and Space Channel mastermind Tetsuya Mizuguchi to make Xbox 360 exclusives. Unfortunately, the latter's first effort, Ninety-Nine Nights, fizzled on both sides of the Pacific. However, the former's debut, Blue Dragon, fared as well as an Xbox 360 game can in Japan, given the platform's limited base. It sold more than 80,000 units in its first four days on the Japanese market last fall.
Still, Microsoft hasn't spent tens of millions in Japan to eke out modest hits. So the fact that it might opt to acquire a major Japanese publisher seems perfectly plausible, given its near-bottomless bank account. Thus was spawned this week's top rumor, which had Microsoft buying Capcom, the developer-publisher behind the Resident Evil series, outright.
Sure, it makes sense. Capcom has made two critically acclaimed Xbox 360 games, Dead Rising and Lost Planet: Extreme Condition. (Look for the latter's review on GameSpot later today.) And Microsoft is flush with cash--$35 billion in reserves as of last summer, according to Reuters. So why not drop a relatively small chunk of change to take on Sony and Nintendo on their home turf?
However, plausibility does not equal reality. And in this case, the reality is that, for the time being, Microsoft is not buying Capcom. Apparently this latest orgy of speculation is an ancient rumor, resurrected by a Japanese blog promising a "On January 11th in game industry large announcement," according to a clunky Babel Fish translation. That, in turn, prompted a huge forum thread on the new Gaming Age forums, the Star Wars cantina of game gossip, which led to another post on the EvilAvatar forums, a top virtual water cooler for the overexcited gamer. Then came RSS feeds, rampant content poaching and...well, you do the math.
While Microsoft quickly raised its boilerplate defense shields (Q: "Is the world flat?" A: "Microsoft does not comment on rumors or speculation."), Capcom was more forthcoming. "It's a 3-year-old rumor, most likely refueled by our recent spate of 360 titles," a rep told GameSpot.
Bogus or not bogus?: BOGUS. "No soup for you! You come back, one year!"
Videos of the canceled Dead Rising: Dia De Los Muertos have come to light, giving us a look into what the game could have been.
Shame loved the Dead Rising series. Even enjoyed 4 but not sure why they removed the campain co op.
Dead rising 1 was one of my favorite games back in the day. I never got into the others like I did DR1. DR2 was ok but 3 and 4 were kinda lame.
Absolutely agree with you 100%. 1 was A MASTERPIECE even though it had several things that were not that good. But still a very solid title. And the ending was EPIC.
I agree. I’ll never forget grinding the zombies in the parking tunnels to get the mega buster weapon. Its uniqueness will always stand out to me and is high up on my all-times.
When I got over the rather bland art direction of Dead Rising 3, I actually fell in love with that one. Dead Rising 4 on the other hand.... :(
It's a real shame the Super Ultra Dead Rising 3 Arcade Remix Hyper Edition EX + Alpha DLC isn't available on PC. It was one of the best DLCs I've ever played, it was so fun! But alas... I no longer have my Xbox One :(
I should give it another try on the newer Xbox controllers. I remember jumping over to the Xbox controller was a big peeve for me. I loved the 360 controller and dead rising was one of my very first games on it. The Xbox one controller felt cheaply and loose and it bugged me. I don’t feel that way with the series x one.
Never played 3 or 4 but I read they weren't the same. As for 1 I guess the character played the "path of the hero" so well, no other title could keep it up with. 2 had to have another instance with Frank. And that's what I loved about the first: Frank was a good for nothing and still was the hero. He was not funny, he was not the hero everybody wanted. He was just there "for a good story". And the psychos..... my goodness!! Adam, the snipers, the three prisoners on the garden, the cult! MY GOODNESS!
Good Riddance. Capcom Vancouver's entries are a big stain on what was a great, charming game series.
The ideas shown here are the pinnacle of their ineptness. Yeah, let's remove items on the ground, a core mechanic to the franchise, and one that people would show they still love in BOTW 2 years later.
TheGamer Writes "Dead Rising first burst onto the scene 16 years ago. At the time the game was a groundbreaking technical achievement, and a great showpiece for the then-new Xbox 360 due to how many zombies it could cram onto the screen at once. However, it was more than a mere tech-demo. Dead Rising captivated fans with engaging gameplay that allowed you to use almost anything as a weapon, packing that choice with unique bosses and an iconic protagonist in Frank West."
I definitely agree.
What I always found amazing in DR1 was how it was a survival game first and a sandbox game second, and not the other way around...
Your weapons were resources for specific situations, and you always had to juggle your resources and plan your runs... "I'm gonna get two X weapons on this store for hordes and then I'll get to that other store and get Y weapon for Z boss".
Although the trend of combining weapons that started in DR2 and so on was fun, it removed that layer of strategy and streamlined the series too much by catering to the "it's too hardddd :((" crowd, since you only had to focus on crafting the same 2-3 kinds of strong weapons and you're good for the rest of the game...
This was one of the games I got an Xbox 360 for back when. Dead rising. Lost odyssey. Blue dragon. Alan wake. Anyway the last 3 didn't disappoint. I thought dead rising was kinda eh. I didn't like the setup or how it played out. It's been years but if I remember right it was some kind of timer during the missions or whatever you wanna call them. Straight turned me off. I never even tried the sequels.
The Dead Rising series has enjoyed a long and storied history over the years, but which game in the series is best?
Ok!, ok!, i use to think MS saying "Microsoft does not comment on rumors or speculation" meant is was a for sure thing, then i changed my mind untill the truth about the third 360 SKU came out with some truth to it; "point being" i'm back on the "Microsoft does not comment on rumors or speculation" as meaning yes bandwagon. MS's says "NO" when not true and " Microsoft does not comment on rumors or speculation" when mostly true.
My sister works for MS and she would say "your right" but we will see is MS gets Capcom
I think its just a bad idea in general for MS/Sony/Nintendo to buy third party developers. Now, it isn't a bad idea for the big corps as they eliminate competition and increase their own profits, but it isn't good for the gaming community. For the first time since Sony has taken dominance, there is a real consule war going on. For us gamers we're going to see great games coming out on both sides to try to win us over. Multiply that with the fact for increased game production and developers spending money and time wisely to win our wallets instead of just shoving out another Bionicle Lego game. Regardless of what consule you support, this battle is great for gamers because we're gona get some kick a** games, and that's what we all what. If MS/Sony/Nintendo every dominate like the later two have done in the past, we'll miss out on creativity. Capcom has shown they support MS, so I'm hoping MS just stays content with the games they are getting from them (It's not like they're bad games) so Capcom can still make games for the PS3 and Wii.
" but it isn't good for the gaming community" I would agree if Japan would not be so bias against microsoft. What did Sony had to do to get exclusive titles like Metal Gear and Final Fantansy? Nothing, since kojima and square are considered Sony fanboys. Japanese developers do not want to make games for the 360; probably with the valid point that there arent enough consoles to turn a profit. well, if microsoft owns their @$$e$ than, they wouldn't have to worry about it. It's ok for Sony to get all this exclusive content and, "It is good for the industry", but it is not ok for microsoft to do the same. Microsoft have to beg and give lots of incentives and money for Japanese developers to make games for the 360, something that Sony has the luxury of not having to do. Why should microsoft continue to give money to developer instead of buying them? A company like microsoft which suffers of so much bias and hate has to do what they have to do to survive. I say buy their @$$e$. and once they own the IPs fired the entire staff! Just kidding. lol
But I think taking steps with games like Blue Dragon will improve their position. I think Japanese gamers are really keen on history, and Sony and Nintendo has delivered for them. If MS continues to give the market the games they're looking for they'll gain ground.
I know what you're saying about Konami and Square-Enix, but they're not owned by Sony, even if they're practically in bed with them. I'm sure they'll start developing for the 360 if it keeps gaining a wide audience here in America.
Again, it makes sense for MS to buy the IPs, but I really wish they didn't. I want the competition to drive the video game market, not the MS or Sony stock.