Jump to content

Talk:Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney – Justice for All

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pidgeot (talk | contribs) at 21:20, 24 May 2006 (→Ha!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

No, see, October 2006 is actually Q1 2007; it lasts from October to December 2006. So the dates are not contradictory. Theswillman 03:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we tell from the context that they were talking about a fiscal year and not a regular year? Sources would be helpful here. Tim Dean 06:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I checked up on this issue. The Q1 2007 date comes from Capcom's press release. Similar press releases on Capcom's site use regular quarters and not fiscal quarters, so unless there was a mistake the "Q1 2007" refers to early in 2007. The "Nintendo" press release only seems to exist in blog postings and not anywhere official, here's one that I found: [1]. I think unless someone can find a better source, we should go by the date on Capcom's press release for now. Tim Dean 17:29, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Nooooooooo!" I so wanted this game to come out earlier! Soup Blazer 05:33, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ha!

The Nintendo press release does indeed exist…check out this link: http://press.nintendo.com/e32k6/Nintendo_DS/FACT_Upcoming_Games_DS_FINAL.pdf . Use username "golin" and password "harris" to get in. You'll see that "Phoenix Wright 2" is slated for an October 2006 release, which corresponds to gaming quarter one of 2007. Hence, the most specific date we have right now is October 2006.

October 2006=Q4 2006. I've yet to see *any* case where Q1 refers to the last quarter of the year before, quite simply because it doesn't - and if you were to testify that in court, you can be certain that Phoenix would be yelling "Objection!" before you could even finish the sentence. ;)
Given that Capcom are the ones MAKING the game, I'd go with their announcement, which is currently Q1 2007 - meaning January-March 2007.
Oh, and for the record, if we were talking about Q1 in the fiscal year 2007, it would be April-June 2007, since the fiscal years *ends* in March. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 23:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Copied and pasted from fiscal year. Is Wiki wrong? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not as such - that article is talking about the US fiscal year. Nintendo is a Japanese company, so it's not the same periods. There, the fiscal year ends on March 31st, as written in the Japanese version of the article.
And while I guess that *is* a case where Q1 refers to Q4 in the year before, I was talking in context of game release dates. :) --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 10:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There you go then, Pidgeot. I think we should just go by the more specific (and optimistic) date we have right now. Whoever found the press release has a point. Theswillman 07:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was an English press release, Pidgeot. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't change the fact that the companies are Japanese, and therefore have their fiscal year ending in March. As you've probably figured from this, that's at least part of the reason why you don't use fiscal years when talking about release dates - they aren't identical across the globe, and you wouldn't expect the average person from USA to know anything about the Japanese fiscal year.
Besides, if we were to apply that logic, that would mean the Wii will be out no later than September. This doesn't match with the current estimatre of November. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 19:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're arguing that if Nintendo of America made a press release and dated, say, Jam with the Band 2 as being released in January 2007, it is, by default, the Japanese release date, regardless of the fact that it defies all logic that the American division would release a press release about this game? Capcom USA doesn't run on the Japanese time zone, does it? So why would it run on the Japanese fiscal year? Nintendo Software Technologies is an English development company because they're based in America. They discuss what's happening in America, not in Japan, so why would Capcom USA orbit Japanese fiscal years? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:00, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, you're mixing two things together here. What I'm saying is that since these companies are subdivisions of Japanese companies, they would, at least ultimately, be using the Japanese fiscal year, since they'll be reporting to the parent company.
However, this has nothing to do with release dates since the fiscal year is not identical worldwide. Therefore, using the fiscal year of *ANY* country as the basis when speaking of a release happening in a certain quarter would only cause confusion, more so since even NoA press releases cover countries with different fiscal years - NoA is also responsible for Canada, and the Canadian fiscal year coincides with the Japanese fiscal year. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, how about no? No one DOES that. No English company caters to the Japanese userbase simply because they're based on a Japanese company. They were created to report to people in America, not people in Japan. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by A Link to the Past (talk • contribs) 14:39, 23 May 2006.
I've given sufficient reason for why fiscal years are not used for release dates, which is the only reason one could ever hope to explian the "Q1=October" issue - in fact, the fact that in for Nintendo, USA also covers Canada, is enough to dismiss that theory, since the two countries use very different fiscal years. WHICH fiscal year a company would use for release dates in a press release released in America (assuming they did that in the first place) is not relevant to the issue. All I'm saying is if the press release *were* doing this, the only logical assumption would be that it's using the company's fiscal year, and since these are not stand-alone companies (at least not to my knowledge), that would be the Japanese one, since the parent company is Japanese. They cannot use the American fiscal year by default, because these press releases are also intended for Canadians, who use a different fiscal year (coincidentally, the same as in Japan). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pidgeot (talk • contribs) 15:07, 23 May 2006.
Their American division is Capcom USA, not Capcom of America. Capcom USA made the press release, not Capcom Canada (if it exists). - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As has been noted, though, there is no precedent for Capcom implicitly using fiscal year quarters when referring to game release dates. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 21:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take that! Look at this: Capcom release dates and this: Capcom press releases. The release date for CAPCOM® CLASSICS COLLECTION VOL. 2 is listed as Q4 2006 in the press release and as Nov. 2006 on the release dates page. CAPCOM® CLASSICS MINI MIX is Q3 2006 in the press release and Sep. 2006 on the release dates page. GOD HAND™ is Q4 2006 in the press release, Oct. 2006 on the release dates page. Clearly they're not using fiscal quarters. Furthermore, the Capcom press release came out after Nintendo's press release, so it likely contains newer information. Finally, as Pigeot pointed out, Capcom are the ones MAKING THE GAME so they probably have better information on what it will be finished. Tim Dean 15:35, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"The release date for CAPCOM® CLASSICS COLLECTION VOL. 2 is listed as Q4 2006 in the press release and as Nov. 2006 on the release dates page. CAPCOM® CLASSICS MINI MIX is Q3 2006 in the press release and Sep. 2006 on the release dates page. GOD HAND™ is Q4 2006 in the press release, Oct. 2006 on the release dates page." Who cares? Theswillman 16:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was trying to make it clear that Capcom does not use fiscal quarters in their press releases. If they did, then CCC2 should have been listed as Q1 2007, CCMM as Q4 2006, God Hand as Q1 2007. But they don't, the quarters they used correspond to the calendar year quarters instead. Tmdean 20:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple

This is the fact: Nintendo used the date of October 2006 in their press release, as you can read above (as long as the link doesn't go dead, which it might, for all I know). I seriously doubt that they just pulled that date out of their ass from nowhere. We've established that October 2006 corresponds to American fiscal quarter 1 of 2007, and since Capcom USA made the announcement, plus the fact that the game hasn't even been announced for ANY other market other than the North America (don't start about how Canadian fiscal quarters are different, because Nintendo USA was obviously using American fiscal quarters...what game company uses Canadian fiscal quarters anyway?), there is absolutely no reason why, at the present moment, we should doubt that the date will be anything other than October 2006. And don't say it's unusual for release dates to be announced according to quarters because it happens all the time, for both games and gaming hardware. As of right now, it is NOT "Early 2007" according to the information we have. It is October 2006. Theswillman 20:00, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno why you're so convinced, why would Capcom use fiscal quarters in only the Phoenix Wright press release and not in any of their other press releases with no explanation? Tmdean 20:02, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't tell you. SOMEBODY wrote down that October 2006 release date, and there must be a good reason why. Theswillman 20:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Be prepared for a big "I told you so" when October comes and goes with no new Phoenix Wright. Tmdean 20:08, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I'm just acting on currently-known information. We have just as much of a chance of seeing the game come out in October as we do early next year. Theswillman 20:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who's not listening. It's not unusual for games to be announced according to quarters, it's unusual for games to be announced according to FISCAL YEAR quarters.
As for Nintendo, NoA covers both USA and Canada. Canadians can't be expected to know anything about the fiscal year in the US, therefore this discrepancy wouldn't make sense.
And finally, somebody also wrote down Q1 2007. Given the precedent of NOT using fiscal years in Capcom's press releases COMBINED with the fact that Nintendo is neither making nor publishing the game (at least not in the US), there is no reason to believe Nintendo are right here. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 20:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you're saying we should completely ignore the October 2006 date? Even though it came from an extremely reliable source and is the more precise date we have, not to mention that it fits in nicely with its matching fiscal quarter? If you are, I think it would be pretty dumb to only listen to dates from official Capcom press releases, and ignore all other sources. Theswillman 20:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, take a look at Pigeot's edit. He didn't complete ignore the date, he mentioned both dates and the controversy. You're the one who completely ignored the Q1 2007 date. Tmdean 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no precedent for your interpretation, it is unlikely to be correct - presumably, one of the two were misinformed or something changed after one of them were finished and they didn't correct it - in other words, one of them is correct and one of them is not.
Given that we don't yet know WHO is correct, even though it is more likely to be Capcom, both dates should be mentioned (at least for now). However, they should not be considered equivalent. --Pidgeot (t) (c) (e) 20:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Phoenix_Wright:_Ace_Attorney_–_Justice_for_All&oldid=54955356"