Talk:Camelot Software Planning

GS3

Does anyone have anything other than rumours to back up the inclusion of Golden Sun 3 in the list? A Google reveals two things: Camelot said something about making it ([1], but the link on Camelot's site seems dead - can't read Japanese, though), and also said something about not making it, being tied up with a major, unnamed title (Google for it, there are references to this everywhere). Seeing as these are both several years old, I think we can surmise that GS3 is fanmade vapourware, and should be duly removed from the list. Any objections? --Sam Pointon 01:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The only official Camelot title is an unnamed next-gen RPG mostly likely for the Revolution. Jedi6 03:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering the success of the series, I just can't see Camelot *NOT* making. But until there's official confirmation, "Golden Sun 3" doesn't belong here. DMAJohnson 04:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Its been so long, everybody is despairing now. -Izaak

In regards to the RPG for DS listed as "confirmed": As much as I truly would love to believe that, is it even real? An IP added that there. Is a news story of a DS RPG in development actually anywhere on the internet? If so, that should definitely be cited as a source. Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Donate)} 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm removing it, since there is no evidence at all (that I can find) that they are making an RPG for the DS. Also, the Wii RPG needs a source, though I think that will be easy found.Slimeknight 22:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, now that I look, it doesn't seem that it is confirmed at all really. The only real source I could find was this [2] but that is pretty questionable so I think it'll have to go into a new "rumored" section or something. Slimeknight 15:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

yeah, just a few minutes ago, I suddenly thought about the supposed Unamed Camelot RPG, I'll be looking for sources as well myself --Golden kintaro 14:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Shining series

Is Camelot truely responsible for all of the Shining games mentioned in the game list? Shining in the Darkness at least is described on its own entry as being developed by Climax.

Camelot Software Planning wasn't, Sonic Software Planning was. The article omits that Camelot was an internal Sega group called Sonic first, the younger one of the Takahashi brothers separated from Sega in 1995 by forming Camelot doing games independently from Sonic but also working together on Shining the Holy Ark and Shining Force. After the Dreamcast related friction in 1998 Sonic left Sega as well and all of the staff reunited in the independent Camelot. Someone needs to rewrite the article. Se also [3] and [4] -- 88.217.50.62 (talk) 23:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Shining Force Feather

http://www.rpgfan.com/news/2008/1376.html

Hey, SF Feather is being made by Flight Plan. For the DS. It has nothing to do with Camelot or the Takahashi brothers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.138.8.34 (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Nintendo Wants a Remake for SF3 on Wii?

Anybody have anything akin to a citation for this? It sounds awfully dubious... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.147.132 (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

What to do about the Sonic! games

should they be listed here and if so, should they be indicated as such? Nbisbo (talk) 07:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

They should not be listed here because they were not developed by Camelot. Sonic! Software Planning was a separate entity with its own credits and should have its own article. Shining Lore (talk) 05:30, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Why is Camelot's history described as starting with Sonic?

I have removed the section stating that Sonic! Software Planning started as an internal Sega studio called CD4 because there is no evidence that such a studio ever existed. The article also stated that Sonic developed Shining in the Darkness, but in fact the only studio credited with work on Shining in the Darkness is Climax Entertainment, and Sonic! Software Planning would not be founded until after the release of Shining in the Darkness. The article also stated that Takahashi would leave Sega for Camelot, but Takehashi was never an employee of Sega. Although Sega owned a majority of shares in Sonic, it was registered as a separate entity.

Statements that Camelot has its roots in Sonic are also false. When Camelot was founded in 1994, it did codevelop games with Sonic, but they were two separate companies. Sonic was not just a predecessor to Camelot, and it should have its own article because they have distinct development histories.

Unfortunately, I don't think we have a source on what exactly happened to Sonic, but we know that by Sega's 1998 financial report, they are no longer listed as a subsidiary. Shining Lore (talk) 03:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Camelot considers itself to be an extension/reincorporation of Sonic! Software Planning and lists SSP's games *on their website* as *their* games (most recent archive of source: http://web.archive.org/web/20230329161209/https://www.camelot.co.jp/wp/product_introduction_game/). Even if you want better sources for the exact situation of SSP, the SSP games should be listed as part of Camelot's catalogue; this is the stance of the company. AeSJ497r (talk) 15:27, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Anyone at any company can state on their website that they consider another company's body of work to be their own. Saying "Camelot claims that they own Sonic's catalogue, therefore we must respect their claim" is dangerously fallacious and shifts the burden of proof off of the company asserting ownership of another's works, and onto everyone else to prove a negative: that they don't own those works. The Shining IP belongs to Sega, and has since the beginning. Sega owns the copyright on all of those games, not Camelot. Camelot can take credit for the work that they did on Shining Wisdom, Shining the Holy Ark, and Shining Force III, but they cannot seriously claim any credit for the games made by other developers prior to Camelot's founding.

I believe that another reason why this particular belief, that Sonic! Software Planning is Camelot Software Planning, persists is because of an old piece of misinformation that has existed for decades at this point: the belief that Camelot acquired Sonic, and therefore Camelot is Sonic. We know that Camelot did not acquire Sonic. Sonic, a Sega subsidiary, was closed by Sega and had its assets moved into another of Sega's subsidiaries, Nextech. The company Nextech had a stronger claim to Sonic's library than Camelot considering Nextech was, at a time, a wholly owned subsidiary of Sega and that had Sonic's assets merged into it. But nowhere on Nextech's website did they ever claim to be Sonic, and nor did they claim to have developed Sonic's titles; they simply stated that a merger took place. Wizzardesse (talk) 05:49, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

You're right that calling these products, "Camelot's games," denoting ownership, would be disingenuous.

Noting the games that the two people who own/run the company were factually involved with in leadership roles and claim involvement with as per Camelot being representative of them as game developers is not the same. This is not a claim of ownership, but accreditation for their work. The linked source does not claim ownership of those titles, nor does the table. So long as language that claims ownership is avoided and it's explained that the connection to Camelot is an uncontested one made by the company, this information is reasonable to include.

Or, to put it another way: are we going to focus on actually making this page a useful information resource, or are we going to cut out information that explains the history of the company to the reader and why they're associated? It's important to not call Camelot SSP, because they're not, but explaining what Camelot claims and giving information that can help explain why is in line with how other software companies with complicated legal and personnel histories are handled on Wikipedia.

The legalese is not indicative of the history, and that history should be given context to help the reader instead of having several pages lead to dead ends. If you want to make the situation clearer, please, I urge you to rewrite the article to better convey the situation and link those games to a new SSP article. It would make for a better resource for all of the users and remove any need for this discussion to continue. AeSJ497r (talk) 19:17, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The linked source, Camelot's own website, does indeed state that the entity known as Camelot developed games they factually did not and could not have developed. I will quote the Japanese and provide a translation by myself personally.

「＊以下のゲームはキャメロットが開発に携わった商品です。」

"Camelot was involved in the development of the following games."

They then proceed to list every game Camelot has developed, and also games developed by Sonic! Software Planning and Shining and the Darkness, a game solely developed by Climax Entertainment prior to even Sonic's founding.

Further, on Camelot's historical timeline (https://www.camelot.co.jp/wp/timeline_camelot/) they disingenuously place the founding of Sonic at the very top of the timeline, saying Sonic was founded in 1991. This is a true statement. What is misleading is that directly below the founding of Sonic in 1991, they begin giving specific months and place the release of Shining and the Darkness under Sonic's founding, slyly implying Sonic (and therefore, to them, Camelot) made Shining and the Darkness. If this were an accurate, honest timeline, Sonic's founding would be placed after Shining and the Darkness, in June of 1991. They even put the founding month of Camelot on this timeline in April 1994. They then proceed to list every game developed by Sonic on their historical timeline and blend it seemlessly into the games that were actually developed by Camelot.

Believe me, I have been doing a lot to attempt to correct the record on the company history of both Sonic! Software Planning and Camelot Software Planning. I have been slogging through so many old Japanese corporate websites and magazines and would absolutely love for Sonic to have its own article with its own history, because the history of Sonic is indeed distinct from the history of Camelot. I can see from the Sonic! Software Planning redirect page that Shining Lore did make a page for Sonic Software Planning but an admin removed their page with the following inaccurate comment: "Basically just the early years of Camelot, doesn't need any it's own article".

The other week I attempted to remove the "Camelot Software Planning games" category tag from the games that weren't made by Camelot and my changes were undone by a different admin for similar reasons: because the admin believed that Camelot IS Sonic. I don't believe any progress can be made on writing a historically accurate history of both companies, their games, and their staff on Wikipedia while admins and the community at large are under the impression that both companies are indistinguishable and any attempts to separate the two are undone instantly by those with the authority to do so. Wizzardesse (talk) 23:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC)