Quantcast
Capcom: Monster Hunter XX Switch version is another test to evaluate our support for Switch

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Capcom: Monster Hunter XX Switch version is another test to evaluate our support for Switch

why re-release XX to Switch where the 3Ds sold very well already. Why not release World to Switch?



Around the Network
Green098 said:
DonFerrari said:

So a leaker said Sony paid to remove the game from Switch but Sony couldn't be bothered to request full exclusivity? Seems legit.

Paying for port sure exist, but you are just making air.

It's a PS4 exclusive in Japan and I think if the leaker got Monster World right along with Sony paying them to not port it to a nintendo platform, I don't think it means nothing. They even mentioned Sony didn't care if it came to Xbox One/PC. They also predicted a Monster Hunter XX port for Switch.

http://gearnuke.com/ps4-get-exclusive-monster-hunter-5-capcom-rumor/

While I can't say it's definitely real, just that it certainly has something to it. It also mentions some sort of Monster Hunter Portable 5 from the main monster hunter team coming to Switch at some point after Capcom got cold feet about skipping out on and risking their Japanese audience. So if it does come true maybe Capcom are smarter than we think.

There are a plethora of games that are exclusive to PS4 in Japan that get Xbox version WW that Sony didn't pay a dime. And in this case the game is Japan PS4 exclusive and WW will go to X1 and PC so that is hardly a certainty that Sony paid for it.

We all know Switch is a lot weaker than the other platforms so that can be the sole reason for it not being on it. Not to forget game developing starts a long time before reveals, so it could be decided as exclusive even before Switch anouncement or even release.

And sure the leaker may be right, or he may have just heard something on the announcement from off-hands and fabricated a leaking to his taste, do we have the guy history as a leaker? Because we also have several leakers that invent everything, and then erase the wrong leaks.

OTBWY said:
DonFerrari said:

It isn't out of realm of reality.

It's just that you affirmed with conviction so I'm asking for evidence, because blocking only nintendo and paying for it doesn't make sense.

I think user Green098 already gave the appropriate answer.

Yes, he gave. Something you haven't had and that your initial post was very far from.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

crapcom still here



DonFerrari said:

There are a plethora of games that are exclusive to PS4 in Japan that get Xbox version WW that Sony didn't pay a dime. And in this case the game is Japan PS4 exclusive and WW will go to X1 and PC so that is hardly a certainty that Sony paid for it.

We all know Switch is a lot weaker than the other platforms so that can be the sole reason for it not being on it. Not to forget game developing starts a long time before reveals, so it could be decided as exclusive even before Switch anouncement or even release.

And sure the leaker may be right, or he may have just heard something on the announcement from off-hands and fabricated a leaking to his taste, do we have the guy history as a leaker? Because we also have several leakers that invent everything, and then erase the wrong leaks.

And there are plenty of games where Sony did pay for exclusivity. Not just in Japan. The case however is Monster Hunter and the Japanese market, which is the biggest market for the franchise. Sony paid Capcom to keep their main competitor (Switch version) in Japan out.

And we also all know that Capcom was involved in the development of the Switch. So that suggests other reasoning. Besides, Monster Hunter World really doesn't look that graphically intensive, if the Xbox One can run it, a (somewhat lesser) port to the Switch can work.

Sure the leaker could have added more than what is actually true, but when the leaker in this case is so specific, and when evidence shows it after the reveal, I have very little reason to doubt it. Sony is a company that would to that, and so is Capcom as well.

OTBWY said:

I think user Green098 already gave the appropriate answer.

Yes, he gave. Something you haven't had and that your initial post was very far from.

I was in the process of arguing the same thing he did. I just didn't have to. No need to get nasty about it.



OTBWY said:
DonFerrari said:

There are a plethora of games that are exclusive to PS4 in Japan that get Xbox version WW that Sony didn't pay a dime. And in this case the game is Japan PS4 exclusive and WW will go to X1 and PC so that is hardly a certainty that Sony paid for it.

We all know Switch is a lot weaker than the other platforms so that can be the sole reason for it not being on it. Not to forget game developing starts a long time before reveals, so it could be decided as exclusive even before Switch anouncement or even release.

And sure the leaker may be right, or he may have just heard something on the announcement from off-hands and fabricated a leaking to his taste, do we have the guy history as a leaker? Because we also have several leakers that invent everything, and then erase the wrong leaks.

And there are plenty of games where Sony did pay for exclusivity. Not just in Japan. The case however is Monster Hunter and the Japanese market, which is the biggest market for the franchise. Sony paid Capcom to keep their main competitor (Switch version) in Japan out.

And we also all know that Capcom was involved in the development of the Switch. So that suggests other reasoning. Besides, Monster Hunter World really doesn't look that graphically intensive, if the Xbox One can run it, a (somewhat lesser) port to the Switch can work.

Sure the leaker could have added more than what is actually true, but when the leaker in this case is so specific, and when evidence shows it after the reveal, I have very little reason to doubt it. Sony is a company that would to that, and so is Capcom as well.

Yes, he gave. Something you haven't had and that your initial post was very far from.

I was in the process of arguing the same thing he did. I just didn't have to. No need to get nasty about it.

Yes there are plenty sure, most of them with public information on it. So sorry for me to not be jumping on believing something without evidence that you threw as certain fact.

If you had posted "Sony may have paid for MHW exclusivity in Japan" or "Sony may have blocked MHW from Switch" I wouldn't bother because yes anything is possible. But when you give certainty you need hard evidence, and still, one leaker isn't hard evidence, that is called rumor even if very possible real.

And I wasn't being nasty on you saying the guy explained or that you were going to explain the same at the same time, but that on all your prior posts you didn't said it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Around the Network

so Capcom is doing like this? USFII to get other SF ports? MHXX re-release on Switch to get MHW? RER 1+2 to get RE 7 port?



DonFerrari said:
OTBWY said:

And there are plenty of games where Sony did pay for exclusivity. Not just in Japan. The case however is Monster Hunter and the Japanese market, which is the biggest market for the franchise. Sony paid Capcom to keep their main competitor (Switch version) in Japan out.

And we also all know that Capcom was involved in the development of the Switch. So that suggests other reasoning. Besides, Monster Hunter World really doesn't look that graphically intensive, if the Xbox One can run it, a (somewhat lesser) port to the Switch can work.

Sure the leaker could have added more than what is actually true, but when the leaker in this case is so specific, and when evidence shows it after the reveal, I have very little reason to doubt it. Sony is a company that would to that, and so is Capcom as well.

I was in the process of arguing the same thing he did. I just didn't have to. No need to get nasty about it.

Yes there are plenty sure, most of them with public information on it. So sorry for me to not be jumping on believing something without evidence that you threw as certain fact.

If you had posted "Sony may have paid for MHW exclusivity in Japan" or "Sony may have blocked MHW from Switch" I wouldn't bother because yes anything is possible. But when you give certainty you need hard evidence, and still, one leaker isn't hard evidence, that is called rumor even if very possible real.

And I wasn't being nasty on you saying the guy explained or that you were going to explain the same at the same time, but that on all your prior posts you didn't said it.

It doesn't matter what semantics game we play, I already made clear that I'm fairly certain that that is what happened, because of what I have seen so far, and due to prior actions of said companies. That's all. Nothing more.

And yeah, it doesn't really matter what I said previously. If you wanted me to elaborate more previously, than maybe I should have but I didn't. Someone else made that case and I left it. No reason to go further on this.



Capcom has shown time and time again it is unable to make sound business decisions. They have been in a really bad financial position for many times. Unfortunately, Capcom is run by idiots; they keep repeating the same mistakes over and over again.

These test games are of such low quality it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy where consumers value Capcom games less than the premium content on the system. They are treating the Switch exactly like the Wii, completely oblivious of the handheld potential the Switch has.

I'd say I'm disappointed but I'm really not. They do still make quality games every now and then but it's a far cry from their golden years. Capcom is a second tier developer at best nowadays. Really miss the fantastic Capcom from back in the day.



So after test number 7, what can we expect? 1 game that isn't an old port?



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

SpokenTruth said:
So after test number 7, what can we expect? 1 game that isn't an old port?

test number 8.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994