This topic is one of the most controversial. On one side you have people saying Nintendo obviously moneyhatted to get Monster Hunter exclusive as far as we can see. On the other hand you people saying Nintendo didn't have to moneyhat Monster Hunter to get it exclusive. I am on the latter side. I don't see any reason for why Capcom would want it released for the Vita at all. Why not release it for a platform that would actually do really well compared to one that was destined to lose regardless of having it or not and would rely on it to sell in the first place. Capcom already benefits from it being released to a larger userbase and cheaper development cost. Before anyone says well this decision was made before 3DS and Vita released so we had no clue how they were gonna sell? Well obviously Capcom made an educated guess, and last Gen Sony had Monster Hunter and wasn't victorious so what exactly was gonna change those same results this time. What I'm trying to say is Nintendo didn't have to moneyhat because it was a smart chose from the start. Remember the DS wasn't strong enough and the Wii got Monster Hunter over the PS3 so why wouldn't the 3DS take it as well?
P.S. I made this thread because I don't like the assumption of Nintendo moneyhatting Monster Hunter when such a decision was made probably because it was a smart decision.
