Monster Hunter 4 outsold the Vita!

[Cheebee]

badgenome said:

Cheebee said:

Of course there are exceptions, but I think you're really grasping at straws here. A more powerful system doesn't equal higher dev-costs by default; that depends on the type of game -obviously-. Tetris on Vita would be cheap, and a 3DS GTA would be far more expensive, for example, yes.

Fact remains, a ground-up, full-fledged, AAA, fully-realized MH title the likes of MH4 on Vita would easily have been much more costly to develop than a ground-up 3DS version. One can always come up with 'what ifs', exceptions and best/worst-case scenarios, but in this case that just doesn't fly, no matter how it's spinned.

You are assuming that Capcom would have made some kind of crazy "we maxed out the Vita!" game instead of the same old reasonably budgeted Monster Hunter by numbers that they always make. It ain't grasping at straws to call that assumption into question.

Had Capcom made MH4 for Vita instead of 3DS, it's a given they would not release it with PSP/3DS-level graphics. They would most certainly take advantage of the hardware and create a more graphically-intensive game (including a much higher resolution instead of the 3DS's 320x240 pixels. If your viewpoint were the reality, then they'd have released RE6 with PS2/Wii-like graphics. If you're going to release on more advanced hardware, you're going to take advantage of it. 

Of course they'd have a budget, and they'd most likely stick to that. I never said anywhere they'd go about 'maxing out Vita'. But to assume a Vita MH4 would be equal to a 3DS MH4, graphics- and budget-wise, is just silly. Really, I don't get why you're making such a fuss, when it's a given much stronger hardware requires a larger development investment. Besides, why is that such a big deal? It's just natural progression, same how a MH5 (or something) would be more costly to make on 3DS's successor. I'm not slamming Vita or anything, it's just the way things are.