| darkknightkryta said: Which comes back to; do you honestly believe Sony is that stupid to loose Monster Hunter over Ad-hoc party? Capcom reps have said pretty illogical things that can only make sense if Nintendo paid a hefty sum for handheld exclusivity. Capcom's reasoning for no Monster Hunter 4 on Wii U contradicts Monster Hunter 3 G. No Resident Evil: Revelations on Vita's reasoning doesn't make sense since the 3DS version should never have been made by their logic. On top; the rumour about the deal, the rumour about the Monster Hunter 4 delay which would bring the release date closer to contract's lapse time. Monster Hunter Frontier G being announced a little after Monster Hunter 4's release, which also coincides to the end of the contract's date. I mean Monster Hunter Frontier G for Vita could have been announced closer to the 360 port of the game instead. Plus the game's a port and could have been released a lot earlier. |
Yes,i honestly do. I think SCEA was too stupid to know what Monster Hunter was, passed it off as a cheap PSP upscale and didnt care. And that is also why obviously MH4 already comes with online play from the get go on the japanese version.
I also found out that MH3 was beeing developed for the PS3 and was later changed to Wii because of high development costs on the PS3 (early years of PS3). If your theory could hold, it would be because of that. But we are speculating as sony never said anything about it and we only know what we were told. Despite that, it was on Sony's best interest to have cooperated with capcom given how important Monster Hunter is in Japan. I am sure that whoever made those decisions for Sony didnt have a clue of what they were doing.
