By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
darkknightkryta on 26 September 2013
Edit Thread
Nem said:
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.

Like I said, Sony Japan would have taken over if this seriously was the case.  And you're going to completely ignore all the mixed messages that contradict each other from Capcom when it comes to their handheld titles involving the 3DS?

Edit:  You stealth edited now my response doesn't look too good :(. 

Let me get my response ready for your other paragraph... which I can't even do damn you VGChartz!

Anyways about Monster Hunter and Nintendo vs Sony.  What can Sony say?  When has any dev ever talked about money hats?  Think Sony could have just come out and say "Yeah Bioshock is coming out to the PS3 next year, don't buy the 360 version" or any other title that MS paid for?  There's really enough evidence to infer that Nintendo paid for Monster Hunter 4 on 3DS only.  Like I mentioned, when asked why Monster Hunter 4 isn't on Wii U, Capcom said Monster Hunter as a franchise has to be exclusive.  Which contradicts Monster Hunter 3G (They actually said that at an event promoting Monster Hunter 3G).  They're excuse for not having Resident Evil Revelations on Vita?  The screen was too small and the audio isn't good enough.  Svensson actually teased that there was a good reason too.  Yet by that reasoning Resident Evil Revelations should never have been on the 3DS in the first place.  Then the rumour about the handheld contract Capcom signed with Nintendo came out inbetween all this.  They also mentioned Monster Hunter 4 was delayed to bring timing closer to the contract's end.  What was announced a few days after Monster Hunter 4's release?  Monster Hunter Frontier G on Vita.  Why not announce it earlier?  Why not announce it a little after the 360 version?  Hell the game could have been ported and release way before Monster Hunter 4 even came out.  Contract's over; Sony and Capcom can start talking again about Monster Hunter.  Plus I found it very odd that Capcom would show off Monster Hunter on PSP quite extensively at the PS4 reveal and to make a big point about that, when they had Monster Hunter 4 coming out for 3DS.  It could have been the ultimate FU from Capcom, or Capcom was trying to let fans know there's still Monster Hunter coming out with Sony.  I'm also sure Sony looked over Capcom's presentation and would have seen the slides before hand, so I doubt they would have let that through.