By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
darkknightkryta on 29 September 2013
Edit Thread
Nem said:
darkknightkryta said:
 

Yet Howard Stinger's decisions were constantly being reversed in Japan because the execs there had more power than him.  Do you honestly believe SCEJ can't override SCEA?  For that matter, All of Sony's studios has access to everything, even the servers, SCEJ could have fixed whatever whenever.  

I think you're the one missing the points here cause you keep on glossing over them.

1.  Monster Hunter has to be exclusive on a game basis (From Capcom).  This is also the reason why Monster Hunter 4 is exclusive and not on the Wii U

2.  Monster Hunter 3 G is multiplatform.  Capcom's reasoning is that they need to reach a larger audience so it's okay for Monster Hunter 3 G to be multiplatform.  This point contradicts point 1.

3.  The Wii U's userbase is smaller than the PS360s userbase therefore is not a platform for global audience, which contradicts point 3.

4.  You're saying Monster Hunter 4 is exclusive to 3DS because Sony failed to fix Ad-hoc party for Monster Hunter Portable 3rd HD.  Which is your speculation.

5.  My point against point 4 are as follows: 1.  Sony World Wide studios has access to everything, including servers and apps.  Since Ad-hoc party is more or less an app, SCEJ can fix the problem and send it over to SCEA for review.  Any opposition can be overriden from Japan which brings point 2.  2.  Japanese excecs have overriden people with more authority in the company.  For example: Howard Stringer's decisions were consistently being overriden by Japanese execs, because despite being president of the company and being the utmost power, japan can override him.  To think Jack Tretton has more power than the execs in Japan is ludicrous.

6.  Your speculation for point 4 is also based on a PR man who most likely dumped everything on Sony to save face.  Which, I should point out, he said nothing about Monster Hunter 4 being exclusive, only about why Monster Hunter Portable 3rd HD not coming over.

7.  My speculation is that Sony found out about the Monster Hunter 4 exclusivity before Capcom announced it and said "Piss off".  My support?  The timing for Monster Hunter's development would put the game at about 2 years exactly from announcement.  Highly unlikely they started making the game at that point and most likely had prototypes built for the 3DS, or was making the game in conjunction with Monster Hunter 3G since they need a code base for the 3DS.  All this would have been around the time Monster Hunter Portable 3rd was released.

So You're honestly going to believe your speculation after all the contradictions I just pointed out?


I think we're going in circles. I explained why i dont agree with your view and you explained why you dont agree with mine. I dont think we can really go much farther here as we're both really just speculating and extrapolating our own conclusions. I think no one can say one or the other is incorrect. We just dont have enough information, but only the logics that we see on them and what we believe are the internal workings of the companies.

Don't worry Nem, last time I'm going to respond, I'm just to "testa duro"(hard headed), as my parents say in Italian, to leave this be; so don't hate me XD.

But yes, the reason this debate is going in circles is because your 100% ignoring everything I've brought to you.  I've explained on multiple times that your theory on ad-hoc party doesn't hold any merit because the execs in Japan hold final say.  This is the reason Sony is in the mess that it's in, this is also the reason that Ad-hoc party would have been fixed within an hour of a phone call from Capcom if Monster Hunter was truly at stake.  Your other theory about reaching a larger audience, by putting Monster Hunter with Nintendo exclusive doesn't hold.  In Japan it does, but not elsewhere.  So to reach the "global audience" as you're trying to say would involve a PS360 multiplat title.  Hell even the Vita has a higher install base and has been consistently outselling the Wii U, so by that token it has a higher global audience and should have gotten a port of 3G.  This didn't happen and everything Capcom says about this exclusiveness for Nintendo contradicts every statement they make, as I've pointed above.  Poor reasoning over ad-hoc party which I've essentially debunked with emperical data, PR statements from Capcom which contradicts other PR statements from Capcom, show that ad-hoc party wasn't the case.  The big thing that makes all the pieces fit is that Nintendo paid good money, or made a very nice deal for Capcom.