| outlawauron said: PS2 was the only relevant console for the first MonHuns. DS couldn't handle a 3D monster hunter, so PSP was the only handheld option. By the time the series was huge, the PS3 version of Monster Hunter 3 was mysteriously cancelled and then a Wii version was announced. Since then, every MH has been Nintendo exclusive, despite not matching the PSP entries. That's why people think Nintendo had a hand in it. |
What is so mysterious about development shifting to a cheaper platform with a larger install base? How come when Sony has these advantages they are the "only relevant console," but when Nintendo has them, Capcom is expected to support Sony's platforms in spite of this?
We have had this discussion before. Not too long ago, either. Probably multiple times. The end result is that there is no smoking gun, no evidence that Nintendo incentivised Capcom to bring the series to Nintendo platforms by doing anything other than being a cooperative partner (those rumors about Capcom and Sony having a dispute revolving around PSN carry more weight than the Nintendo moneyhat fantasies).
It's pretty obvious Capcom has no interest in making Monster Hunter multiplatform, because you're wrong about the PS2 being the only relevant console at its time. The other relevant console was the PSP. And despite Monster Hunter G and Monster Hunter 2 being released with few changes on PSP, they were not multiplatform games. They were ported a year after their initial release. An even more direct port happened for both Portable 3rd and for 3 Ultimate. If Capcom was interested in Monster Hunter being multiplatform, why wouldn't the PS2/PSP entries have been developed (and released) together? Or the later PSP with PS3 or Wii entries? Or the 3DS with Wii U entries? Capcom has no interest in releasing Monster Hunter entries on multiple platforms simultaneously, other than Frontier it seems.
Frontier, which also disproves your "every MH being Nintendo exclusive" claim, along with Portable 3rd HD.
