Mnementh said: Aw, come on Capcom. Switch hardware sells well, the old Street Fighter port sold well, everyone knows MonHun sells well in japan, especially on handhelds. Are they serious. The real test is MonHun World nobody knows which direction it will sell. And MonHun Worlds is an expensive new title, while MonHun XX is a cheap port of an enhanced edition. So Capcom should look at World as a test much more than this. |
All product release are under test condition they saying or not, all sales and conditions will be analysed and feedback to the decision process of new products.
OTBWY said: "Evaluate" Actually it means that Nintendo has to pay for new games, the same way Sony paid to keep the Switch version of MonHun World out. |
Do you have any evidence Nintendo paid for SF II, MH XX or that Sony paid MHW to be out of Switch but on other platforms?
Zuhyc said: This reminds me of their thest with Resident Evil 4 Wii port. The game sold really well, so they made the Umbrella Chronicles for the Wii while the PS3 and X360 got Resident Evil 5. |
Yes because RE 5 would totally run on Wii.
HintHRO said:
No we don't act like 3rd parties own anything to Nintendo. We all know how bad Nintendo treats 3rd party. Still, Capcom's logic with this one is beyond flawed. SF2 is a SNES game from 1991! Still it sold relatively well at $40. What if it didn't (as it should have)? Does Capcom really think a brand new SF game on Switch would sell terrible because people didn't want to pay $40 for a 26 year old game? Capcom was lucky because Switch' software line-up is incredibly limited and people just want to play something. But no way would a rip-off like SF2 sell near that number (500k) on X1 or PS4 even with their bigger install bases. Based on that logic they shouldn't release any game on X1/PS4 at all. |
Nope, your interpretation of that logic is flawed.
You don't know what were their expectation. And you are forcing your logic to be a different thing than what it really is.
Xen said:
This is an over-generalization, I'd say. Lots of third-party games underperform on PS/Xbox, most recently you can see Prey for example. There are well-selling third-party titles on Nintendo, but you are not entirely wrong, either: Nintendo home consoles surely have a problem even with genuinely good efforts, such as many on the Wii U - Tekken Tag 2, Assassin's Creed 4 for example, surely deserved to do a lot better. Most recently on the Switch, the same Capcom had SF2 sell stupid numbers considering it was $40 and genuinely an old game. |
No it isn't.
Put how many MPs done much much worse on PS or Xbox compared to Nintendo version, now put the opposite. Is it an exageration?
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."