By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
nemo37 on 13 May 2018
Edit Thread
DonFerrari said:
Nuvendil said:

I'm saying every time Capcom pulls the arbitrary exclusivity BS or shafts one fanbase, the people who get the goodies celebrate while the other side calls it anticonsumer BS, which it is.  Then, when the shoe is inevitably on the other foot because Capcom is a massive whore, the roles suddenly reverse with those selfishly celebrating the actions are suddenly enlightened and those  once enlightened suddenly start celebrating.  

 

Facts are facts:  Capcom shafted Switch owners on MonHun, shafted PS4 owners on Dead Rising, and shafted everyone but Sony with Street Fighter and it was bullshit every. single. time.

Glad we cleared that. But for me Capcom took the strategy that would generate more profit and aligned with their strategy for each game.

MHW wouldn't run ok on Switch, so no Switch version.

SF V they wouldn't have the funds to develop the game until a lot later, so Sony payment allowed them a lot earlier.

This MH wouldn't sell much outside of Switch because of MHW been release very soon and this being a lot "lower" instalment.

MS paid a lot for DR so they got it, perfectly fine.

Hipocrisy should be hold for false accusations without any evidence.

Street Fighter IV and its many iterations have sold around 9 million physical copies according VGC. I very much doubt they did not have the funds or intentions on doing a sequel. Mind you I am in the camp that believes even Sony got shafted with SF V, considering they paid for it and Capcom under-delivered (well I mean the core mechanics and game were solid, but it was missing a lot of content at the beginning).