By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Why Nintendo didnt moneyhat Monster Hunter.

sperrico87 on 29 July 2012
Mr Khan said:
In my mind, it's clear that it isn't 100% a moneyhat. Capcom was likely shopping around for a way to avoid having to do a PS3 version once they figured out how much it would cost, and looked to the Wii as having similar assets to what they had already developed, so that they would not have to spend that much for Tri. Remember that it wasn't until around the year 2008 that Monster Hunter became a really big deal, well within the timeframe for when Tri came to the Wii (development-wise), so it likely wasn't really worth moneyhatting before that. Nintendo became much more accommodating as the development process went on and MH's popularity increased apace, developing things like the Classic Controller Pro, and running the Western advertising campaign. It was easier for Nintendo to push for 3DS exclusivity for the next numbered entry after that point.

tldr: it wasn't Nintendo just knocking on Capcom's door with a sack of Yen in hand, but it does involve significant input on Nintendo's part, more than they've done for other games or other third parties in the past.

Pretty much my thoughts exactly.  PS3/ Wii U Monster Hunter would be insanely gorgeous to look at, but Capcom would rather spend a fraction of that and just make it for 3DS since it's yet to reach it's third/fourth year peak in the cycle, and looking around at the current market, there isn't another console/handheld that has a healthy momentum/ install base to make the investment worthwhile.  At least for the moment.



 

Around the Network
phenom08 on 29 July 2012

@2000cc I see what your saying there are differences in the series of games. Ok yea that does make sense. But honestly I don't see this underperforming as much as you believe. It sold well on the Wii even though it was a home console. So the comparisons to the PSP versions is a little flawed since the series is more popular on handhelds like Pokemon. Maybe Capcom wants monster hunter to become a global beast like Pokemon. Honestly though why would Capcom want to release such a major game on such a poor selling platform. Its not their job to create a system seller for Sony's platform. 3DS is dominating Japan and things are getting worse, a game as big as Monster hunter (NSMB2) is coming soon. That will only make the userbase even larger. Hell at this rate all the monster hunter may come only too the 3ds.



DieAppleDie on 29 July 2012

xcept that Nintendo did already moneyhat Capcom in the past, remember Resident evil series?



oniyide on 29 July 2012
phenom08 said:
@Oniyide Yea I didn't mean the WiiU so much. I meant they were heavily backing the 3DS because of the DS success. Honestly I see all the home consoles getting a good amount of support from Capcom next Gen. Yea only the dumb ninty fans dont understand why the Wii didnt recieve 3rd party support. Obviously hardware power and the gamecube getting its ass handed to it. Its only logical to bet on the PS2's successor. What gets under my skin is HD fans bashing the Wii for selling so much and receiving little support. But did we expect for them to change their minds mid Gen. I knew from the start the Wii would only lead to benefits in the future gens because the confidence in Ninty would finally return. And also im definitely not one of those ninty fans begging for multiplatformal releases. I could careless about anything beside CoD and Nintendo games. I wouldn't mind those 3rd party games and if they are multiplatformal then why not all 3? Monster Hunter has always been exclusive so the only reason Sony fans are saying this now is because it may not come at all.


fair enough, but the truth is MH hasnt been exclusive for awhile. 360 got one as did the Wii. IMHO like all 3rd party games should go to as much systems as it can. MH is no exception. BUT if it doenst no skin of my back, didnt get it for my PS2, PSP, Wii and i wont be getting it for my 3DS never liked that series



phenom08 on 29 July 2012

@Oniyide This is the first debate we have had without us fighting lol. Yea Monster Hunter has had alot of spinoffs so hey I guess they're all getting one sooner or later.



Around the Network
nitekrawler1285 on 29 July 2012
Chandler said:
Can you honestly imagine Nintendo spending millions just for a third party game which isn't even that big outside of Japan? Nintendo is way too stingy for moneyhatting games. I think capcom did go 3DS because a) They were assuming the 3DS would just like the DS dominate the handheld market and b) they can pretty much reuse the PSP engine. It's just a smart business decision, nothing more.


As this is the region giving them the most money due to currency exchange rates I think it would be smart of them and possibly a great investment. Not to mention completely stalling their handheld competition in the only region a handheld has ever challenged them. 

They could use the PSP engine on PSV too. It wouldn't be the first game released on PSV to use PSP level graphics.  Maybe slap on some HD textures and AA wouldn't be too expensive to implement and make a world of difference.  Also given the PSP late blossoming in Japan the smartest business decision for them would have been to not assume one way or other and support both platforms.



2000cc on 30 July 2012
Soriku said:
Degausser said:
phenom08 said:
@2000cc So in other words, you are waiting for a Monster Hunter Portable even though Monster Hunter 4 is portable game and not on home consoles. They could have been named that because they were released for portables while the main entry are released for home consoles. This time that wouldn't make any sense at all.


 It's hard to explain to people who arn't really fans of the series really. It is a bigger distinguishment then just having 'Portable' in the title. Moving the 'normal' series to handheld should have a bigger impact on thing though, but I dunno, all I can tell you is that after MH4 there wil be a MHP4, and it'll be a bigger deal in Japan, whatever console(s) it is on. 


What makes you so sure that they're not blurring the lines between the mainline (MH1, 2, 3, 4) and Portable series with MH4? After all, MH4 is the first mainline game on a handheld. MH is huge in Japan because of it being portable, not because of the "Portable" name itself. That's why MH3G sold even better than MH3. I find it more likely that they'll just release a MH4G in place of a MHP4. The only real place they'd make a MHP4 besides the 3DS would be the Vita (since it's the only other handheld) but that'd be stupid if they're building up the fanbase on the 3DS with MH3G and MH4. And a MHP4 sounds dumb on the 3DS too as MH4 is already portable. Whatever changes they could make for a MHP4 could just be incorporated to MH4G.

2000cc said:

@phenom08 Yeah if you have ever played Portable 3rd, or Freedom Unite (both final versions of their respective monster hunter games) they are vastly different to their comparative 'initial' Monster Hunter releases (eg MH 2 & MH tri) to the tune of A LOT of extra content (4 new weapons (on the previous 10), a much higher difficulty gradient, more monster and lands and a completely differnt setting in the case of portable 3rd from tri)

The thing with the 'portable' or 'freedom' series' is that they are seen as the complete versions of the games, If you play freedom unite on psp next to tri on the Wii, you will notice that even though Tri is MH3 while freedom unite is MH2 not only do 4 (of the most interesting) weapons get cut in the transition to Tri, but there is far less content in Tri and it is far easier (which is odd given that MH was originally a difficulty based game, like demons souls). Quite frankly Tri (and its portable version 3G on 3DS) are not even comparable to portable 3rd (the 'complete' version of MH3) on psp, and many long term monster hunter fans (myself inculded) were quite disappointed by the watering down of the series in Tri.

The portable series is the 'real' monster hunter for long term players, while the nintendo versions seem to be less intensive (but still tough in places, no disrespect as it is a hard game in parts, just nowhere near as many as other MH games) versions of MH to bring new people into the franchise.

but it is hard to explain to those who are not players of the series, I dont play MMO's, so this is a guess but an attempted similie would be something like saying the nintendo MH games are like someone with the original world of warcraft game only, while the comparison for freedom unite or Potable 3rd would be someone playing with every WOW expansion also. The additional content & extra difficulty of the likes of the 'portable' series makes them a different game to the basic nintendo editions that always predate them

&  2 million sales for tri is not that hot for an MH game, freedom unite & portable 3rd psp (listed as freedom 3) both more than doubled Tri's numbers (portable 3rd doing nearly 5 million even though never getting any release outside of Japan!)

@Degausser, thanks again, always great to see a fan on here


From what I've heard from a bunch of people who've played MHP3, MHP3 is much easier than Tri. MHP3 doesn't even have G Rank, the hardest rank, while MH3G does. So I'm not sure why you say Nintendo MHs are less intensive (like being on a Nintendo system really matters with how they make the difficulty, as you can see with people's impressions with MHP3).

MH3G has content from MHP3 too, as well as G Rank as I noted, so it has the same amount of content if not more than MHP3. Also, the bolded line of yours doesn't even make sense since there was only one MH edition before MHP3. MHP3 predates MH3G.

Also let's not get into that sales discussion again. Portable MH will always be bigger than console MH. MH3G sold more than MH3 in Japan.

Having played (and currently owning) both Portable 3rd and 3G, I can say that I disagree entirely with your sources, Portable 3rd is a lot harder than 3G (but neither are as hard as freedom unite imo). Dont get too caught up in the 'g' rank quest addition, they were an addition for MHFU as an expansion rank to the usual quests, in this (freedom unite) they were almost impossible. As 3g's monsters are comparitively easier, its G rank is also.

Plus 3G lacks the more technical weapons, mainly the bow, hunting horn and gunlance. It could just be that I'm a gunlance and hunting horn user mainly (both considered two of the most technical weapon trees) but portable 3rd was leagues more difficult than 3G, and I have friends in Japan (i've lived and worked there for quite a long time previously, hence why I even still like games at all) who think portable 3rd is even harder than Freedom Unite (I disagree, but thats their opinion). I'd say either your sources havent finished the games, or they just find the 3ds controls harder to use than the psp ones. Because my personal, and my main MH infulence groups opinion I dont know a single person who would rate 3g harder than P3rd. While others would rate P3rd the hardest MH ever, and these folks are hardcore MH players (we are talking thousands of hours, with all the armours & weapons like the fatalis & G series, I've even witnessed one do a no armour, hammer (a weapon that cant block) run vs G rank tigrex in MHFU!(a monster so big a dodge roll takes you only from one of its feet to its other and it has massive tail reach with one hit kills in most top level armour)).

...and as for content, portable 3rd has more content than 3g, even though 3g was later, just like freedom unite has more content than tri, even though tri was later. Tri was cut down heavily from what was included in freedom unite, 3g is the expansion of this (cut down version), where portable 3rd is the most content heavy MH in existence.

but it all comes back to the fact MH tri & 3G are barely even the same games as portable 3rd, its like comparing apples with oranges.



PLAYSTATION NATION LADY OF JRPGS

Favourite Games of 2013 1.Tomb Raider(PS3) 2.Atelier Ayesha(PS3) 3.Virtues Last Reward (Vita)

phenom08 on 30 July 2012
Soriku said:
2000cc said:

Having played (and currently owning) both Portable 3rd and 3G, I can say that I disagree entirely with your sources, Portable 3rd is a lot harder than 3G (but neither are as hard as freedom unite imo). Dont get too caught up in the 'g' rank quest addition, they were an addition for MHFU as an expansion rank to the usual quests, in this (freedom unite) they were almost impossible. As 3g's monsters are comparitively easier, its G rank is also.

Plus 3G lacks the more technical weapons, mainly the bow, hunting horn and gunlance. It could just be that I'm a gunlance and hunting horn user mainly (both considered two of the most technical weapon trees) but portable 3rd was leagues more difficult than 3G, and I have friends in Japan (i've lived and worked there for quite a long time previously, hence why I even still like games at all) who think portable 3rd is even harder than Freedom Unite (I disagree, but thats their opinion). I'd say either your sources havent finished the games, or they just find the 3ds controls harder to use than the psp ones. Because my personal, and my main MH infulence groups opinion I dont know a single person who would rate 3g harder than P3rd. While others would rate P3rd the hardest MH ever, and these folks are hardcore MH players (we are talking thousands of hours, with all the armours & weapons like the fatalis & G series, I've even witnessed one do a no armour, hammer (a weapon that cant block) run vs G rank tigrex in MHFU!(a monster so big a dodge roll takes you only from one of its feet to its other and it has massive tail reach with one hit kills in most top level armour)).

...and as for content, portable 3rd has more content than 3g, even though 3g was later, just like freedom unite has more content than tri, even though tri was later. Tri was cut down heavily from what was included in freedom unite, 3g is the expansion of this (cut down version), where portable 3rd is the most content heavy MH in existence.

but it all comes back to the fact MH tri & 3G are barely even the same games as portable 3rd, its like comparing apples with oranges.


You're the only person I've heard say that MHP3 is harder. My sources are people from NeoGAF and GameFAQs and they all say it's easier than Tri and I haven't seen a single person say it was harder or even it's the hardest MH game. Since it comes down to a general consensus vs. single person thing, I'm going to have to believe the other people over you.

Content wise, I've heard MHFU has more content than MHP3 from people asking about the content on GameFAQs for MHP3.

And I know MH3G is more of an expansion over Tri, but it has content from Tri, P3, and includes its own stuff including G Rank. Because of that I have trouble believing that MHP3 is leaps and bounds above it.

Thank you Soriku, you are precisely who i needed to help me in this debate. What you said is true all of those elements could be put in MH4 making the MHP4 pointless. Thats what i was trying to say but i dont know to much about Monster Hunter. I honestly dont see a reason for it on the Vita. It has a much larger potential userbase on the 3ds and its cheaper, so why waste money on porting it day 1 when they could port it later if at all. What i see happening is MH4 coming to 3ds and MH4HD coming to WiiU( that would confirm a moneyhat lol).



brendude13 on 30 July 2012

It's pretty obvious they did seeing how well Monster Hunter did on the PSP, or they just hate SONY. Both are very likely.



phenom08 on 30 July 2012
brendude13 said:
It's pretty obvious they did seeing how well Monster Hunter did on the PSP, or they just hate SONY. Both are very likely.

How it did on the PSP could have been better with the DS's userbase, dont forget cheaper, could have been a global release since the DS actually did well globally, and why would they release it on the Vita?