I think its blatantly obvious. There arnt enough vita's out there for us to care about making a port. we dont think its worth it.
I think its blatantly obvious. There arnt enough vita's out there for us to care about making a port. we dont think its worth it.
| Soleron said: There's no explanation there. Is that the surprise? |
Read between the lines, It's not worth the effort. For HD consoles they make 1 game for 4 platforms catering to an experience only felt on the TV. For Vita it would be catering to the specific console, they can't just port the 3DS version to Vita.
What is with all the hate? Don't read GamrReview Articles. Contact me to ADD games to the Database 
Vote for the March Most Wanted / February Results






| yum123 said: I think its blatantly obvious. There arnt enough vita's out there for us to care about making a port. we dont think its worth it. |
Then why is it coming out on the Wii U??
riderz13371 said:
Then why is it coming out on the Wii U?? |
Chark said this:
"3. Capcom didn't want to spend the money. Not because porting is too expensive, because Vita has been found relatively inexpensive and easy to port to, but because of the possibility of limited return on investment. Vita does have a small install base, but still more than the Wii U so that doesn't might sense right? Well not exactly, considering Vita owners are far more likely to own a PS3 a number of potential Vita sales might equate to lost PS3 sales. Now notice that the port is going to MSRP at $50. If they made a Vita version would they keep it at $50 or would they have to lower down to $40. Either way means less money for them because at $50 if could have just sold on PS3 and at $40 Capcom could be out $10. There just aren't enough Vita owners that aren't PS3 owners and therefore wouldn't reach enough additional customers to justify development. This situation is very similiar to other Japanese publishers who decided on releasing game on PSP for Vita's first year."
And I pretty much agree. (The bolded should answer your question.)
| Roma said: Vita can't handle the title screen? |
A trip down memory lane.





"The worst part about these reviews is they are [subjective]--and their scores often depend on how drunk you got the media at a Street Fighter event." — Mona Hamilton, Capcom Senior VP of Marketing
*Image indefinitely borrowed from BrainBoxLtd without his consent.
NintendoPie said:
Chark said this: "3. Capcom didn't want to spend the money. Not because porting is too expensive, because Vita has been found relatively inexpensive and easy to port to, but because of the possibility of limited return on investment. Vita does have a small install base, but still more than the Wii U so that doesn't might sense right? Well not exactly, considering Vita owners are far more likely to own a PS3 a number of potential Vita sales might equate to lost PS3 sales. Now notice that the port is going to MSRP at $50. If they made a Vita version would they keep it at $50 or would they have to lower down to $40. Either way means less money for them because at $50 if could have just sold on PS3 and at $40 Capcom could be out $10. There just aren't enough Vita owners that aren't PS3 owners and therefore wouldn't reach enough additional customers to justify development. This situation is very similiar to other Japanese publishers who decided on releasing game on PSP for Vita's first year." And I pretty much agree. (The bolded should answer your question.) |
Seems like a bad excuse to me. I mean, it's an HD port not a brand new game. How hard could it be to port it over to the Vita. Also why does it matter if Vita sales means lower sales for PS3. Wouldn't it cost the same for the Vita and PS3 version? Do they expect people to buy the game separatly for both consoles? That just sounds like good ol' Capcom to me. Always trying to get as much money from their consumers as possible.
| riderz13371 said: Seems like a bad excuse to me. I mean, it's an HD port not a brand new game. How hard could it be to port it over to the Vita. Also why does it matter if Vita sales means lower sales for PS3. Wouldn't it cost the same for the Vita and PS3 version? Do they expect people to buy the game separatly for both consoles? That just sounds like good ol' Capcom to me. Always trying to get as much money from their consumers as possible. |
Well like I said if they charge $50 on both PS3 and Vita, they aren't creating any more sales so they wouldn't make any money from it regardless of how inexpensive it is to port.
Before the PS3 everyone was nice to me :(

Are they adding any new content to the game? If not I would urge everyone to just buy the 3DS copy for $20 instead of blowing $50. Unless you never plan on getting a 3DS of course.
| Wagram said: Are they adding any new content to the game? If not I would urge everyone to just buy the 3DS copy for $20 instead of blowing $50. Unless you never plan on getting a 3DS of course. |
Actually they are adding new content. It may not be an awful lot, but it's still more content.
In regards to this whole topic, I think most of you got it wrong. You guys make it seem like they're stupid. No, they aren't stupid. They make decisions based off of many things, even the seemingly stupid ones that end up failing horribly were not so simply made.
Stop acting as if they have no excuse and they are just trolls or are stupid or are "crap."
Capcom is full of it as usual. They really have become an abomination. They have become the EA and Activision of Japanese game development. In a span of 20 years, they have gone from my absolute favorit game publisher, into one of my most despised. What they have done to some of my favorit gaming franchises of all time, will never be forgiven. I hope they go broke and that decent companies buy their great franchises, because that's the only way I see any hope for them(the franchises, screw Capcom).