outlawauron said:
Considering the growth it saw on Sony platforms, the complete about face is comparable to Final Fantasy which means something happened underneath the surface. Think about it, why wouldn't Nintendo pay Capcom for the biggest 3rd party franchise in Japan?
|
Nintendo doesn't pay Square-Enix for any of their huge franchises, and they don't pay Activision or EA for the biggest 3rd party franchises in the West. Considering their struggle to acquire any third-party support on any of their platforms, I have a hard time believing that Nintendo is cutting checks to third-parties. Including Capcom, who skipped Nintendo platforms for Resident Evil: Revelations 2 and Ultra Street Fighter 4 despite the success of both series on 3DS.
Did Capcom need an incentive to put Monster Hunter on PSP instead of DS? No, it was the obvious choice. The PSP was powerful enough to handle the series, and at the time a lot of analysts believed it would actually be more successful than the DS. Supporting the 3DS instead of the Vita was also the obvious choice. Hot off the heels of the DS success, only Sony die-hards thought the Vita would win that fight, and the 3DS is plenty powerful enough to handle Monster Hunter.
Whatever deal Nintendo made is right in front of our faces. Look at all that Nintendo swag in MH4 and especially MH4G. They are lending their IP to Capcom for use in Monster Hunter -- tons of their IP including Mario, Zelda, Animal Crossing, and Fire Emblem, four very popular franchises in Japan (or globally) in their own right. There's no need to sweeten the deal with cash. Sony can't compete with this -- what would they do, offer Kratos or Nathan Drake costumes for Monster Hunter? It's a unique angle Nintendo can use to their advantage.
Making Monster Hunter multi-platform wouldn't make any sense, either. Developing a single game for multiple consoles simultaneously would only increase development time and costs, and wouldn't dramatically increase sales of the game in question.