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

Forums - Gaming - Capcom's CEO tries to explain why Monster Hunter 4 is not on Vita

Third parties have been selling really well on the Vita in Japan. But you can't expect Capcom to see that.



Around the Network
Kyuu said:
Nem said:
Kyuu said:
Well let me say it for you then!

"Vita's microscopic install base"


Wich would turn gigantic with a Monster Hunter game.


But Capcom will NOT take the risks! isn't that obvious?


What are the chances that if capcom made a port, they wouldnt break even?

Personally, I think its impossible given the combination of a PS system and MH, therefore no risk involved.



Because no one owns a Vita, is why.



kupomogli said:
When Monster Hunter 4 was announced for the 3DS, the Vita wasn't even out, so Vita's install base isn't the reason. Nintendo paid for Monster Hunter. That's why Monster Hunter 4 isn't on the Vita and won't be until sometime after the 3DS release if at all.

If Capcom wasn't paid off for those games to become Nintendo exclusive, then it's a pretty big coincidence Monster Hunter 3 for the 3DS and Wii U, as well as Monster Hunter 4 were all announced at the same time. TGS 2011.

Monster Hunter 3G was announced long before TGS 2011. The game came out four months later, after all.

I like how Nintendo must have paid for the games. Did Sony have to buy Final Fantasy from Square? Did they have to buy Metal Gear and Castlevania from Konami? Did they pay Capcom to bring Mega Man to PlayStation?

Of course not. Capcom had plenty of reasons for choosing the PSP over the DS for monster hunter -- the DS hardware wasn't powerful enough to handle a PS2 game. They probably also jumped on the PlayStation Portable bandwagon and assumed (as many did) that Sony was going to kick Nintendo's ass in the handheld department. By 2010, they could see how wrong they were, and they could probably see history about to repeat itself. The 3DS is more powerful than the PSP, powerful enough not only to handle the series but to improve it. It was also set to absolutely destroy the Vita in sales -- there was only a short period of time, between the 3DS launch and its first Holiday, when popular opinion was that the Vita would outsell it. Since 3G came out that December, it was almost certainly in development before the 3DS even launched, before it was doomed. And Monster Hunter 4 was developed alongside 3G, meaning it too was already in development before the 3DS was doomed.



fps_d0minat0r said:


but since when do companies like capcom limit their biggest franchises to 1 platform?

and ok, lets say they focused on the 3DS, it still doesnt explain why they are not investing in a port for the vita. There is no doubt that they would make more money on it than the majority of their other projects.

Companies like Capcom limit their biggest franchises to 1 platform when alternative platforms are drastically different to program for. Ask yourself why the Monster Hunter Portable games weren't on DS.

As for why they're not investing in a Vita port, they probably are. Maybe. But they definitely wouldn't mention it before or shortly after the launch of the 3DS version.

I don't see how they would make much money on MH Vita, though. Most of the MH fanbase will have bought a 3DS by the end of this year. Development costs are probably higher for Vita games than for 3DS games. Meaning MH Vita would cost more to develop and have fewer sales than 3DS iterations. I suppose it would be profitable, though. Change the name a bit and add some content and the MH fanbase will go out and buy a Vita, too.



Around the Network
RolStoppable said:
the_dengle said:

Did Sony have to buy Final Fantasy from Square?

They did.

I'd love to hear a Sony fan say that.

Personally I don't care, but I doubt that Nintendo flat-out paid Capcom for Monster Hunter. That's the sort of business transaction that most of the big publishers understand, the sort of thing that acquires good third-party support for a console maker. Something that Nintendo doesn't have.



Nem said:
Kyuu said:
Well let me say it for you then!

"Vita's microscopic install base"


Wich would turn gigantic with a Monster Hunter game.

Would it? If its also on 3DS? Doubtful.

Anyway, their prediction sales wise is more than the entire Vira install base in Japan. It was likely an easy decision to make when you look at the sales.

And yes, the Vita has been having success with 3rd parties, but nothing major. A game selling 100k here and there doesn't mean a game like MH will completely destroy on the system. Why not play it safe? That's whatbCapcom have done in my eyes.



 

Here lies the dearly departed Nintendomination Thread.

the_dengle said:
fps_d0minat0r said:


but since when do companies like capcom limit their biggest franchises to 1 platform?

and ok, lets say they focused on the 3DS, it still doesnt explain why they are not investing in a port for the vita. There is no doubt that they would make more money on it than the majority of their other projects.

Companies like Capcom limit their biggest franchises to 1 platform when alternative platforms are drastically different to program for. Ask yourself why the Monster Hunter Portable games weren't on DS.

As for why they're not investing in a Vita port, they probably are. Maybe. But they definitely wouldn't mention it before or shortly after the launch of the 3DS version.

I don't see how they would make much money on MH Vita, though. Most of the MH fanbase will have bought a 3DS by the end of this year. Development costs are probably higher for Vita games than for 3DS games. Meaning MH Vita would cost more to develop and have fewer sales than 3DS iterations. I suppose it would be profitable, though. Change the name a bit and add some content and the MH fanbase will go out and buy a Vita, too.

"Ask yourself why the Monster Hunter Portable games weren't on DS."
Because even on the PSP, it had load screens between each area, no chance the DS was going to run a version that did justice to the game.

Development costs are something indie developers worry about, not companies like capcom. The cost of development would easily be covered by the sales.

"Meaning MH Vita would cost more to develop and have fewer sales than 3DS iterations"

If 2 things make profit, but one makes more, you dont automatically ditch the other project.

The most platforms a game is realeased on, the lower the development costs get.

For example if it cost 10m to make and its only released on 3DS and we assume it sells 3m, It would be good value to spend an extra 1m on a vita port where it is very likely to sell atleast 1m units.

so instead of 10m for 3m sales

you get 11m for 4m sales

This means Capcom would break even on the vita port at only 300k units, and anything above that they pocket.



Nem said:
Kyuu said:
Well let me say it for you then!

"Vita's microscopic install base"


Wich would turn gigantic with a Monster Hunter game.


It's not Capcoms job to sell Sony hardware.



Ongoing bet with think-man: He wins if MH4 releases in any shape or form on PSV in 2013, I win if it doesn't.

Anyone who wants to play Monster Hunter can play it on 3DS.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.