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

Chandler 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.


It's not Capcoms job to sell Sony hardware.



thank you, they see nintendo does an excellent job on that so with a much higher userbase, it'll sell more, plus there are 2mil users who own a 3ds that want MH4 + the ones that will buy a 3ds for the game O.o



Around the Network
Chandler 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.


It's not Capcoms job to sell Sony hardware.


As a company, its their job to maximise profitability for shareholders.



fps_d0minat0r said:

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

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 PS4/X1 and we assume it sells 3m, It would be good value to spend an extra 1m on a Wii U 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 Square-Enix would break even on the Wii U port at only 300k units, and anything above that they pocket.

Man, you make a good argument for Kingdom Hearts 3 on Wii U. But I guess Sony and Microsoft must have both paid Square-Enix to not release the game on a Nintendo console, since there is no other conceivable reason for a Wii U version not to have been announced.



the_dengle said:
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.

When Sony first released the Playstation they paid for most, if not all, of the Final Fantasy 7 development costs.  Even if Sony didn't offer to pay for it, Final Fantasy 7 would have been on either the Playstation or the Saturn rather than Nintendo consoles because of a Nintendo/Squaresoft issue that happened back then. 

From the last Nintendo game Squaresoft released in 1996 all the way to 2002 with their first GBA game, Squaresoft didn't develop anything for Nintendo consoles.  Even for portables, they weren't on Nintendo, they were exclusive to the Wonderswan up until Iwata became CEO and smoothed things over with Squaresoft.  You can thank Iwata, because if it wasn't for him, you wouldn't have seen any Squaresoft games on a Nintendo console until the  Square Enix merger, and who knows if after then.



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


So third party games should not be on all platforms?

I hope I dont see you on a 'what isnt game X on the Wii U' thread, because I'll just tell you to get it for the PS3.



Around the Network
the_dengle said:
fps_d0minat0r said:

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

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 PS4/X1 and we assume it sells 3m, It would be good value to spend an extra 1m on a Wii U 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 Square-Enix would break even on the Wii U port at only 300k units, and anything above that they pocket.

Man, you make a good argument for Kingdom Hearts 3 on Wii U. But I guess Sony and Microsoft must have both paid Square-Enix to not release the game on a Nintendo console, since there is no other conceivable reason for a Wii U version not to have been announced.


I agree.

But unlike Capcom, square enix might actually listen if people keep asking them for a port.

Deus ex got a Wii U port, even though its an old game.



fps_d0minat0r said:
Chandler 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.


It's not Capcoms job to sell Sony hardware.


As a company, its their job to maximise profitability for shareholders.



its not their job, they dont make a penny off of hardware.



fps_d0minat0r said:
Jumpin said:
Anyone who wants to play Monster Hunter can play it on 3DS.


So third party games should not be on all platforms?

I hope I dont see you on a 'what isnt game X on the Wii U' thread, because I'll just tell you to get it for the PS3.



umm? srry it could be me but what do you mean by that? X is WiiU title..... unless you were using X as an Example then my bad O.o



kupomogli said:
the_dengle said:

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.

When Sony first released the Playstation they paid for most, if not all, of the Final Fantasy 7 development costs.  Even if Sony didn't offer to pay for it, Final Fantasy 7 would have been on either the Playstation or the Saturn rather than Nintendo consoles because of a Nintendo/Squaresoft issue that happened back then.

But that's not buying an exclusive, that's publishing (or at least co-publishing) the game. Same thing Nintendo is doing with Platinum's couple of exclusives. They helped make the game, they didn't just throw money at Square and say "give it to us." Some might not see the distinction, but I certainly do.



tbone51 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Chandler 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.


It's not Capcoms job to sell Sony hardware.


As a company, its their job to maximise profitability for shareholders.



its not their job, they dont make a penny off of hardware.

I never said they do.

But if youre saying they wont make money from the game on vita, you're very wrong.