They should of had it ready for a WW release. The numbers would easily be there because NA and Europe would carry it across the goal.

All product release are under test condition they saying or not, all sales and conditions will be analysed and feedback to the decision process of new products.

Do you have any evidence Nintendo paid for SF II, MH XX or that Sony paid MHW to be out of Switch but on other platforms?

Yes because RE 5 would totally run on Wii.

Nope, your interpretation of that logic is flawed.

You don't know what were their expectation. And you are forcing your logic to be a different thing than what it really is.

No it isn't.

Put how many MPs done much much worse on PS or Xbox compared to Nintendo version, now put the opposite. Is it an exageration?

Doesn't make sense.
Every MH game sells 2 to 4 million in 3ds in Japan.
Where do you think these gamers will be playing?
At least if it was a MH triple cross, but is a repeated game... The problem is that it won't perform well because is a repeated game. But a new MH would.

It's moments like these that I wonder if Capcom really knows what it's doing. Testing the waters ONLY in Japan with a port of a game, while another console is getting a new proper title from the same series just sounds like a recipe for disaster. Why not at least release it in the west? Last I heard, they did pretty well on the 3DS. It kind of makes me wonder if they're doing this on purpose, or just don't want to support the system.

You do realize you're the only one in this thread not getting how stupid these tests by Capcom are right? If Capcom wants to test if the Switch audience is willing to pay for their AAA games, they better base that on the sales of, for example, Resident Evil 7 and not an overpriced 26y old game while the competition is getting a collection of the same franchise at the same price. How can you expect a $40 SNES game to sell well (again they were lucky)? And if it doesn't sell well it immediately means Switch owners won't buy the newest Street Fighter or Resident Evil or Monster Hunter? That's just plain idiocracy. 

I agree completely. This is really systemic of Capcom trying to be ultra risk-averse, but the decision conflicts with many other objectives, which they should be pursuing more thoroughly. My guess is that Capcom doesn't see the Switch as quite as safe as normal Nintendo handhelds. They see the hybrid console as much more uncharted and murky territory and want more datapoints before making a decision. Idk I think that they're being way too conservative.

You do know that eveyone agreeing with something doesn't necessarily make that thing right, right?

Are you in any analyst position on new products, market assessment, strategy or the like? The opinion of 1000 laymen on a subject may carry less value than one expert.

So Capcom releasing test games on some genres with very little risk and doing a good data threatment to project capacity for larger products isn't something outrageous. And the fact that they don't say any other game or platform is a test of market, ALL releases are being under constant testing and monitoring.

Well, I won't be purchasing any more Capcom games on any platform, they can go fuck themselves.

Besides, it's not like they're ever going to make anything original.

What's most hilarious of all is if Monster Hunter World does PS2 kinda numbers - a MASSIVE drop off from the handheld days - suddenly Capcom will come running back to the Switch to recapture the handheld sales and they'll spin whatever sales anything got as passing their "test" and release World or 5 or whatever they call it. Because that's Capcom. People are surprised but this is a thing they've done several times now.

Paying for ports happen. I don't know about Nintendo paying for SF II or MH XX. But the leaker that correctly leaked Monster Hunter World also said that Sony paid Capcom to not port to the Switch. So yeah, I believe that. Isn't the first time that Sony paid Capcom for games.