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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Capcom: Monster Hunter XX Switch version is another test to evaluate our support for Switch

DonFerrari on 03 August 2017
OTBWY said:

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?

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.

So a leaker said Sony paid to remove the game from Switch but Sony couldn't be bothered to request full exclusivity? Seems legit.

Paying for port sure exist, but you are just making air.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
HintHRO on 03 August 2017
DonFerrari said:
HintHRO said:

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. 

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.

Yeah well, the majority here are gamers and I think we can speak for ourselves. If most gamers here say they will buy a new Resident Evil/Monster Hunter/Street Fighter on Switch while not buying these ridiculous overpriced testports, then I do believe them and not some random analysts who are wrong most of the time anyway (Michael Pachter best example and of course many more failed predictions made in history).



GhaudePhaede010 on 03 August 2017

Yeah so... this is much ado about nothing.



01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01001001 01111001 01101111 01101100 01100001 01101000 00100001 00100000 01000110 01101111 01110010 00100000 01000101 01110100 01100101 01110010 01101110 01101001 01110100 01111001 00100001 00100000

killeryoshis on 03 August 2017

Reminds me of the Wii days. No matter how much the test games sold the Wii never got the title that we wanted.

The stupid never dies



Tag:I'm not bias towards Nintendo. You just think that way (Admin note - it's "biased".  Not "bias")
(killeryoshis note - Who put that there ?)
Switch is 9th generation. Everyone else is playing on last gen systems! UPDATE: This is no longer true

Biggest pikmin fan on VGchartz I won from a voting poll
I am not a nerd. I am enthusiast.  EN-THU-SI-AST!
Do Not Click here or else I will call on the eye of shinning justice on you. 

DonFerrari on 03 August 2017
HintHRO said:
DonFerrari said:

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.

Yeah well, the majority here are gamers and I think we can speak for ourselves. If most gamers here say they will buy a new Resident Evil/Monster Hunter/Street Fighter on Switch while not buying these ridiculous overpriced testports, then I do believe them and not some random analysts who are wrong most of the time anyway (Michael Pachter best example and of course many more failed predictions made in history).

Yeah, sure... because people saying they will buy something measures the success of something.

Ghostbusters showed us this, or was it the black female spider man or iron man? Nope, loud minority doesn't decide anything.

And have I said Michael Patcher? Nope, I said Capcom executives, you know, guys responsible to keep the business afloat. They need to know a little to at least keep the company profitable. And I can guarantee to you they look at sales for each product, with timestamps, platform sold, region and etc to make better decisions on future endeavor.

People on the internet do kneejerk reactions and promise they'll avoid a brand or buy something and them change their minds.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist on 03 August 2017

Monster Hunter Generations was ALREADY a remix game with most levels being from past games. It had terrible levels, no story(which affected the pacing of unlocking new areas), no monster cutscenes, and no expeditions, plus the dumn Hunter Arts and Palico stuff.

Generations was already an inferior product but now they expect Japanese players to buy the game for the third time? This is fucking ridiculous. You won't even release it in the West. Why? XX probably fixed stuff about Generations and you're pulling away any opportunity for me to BUY YOUR GAME on the Switch.

At this point I feel bad for MH fans not looking forward to World. The future just doesn't look bright. Capcom, Street Fighter 2 sold 450k. Shut the fuck up, get off your high horse, and put out games.

And realize that it's the quality of the game (*cough cough SFV) and not the platform that counts.



Ganoncrotch on 03 August 2017

Less Stick, more carrot please!

And by that I mean... Less ports of old games with "features" like the path of the Hado in SF2 for $40 and more things with actual effort in them, I mean the 3DS port of Street Fighter 4 sold over 1million units, why did the Switch get a dodgy port of a 25 year old game as a test... it's really shit PR



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

zygote on 03 August 2017

They think we are gullible idiots. I really am beginning to hate capcom.



OTBWY on 03 August 2017
DonFerrari said:
OTBWY said:

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.

So a leaker said Sony paid to remove the game from Switch but Sony couldn't be bothered to request full exclusivity? Seems legit.

Paying for port sure exist, but you are just making air.

Is it so out of the realm of reality for you that Sony, a giant conglomerate corporation, wouldn't do such a thing? Why should I doubt when evidence has shown that Sony will try to disadvantage the competition? I mean, even Nintendo did the same thing back in the day.



DonFerrari on 03 August 2017
OTBWY said:
DonFerrari said:

So a leaker said Sony paid to remove the game from Switch but Sony couldn't be bothered to request full exclusivity? Seems legit.

Paying for port sure exist, but you are just making air.

Is it so out of the realm of reality for you that Sony, a giant conglomerate corporation, wouldn't do such a thing? Why should I doubt when evidence has shown that Sony will try to disadvantage the competition? I mean, even Nintendo did the same thing back in the day.

It isn't out of realm of reality.

It's just that you affirmed with conviction so I'm asking for evidence, because blocking only nintendo and paying for it doesn't make sense.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."