I agree with you on Capcom hedging their bets on Monster Hunter. It's similar to Nintendo saying the DS was "third pillar" that wouldn't replace the GBA. If Monster Hunter World is hit, they'll say it was MH5. If it fails to meet expectations like most of us think. They'll role out a MH5 for Switch.

I don't completely agree with you on the SFV situation. Capcom was very cash poor before SFV's launch. They had already stated they were planning an SFV but that it probably wouldn't launch until 2018/19. Sony essentially gave them the money to push the game out earlier and start their E-Sports initiative in full force. Sony actually provided the development  captial and  all of the for prize pool money for the first year of the Capcom Pro Tour. What truly hurt SFV was Capcom's incompetance, not the exclusivity. Capcom spend the build up to SFV marketing the game to casuals. However they released a game that would wasn't built for casuals. It was barebones and lacked the multitude of single player modes that appeals to casual players. Arcade mode and Story Mode are a big draw with casual fighting game players. SFV had neither at launch and still lacks an arcade more. SFV should have been delayed at least year. 

As expected going into october. Some harsh weeks coming up, I wonder how the Switch will be affected if at all.

It doesn't matter what you believe to be a "de facto" console mate.   Their games aren't selling there.  Any company who cares about profit, especially ones in collar tugging straits like Capcom, will draw back support.

Yeah, it's completely ridiculous.

"OMG, the Switch has a 5M userbase, and the PS4 only has 60M (and this gap isn't going away anytime soon). Developers really need to stop developing on PS4 and focus on Switch, who would prefer 60M customers to 5M? They're crazy!"

Square Enix for example is really regretting the PS4 version of DQ11 or the console exclusivity for Nier Automata. Persona 5 is the biggest flop ever for Altus because of the Sony exclusivity, the Crash Trilogy showed us that Crash is really dead and nobody wanted him back... 

Capcom has done crappy games, and those crappy games ended up selling like crap. The PS4 is the main console worldwide and the best effort/sales ratio available for this generation, in Japan and WW, so a game being exclusive to PS4 is perfectly normal. End of story.

The conspiracy theorists should rather think about their arguments about flat Earth and vaccines, it's more fun to talk about. 

Yeah but SFII for switch > MvCI for ps4..... So 5mil userbase > 60mil confirmed?  Nintendo passed the test, sony/ms didnt! ;)

I hope you're joking (we can never be sure these days). Otherwise you compare blindly 2 different games and think that this comparison is worth something? That's not how it works.

Like I said, crappy games sell like crap. If Capcom releases good games on PS4, they will sell well, like all the huge sellers that we've seen lately on this console. 

You're misrepresenting the point being made. No one is saying that the support for PS4 was a waste of time, they're saying there is proof that double standards are in play(there are) and that Switch Capcom games sell better than their PS4 games(they do).

I do agree though that some people make it more about the system the games are on then the bottom line - the quality. While Marvel Vs. Capcom probably would have sold better on Switch than other platforms, it would have still done meh. Still, no one is saying it would sell gangbusters. 

"Capcom has done crappy games, and those crappy games ended up selling like crap. "

I like this line and almost made it myself when seeing the reactions in this thread.

And of course, by now Capcom is probably regretting the exclusivity deal on SFV, and not putting World on Switch ... well ... bad move.

Did you actually read my post?

More over, I am saying I expect support scaled back not ended entirely. But the double standards are real and your defense of the situation serves only to highlight the double standards; not alleviate them.

Like I said above, we can't say anything about it as long as the same games do not release on the 2 consoles at the same time. You can't use the SF2/MvC comparison to say "their Switch games sell better". For example, we could easily say that the Switch didn't have a fighting game when SF2 released (IIRC), while the PS4 already has quite a few. And that's without even talking the quality. This comparison is too fragile to be worth anything.

The SFV exclusivity doesn't have anything to do with the Switch (you wanted them to release the game on Switch long before the console came out?). The World "deal" is Capcom trying a version a bit different, hoping that it will be more successful in the West, and so betting on the consoles having a way better userbase here. For this they also try to make it more impressive visually and so they focus on the "powerful" consoles (we can even notice that the Limited edition console is a PS4 Pro...), it's completely different from their usual handheld games. If it succeeds, they'll continue, if it fails, they'll come back to a more classic game on 3DS and Switch after. Developers sometimes try to change the formula of their games, hoping that it will evolve positively. Sometimes it succeed, sometimes it doesn't. We'll see how it turns out. But saying "OMG, MvC bombed, so MH World is doomed" is ridiculous. 

So you are saying an overpriced 25 year old port on a console that released with around 2 million install base should outsell a brand new triple A title releaing on a combined install base of at least 90 million?

Like I said, if the crappy game sold like crap on Switch, Capcom would have pulled Swtch support and most people would have completely understood. But because it is the PS4, it sounds unreasonable? How about the fact that it was unreasonable to say a 25 year old port priced almost 2 to 4 times the price it is on other consoles is the test for future Switch support if you are not going to hold the other consoles to the same standard? Or how about the fact that I went through all those pages and nobody even thought about the fact that Capcom would have called their Switch effort a failure and ended support for the console and nobody would bat an eye?

I am critical of Switch all the time. I am critical of developers all the time. I am very fair with my critiques. In this case, are you saying I am wrong in my assessment? Because excusing my assessment is not discrediting it in any way, shape, or form.