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

Forums - Sales Discussion - Monster Hunter: World Ships 7.5 Million those Legiana! (Best selling Capcom game in history)

Azuren said:
Sam1994 said:

To be fair,it's "shipment" not "sold" and horizon is an exclusive title.

Well, now I want to analyze this:

 

PS4 has roughly a 2:1 lead on X1, so it's safe to say that MHW is at least 66.6% on PS4. That means 5 million on PS4 alone. While it hasn't matched Horizon yet, Horizon also had a one year head start and World has closed about two thirds of the gap in 2 months.

And so what? 

Is rate of sales a thing now? GTA6 will do 10M sales in 24hrs...... RDR amd COD will do 5M+ in a week.

In the grand scheme of things it doesn,t really matter. They all are still laughing all the way to the bank.



Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
Well, if it launched on Switch it would have achieved 20M already.

Yup, capcom are idiots.



I know this is off topic but the one thing i wish they add to the game (outside of more monsters which is already confirmed) is the old Rathalos armor (from 3 or 4)  since i think its way cooler than the one we got (which seems to be the same armor from the first two games in the series).

Also this game is so fun and cool i just had to convert one of my favorite gameplay moments into a gif

 



Ck1x said:
Why do these threads always turn into one big circle jerk?
Its absolute amazing that Capcom has found great success for Monster Hunter, but the blame for this series not advancing forward all these years falls on Capcom not Nintendo. People keep making comments as if it's Nintendo's fault that this company wanted easy cash grabs to fund their other games. Just weird to keep seeing these threads turn out with many comments like that...

Do you also complain about people that say Nintendo kept the franchise alive or that Sony paid to keep this out of Switch?



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."

Nautilus said:
Pinkie_pie said:
Capcom would be stupid to make a low budget monster hunter game. They will want to make monster hunter better so they don't lose any fans. Unless nintendo start making powerful console again, it's hard to see another monster hunter for nintendo

Switch is powerful enough to have a version of whatever the PS4 receives, just downgraded enough to run it.As Capcom themselves said, it would be difficult to make World work on Switch, but not impossible.If they think it could sell there, and its obvious that it can, there will be interest for such a port.

On the idea only world you are talking about, any game can be made with sacrifices on any platform... you can make Fifa 18 on SNES, or Mario Odyssey on the NES. How much sacrifice will that involve and if the versions will even look alike is another issue... but that doesn't mater, Switch is very powerful indeed.

Azuren said:
Sam1994 said:

To be fair,it's "shipment" not "sold" and horizon is an exclusive title.

Well, now I want to analyze this:

 

PS4 has roughly a 2:1 lead on X1, so it's safe to say that MHW is at least 66.6% on PS4. That means 5 million on PS4 alone. While it hasn't matched Horizon yet, Horizon also had a one year head start and World has closed about two thirds of the gap in 2 months.

Usersize doesn't have a direct strict correlation. Usually smaller usersize will have higher attach ratios, or depending on the demographic interest some genres will do better than on another platform even if the userbase shows it a little different if based only on size.



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
Kyuu said:
My shipments guesstimation:

PS4: 6.3 million
- Japan: 3 million

Xbox: 1.2 million

So outside Japan, it's 3.3M vs. 1.2M.

Fair numbers, i also have similar numbers in mind.

Also, i realy think ps4 will sell at the very least 5 times more copys than x1, similar to mgsV and ffxv and that ps4 sales are going to surpass 10m.



Prediction: In 5 years Nintendo will Lauch a "Core Mario game"  very similar to Astro Bot. That said, many will Ignore Astro Bot existence and say Nintendo created this concept.

Hiku said:
Nautilus said:

Switch holding back?If we go by this mentality, the PS4 and XOne are holding back MH on PC,

They are.
Capcom could have created a much more state of the art MH game on PC, with larger more multi layered maps, and 6 major bosses appearing on the same map simultaneously instead of just 3, etc.

Switch has enough power that, even if a version is being planned out for it, it wont hold back anything for the other versions.

That's not accurate. While it's possible to create a game like that in some cases when you set the bar lower, it's also very possible to create games where certain aspects of a game have to be removed to maintain a consistent experience on all platforms. This is even the case between Xbox One and PS4. (There are even rare instances where the PS4 version has performance issues not present on Xbox One because they kept things the same. One Assassin's Creed game was developed with an emphasis on more developed A.I., which relies more on the CPU than the GPU. The one area where Xbox One actually outperforms PS4. So for the PS4 version to have the same A.I. calculations as the Xbox One version, it caused the game to have performance issues as a tradeoff. But if you want the PS4 version to run as well as the Xbox One version, they would need to sacrifice the A.I. on PS4. Or something else.)

Even a factor like Xbox 360's DVD based storage media vs the Blu Ray discs of PS3 reportedly held back content from each version of Final Fantasy XIII. The game was already 3 discs large on Xbox 360, with heavily compressed data. So I can see why Square wouldn't want it to be 5-6 discs or whatever on 360.

How much significant that power would be for that game though?Outside of prettier graphics and better lightining I mean.Would 6 Bosses instead of "just" 3 at the same time would make for a better game, or it would just ensure a chaotic encounter that dosent have the fun of a more calculated, intimate encounter with less enemies?This kind of thinking would just led us to speculative territory, and would led us nowhere.

Instead, PS4 and XOne is powerful enough to deliver the game that the devs envisioned it.As you said, extra power could have afforded a few extra bells and whistles to the game, but would it make a difference?Thats what Im trying to argue with my example.Would a theoretical Switch version make such a difference to the point that the game would have lost its soul?Switch is too new to really have good examples, but what was the last port, that was done with some competence, that hindered the gameplay and the overall game experience so much as you describe?I would say the Vita with some of its games, like maybe Borderlands 2, but usually when a port is announced, its because the devs porting it have enough confidence that they can deliver and the game overall experience will remain overall intact.Doom is an example of that.

And if you think such small compromises like small audio compressions is reason enough to not want to port something over, well Im sorry but thats petty.Technology could always become better, and if a dev for example, held off developing a game to develop it 5 years later, he would have better tools and stronger hardware to work with, and thus in theory create a better game.This argument can go on forever like that.

And I mean, Im not basing this off of nowhere.Capcom said it would be difficult to port it, but not impossible.Difficult is just a nice word that it would require a bit more time and money than usual, but it would be doable.



My (locked) thread about how difficulty should be a decision for the developers, not the gamers.

https://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=241866&page=1

Woah....best selling capcom game in history....IN JUST OVER A MONTH!!!

Absolutely insane. By comparison, SWBFII shipped 7 million in 2017. MH: world managed to beat out a tentpole fall game.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

Manlytears said:
Pinkie_pie said:
Designing for all systems will just hold the game back. They need to focus making monster hunter as best as can be or else playstation and xbox owners won't be satisfied and they will lose interest

The power gap of switch and og x1 isn't that big. Just remove some textures, put sub 720p resolution, and try to hit 30 fps, etc.

If Doom for ps4/x1/sw is possible, than so is a monster hunter game.

I mean, switch version will most like be miles behind other versions(almost a diferent game), but you will have mh on a handheld, and things will look "ok" on a small screen.

Doom is not a good example actually. It was re-written from scratch by another studio. So, it is completely different game actually compared to pc/ps4/xb1 build. Will Capcom bother with re-writing the game specifically for Switch? I don't think so actually. They better develop the next entry which will target all three consoles from the start of development process.



 

And with this MH becomes a global phenomena, and one of the biggest action franchises out there. Kudos Capcom, you deserve this



Vote the Mayor for Mayor!