Reminder that Mega Man 11 is the only new game Capcom has released on Switch, two years in. The company is run by monkeys who throw darts at a board to decide things. Prove me wrong.

I don't think so. A dart would at least land on a good business decision every now and then, so that's out of the question.

You know, I expected it to take more than five seconds for proof to surface. You win this round.

Not really. They know Switch owners are totally willing to buy overpriced games.

Street Figher 2 sold very well at $50, iirc had a better opening week that MvCi, which was a brand new game.

That´s a big no-no for me. The only Capcom game I´ll be getting for the Switch is Monster Hunter

I honestly think there's a very good chance that Capcom is making content that is either exclusive for Switch or suits the platform very well. An exclusive Monster Hunter is the most obvious example, Ace Attorney is a likelihood as well. In general, this is a company which consistently gets criticism (fairly might I add) for not using their IP, but they also have a great track record of actually making products based on fan demand. Devil May Cry, Mega Man, and Resident Evil 2 Remake were all games that were a result of fans (DMC5 was actually already in development, but it's pretty obvious why Capcom released DMC4:SE and Dmc side by side ... the sales of 4:SE probably acted as funding greenlit). But game development takes time and people don't want to wait, which is understandable. Still, I think that more Mega Man, Monster Hunter, and Ace Attorney games are very likely for the Switch ... and as long as they're brand new, that's something that is potentially very exciting. If Capcom had a team to make it, I wouldn't even be surprised at a brand new Okami, though I don't think they do.

In the mean time I'm left scratching my head at why they have to fuck up their own ports. It's at least understandable why they are slow on their feet with original titles, but why ruin your own back catalog? It's just such an odd decision and it sucks. 

I made an entire essay on the last thread about how Nintendo should be held accountable equally ... I'm all for that ... but I don't really get the Link's Awakening thing. I mean, I guess I kind of understand the concept ... had something like Let's Go or Link's Awakening been developed for a 3DS successor, they'd probably still be $40. But that's a massive rabbit hole to go down and I'm not sure it's worth arguing. It's a slippery slope and to be honest, while I can't speak for Let's Go I doubt that Link's Awakening is going to be such a bare-bone remake that it won't deserve the $60 price tag (though I suppose even then you could argue that it would be $40 on a 4DS ... again ... slippery slope and we'll never know). So I don't get why that is being discussed and it's not a particularly strong argument. 

Hold up ... Link's Awakening doesn't even have a placeholder price yet. Let alone an official price. I would have expected it to have the former given how much they've shown already ... 

Yeah, this Link's Awakening argument is a little premature. 

Have you had a look at Capcom's profits lately? They have made plenty of good business decisions. Monster Hunter World was a global sensation and Resident Evil 2 Remake had very good sales as well.

They should just get Nintendo to publish it, then about half the complaints would go away.

How did Nintendo price those Bayonetta ports? Was it similar to how the Resident Evil Collection put out by Capcom will be priced, with similar method of only one game on cartridge with the other being a digital download code?