Support NeoGAF

[James Scott]

Exactly. I'm not sure why in a media create thread, people are suddenly trying to downplay this. Well, actually I do but let's not go there.

It's a big deal for 3DS to have it especially since it meant less competition for their direct competitor.

It would be a smaller deal for Switch if it didn't get Monster Hunter than it was for Vita or it could've been for 3DS.

Do you think you can argue against that?
Don't think anyone is saying "It would be better if MH never came" or "Monster Hunter wouldn't help Switch sales", tho. Like, for sure it would be a better situation for the Switch.

 

[jeremy1456]

Keep telling yourself this. It won't make it true.

This absolutely is true though.

Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't. I'm not even sure if you're arguing over Switch not needing MH (Nintendo has several first party franchises that sell on par with Monster Hunter. MH being absent won't make or break the system) or if you're trying to say Monster Hunter doesn't need Switch (which is pretty obvious that they're going to lose significant sales because MH is only a mega seller on portable hardware).

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

This absolutely is true though.

Just because you don't believe it doesn't mean it isn't.

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the Switch will struggle to hit the same LTD in Japan as 3DS without Monster Hunter. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. No one seems to have done that yet, other than telling me I'm wrong.

Edit: They both need each other, is the point I'm making. It's brash to suggest that neither needs the other. The Switch will get it's flagship MH title soon enough though. The MHX team aren't just sitting there twiddling their thumbs.

 

[Kyoufu]

That doesn't make the game an underperforming one

We're talking about CAPCOM here

MHXX has sold less than MH3G which had a far, far lower install base. If that along with Capcom's forecast doesn't equate to underperformance then I don't know what to tell you.

 

[James Scott]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the Switch will struggle to hit the same LTD in Japan as 3DS without Monster Hunter. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. No one seems to have done that yet, other than telling me I'm wrong.

Edit: They both need each other, is the point I'm making. It's brash to suggest that neither needs the other.

The point is the word need.
Monster Hunter could probably sell better if it was on Switch too and Switch could probably sell better with Monster Hunter, sure.
That's not what "need" implies.

 

[CaviarMeths]

MH World not being on Switch is entirely on Nintendo for leaving Capcom hanging in regards to a successor for both the 3DS and the Wii U for so long. Capcom was ready to move the series off of the 3DS a long time ago, but Nintendo's next move was still up in the air.

I mean, Capcom saw the Switch early enough to have actual input on the specs. The Switch was going to have 2GB of RAM. They doubled it to 4GB at Capcom's request. As far as we know, the specs for Switch were finalized last summer. At minimum, Capcom would have gotten a close look at the Switch a solid year before it was released. They were also likely one of the first 3rd parties to receive devkits, as they spent the entire previous generation arguably being Nintendo's most important 3rd party partner.

So this is not true. They saw it early enough and were able to develop for it early enough to put MHW on it if they wanted to. Nintendo didn't "leave them hanging." Capcom had all of the information and decided to go in a different direction.

As for "coasting" on Wii U/3DS... it was late 2013/early 2014. As far as Nintendo was concerned, those were their current gen systems. Wii U was barely a year old at the time. I'm sure they didn't plan on its life being cut short and having to rush a successor to market.

 

[Vena]

MHXX has sold less than MH3G which had a far, far lower install base. If that along with Capcom's forecast doesn't equate to underperformance then I don't know what to tell you.

MHX overperformed, MHXX was a bad idea to release, frankly. On the overperformance of MHX, Capcom should have pushed further with the styles and additions to a completely new title and not go back on the initial idea that there would be no G version for X since X was something unlike the main entries.

X sparked a lot of new interest with the changes and styles/arts which basically magnified options five-fold. MHXX was ju8st more tired rehashing for an already tired audience.

 

[Fularu]

MHXX has sold less than MH3G which had a far, far lower install base. If that along with Capcom's forecast doesn't equate to underperformance then I don't know what to tell you.

And? So what? Which point are you trying to make? That MHXX was the 5th entry on 3DS as opposed to the first portable entry in the franchise in 3 years?

The game reached the sales expectations, albeit 2 months later than the initial forecast. Stop the press, it's now a disapointing title that underperformed

 

[Gradivus]

Until Nintendo can get a stronger 3rd party backing, Monster Hunter is not something Nintendo wants to miss out on.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

The point is the word need.
Monster Hunter could probably sell better if it was on Switch too and Switch could probably sell better with Monster Hunter, sure.
That's not what "need" implies.

Switch needs MH to be as successful as it's predecessor in Japan.

I mean, Capcom saw the Switch early enough to have actual input on the specs. The Switch was going to have 2GB of RAM. They doubled it to 4GB at Capcom's request. As far as we know, the specs for Switch were finalized last summer. At minimum, Capcom would have gotten a close look at the Switch a solid year before it was released. They were also likely one of the first 3rd parties to receive devkits, as they spent the entire previous generation arguably being Nintendo's most important 3rd party partner.

So this is not true. They saw it early enough and were able to develop for it early enough to put MHW on it if they wanted to. Nintendo didn't "leave them hanging." Capcom had all of the information and decided to go in a different direction.

Seeing a console's specs early enough to have input on it and having mature enough development tools to make games for it are two completely different things. A solid look at Swtich a year before release would mean 2016...2.5/3 years after MH World had begun development for PS4/XB1 and PC.

You can tell me it's not true all you want, doesn't discredit what I'm saying.

Until Nintendo can get a stronger 3rd party backing, Monster Hunter is not something Nintendo wants to miss out on.

Exactly. You're kidding yourself if you think Nintendo is okay with Monster Hunter World skipping their platforms. They know how important Monster Hunter has been and will be to their success.

 

[D.Lo]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the Switch will struggle to hit the same LTD in Japan as 3DS without Monster Hunter. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. No one seems to have done that yet, other than telling me I'm wrong.

Edit: They both need each other, is the point I'm making. It's brash to suggest that neither needs the other. The Switch will get it's flagship MH title soon enough though. The MHX team aren't just sitting there twiddling their thumbs.

The 'need' levels are not even.

Nintendo only 'need' Capcom for maybe 10% of their console sales in Japan. 20% max if all people who bought MH would not have bought a 3DS otherwise.

Capcom most likely actually need Nintendo if they want MH to sell 4+ million instead of less than 1 million.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I know you're trying to sound smart here, but it's wasted on me. I'm under no illusion that PS4 is going to be a saving grace for this series and as I've said multiple times, the series will still continue on Switch anyway. The salt over the past week is going to look a bit stupid when we're all playing a brand new, ground up MH game on the Switch in 2019.

This isn't me being snarky. It's a sales thread and it's an absolute joke to imply Capcom would sell even 1/3 of the units of MH without the 3DS. It has nothing to do with World. You could add the PS4, WiiU and Vita together and you wouldn't sell half the units the 3DS games did.

People have it extremely twisted if they think Nintendo needs Capcom and MH. They don't. That doesn't imply they wouldn't want it, every platform holder wants MH in Japan. But a 3DS without MH is still the market leader far and away and still one of the most successful platforms ever.

 

[sanstesy]

No one is making excuses. Capcom wanted to widen the appeal of MH in the west and Nintendo was still coasting on 3DS and Wii U when this game begun development. That's why it isn't a Switch game, as I've said. It's not an excuse, it's a fact.

A fact indeed.

Nintendo was apparently "coasting" on their hardware that was at the time development begun for World 2-3 years old. Apparently it also is impossible for games that don't have devkits at the start of development to ever have a version of the game simultaneously when the game actually releases. All these 2013/14 cross-gen games for the PS4/XBO that didn't have devkits until halfway through development are utter miracles. If just Nintendo played by the same 7 year hardware cycle rules that Sony and Mircosoft play by.

🤔

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

This isn't me being snarky. It's a sales thread and it's an absolute joke to imply Capcom would sell even 1/3 of the units of MH without the 3DS. It has nothing to do with World. You could add the PS4, WiiU and Vita together and you wouldn't sell half the units the 3DS games did.

People have it extremely twisted if they think Nintendo needs Capcom and MH. They don't. That doesn't imply they wouldn't want it, every platform holder wants MH in Japan. But a 3DS without MH is still the market leader far and away and still one of the most successful platforms ever.

Who said this?

 

[Nanashrew]

We'll have to agree to disagree. I think the Switch will struggle to hit the same LTD in Japan as 3DS without Monster Hunter. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong. No one seems to have done that yet, other than telling me I'm wrong.

Edit: They both need each other, is the point I'm making. It's brash to suggest that neither needs the other.

Doesn't that depend on some factors though? I mean, the Switch is getting Splatoon, something the 3DS didn't have. Nintendo's heaviest hitters from home console and handheld will be on the platform, and they also seem interested in utilizing more of their IPs.

Monster Hunter would definitely be great to have, and something they will have anyway from what people are saying, but I think you're ignoring quite a bit and the overall reaction to the system compared to the 3DS.

 

[Fularu]

Switch needs MH to be as successful as it's predecessor in Japan.

You're trying to argue an equal relationship between Switch's need for MH to sell well and MH's need of the Switch to sell well.

Here's the thing, without the Switch, MH will lose about 80% of its sales potential in Japan

Without MH, the Switch may lose about 10% of its userbase in Japan

See how one is not like the other one?

Capcom absolutely needs the Switch for MH to stay relevant in Japan

Nintendo doesn't need MH to have the Switch succeed on its own terms and reach the same sales potential as the 3DS in Japan.

Would it be better for MHW to also be on the Switch? Yes, for both parties obviously, but it's also prety obvious that Sony made sure that wasn't going to happen.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

You're trying to argue an equal relationship between Switch's need for MH to sell well and MH's need of the Switch to sell well.

Here's the thing, without the Switch, MH will lose about 80% of its sales potential in Japan

Without MH, the Switch may lose about 10% of its userbase in Japan

See how one is not like the other one?

Capcom absolutely needs the Switch for MH to stay relevant in Japan

Nintendo doesn't need MH to have the Switch succeed on its own terms and reach the same sales potential as the 3DS in Japan.

Would it be better for MHW to also be on the Switch? Yes, for both parties obviously, but it's also prety obvious that Sony made sure that wasn't going to happen.

That doesn't really refute what I'm saying. If Switch wants to reach the same heights as the 3DS, it needs Monster Hunter in the same way that it needs Dragon Quest or Pokemon or Yokai Watch. I don't think Nintendo would see an even further decline from DS > 3DS > Switch as a success at all. That's certainly not what they want out of this system.

Lastly, Sony has nothing to do with Monster Hunter World skipping the Switch.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

Saying Monster Hunter wasn't instrumental to 3DS' success is like saying Call of Duty wasn't for PS4's.

The system's could've still done fine, but those 2 games certainly sold a lot of systems.

The implication wasn't that MH didn't help the 3DS. The implication was Nintendo needs capcom and MH badly. That is in no way shape or form true. You don't sell 22 million pieces of hardware off the back of 1 franchise.

Who said this?

This entire line of conversation started because you took exception to the fact that someone doesn't think Nintendo needs Capcom and MH on their system. Who stands to suffer more if MH isn't on Switch?

 

[Passose]

Switch needs MH to be as successful as it's predecessor in Japan.

Doesn't it? We're talking about a console that's insanely on high demand even without any monster hunter announcement before compared to a console that was coming off to the best selling console in Japan and felt short and it was until a mh3g announcement that saved it

 

[Kyoufu]

Would it be better for MHW to also be on the Switch? Yes, for both parties obviously, but it's also prety obvious that Sony made sure that wasn't going to happen.

So let me get this straight.

Sony paid Capcom to keep a game that has been in development for 4 years off a platform that didn't exist until recently?

Interesting theory you got there.

 

[Fularu]

That doesn't really refute what I'm saying. If Switch wants to reach the same heights as the 3DS, it needs Monster Hunter in the same way that it needs Dragon Quest or Pokemon or Yokai Watch.

Lastly, Sony has nothing to do with Monster Hunter World skipping the Switch.

The bolded is highly unlikely, otherwise the Switch port would already be underway since Capcom's engine runs on prety much everything.

As for your claim of the 3DS not reaching its current sales without MH, that'S also highly unlikely because of a very simple fact., MH is the only PSP release to have made the jump from PSP to 3DS. Most of the heavy hitting DS games saw entries on the 3DS and that's what mostly drove sales.

The number of PSP only owners to went on to purchase a 3DS when MH made the jump was prety small since their combined userbases were almost 55 million units (so heavy overlapping).

So let me get this straight.

Sony paid Capcom to keep a game that has been in development for 4 years off a platform that didn't exist until recently?

Interesting theory you got there.

It's prety much a given that MHW, Deep Down and SFV were part of the same deal way back then and while the Switch didn't exist, Sony wasn't stupid enough to believe that Nintendo wouldn't have a successor to its current lineup of systems.

Otherwise there would be no reason for the game to skip PC in Japan.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

I'm pretty sure Splatoon 2 is going to have a greater impact on Switch performance in Japan than even a brand new Monster Hunter would.

The franchise is already big, now it's about to explode.

 

[CaviarMeths]

Seeing a console's specs early enough to have input on it and having mature enough development tools to make games for it are two completely different things. A solid look at Swtich a year before release would mean 2016...2.5/3 years after MH World had begun development for PS4/XB1 and PC.

You can tell me it's not true all you want, doesn't discredit what I'm saying.

You made up a fantasy scenario about why MHW isn't a Switch game. There's nothing really to discredit here. Capcom has explained why it's a PS4/XB1 game and your tale played no part in it.

Also, just because development started before Capcom saw the Switch doesn't mean they couldn't include it in their plans. Dragon Quest XI has likely been in development for longer than MHW and it has a Switch version coming.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

So let me get this straight.

Sony paid Capcom to keep a game that has been in development for 4 years off a platform that didn't exist until recently?

Interesting theory you got there.

Indeed. I'm looking forward to the mental gymnastics will seek to explain this.

You made up a fantasy scenario about why MHW isn't a Switch game. There's nothing really to discredit here. Capcom has explained why it's a PS4/XB1 game and your tale played no part in it.

Also, just because development started before Capcom saw the Switch doesn't mean they couldn't include it in their plans. Dragon Quest XI has likely been in development for longer than MHW and it has a Switch version coming.

Nothing fantasy about it.

The bolded is highly unlikely, otherwise the Switch port would already be underway since Capcom's engine runs on prety much everything.

It's true though. Sony is helping Capcom market the game, but they have nothing to do with the game's absence on the Switch. I wouldn't say this for no reason, the same way I wouldn't have alluded to MH World for several months in previous other GAF threads for no reason either. But it's your business whether you believe me or not.

 

[Cerium]

Saying the Switch doesn't need MH at all is kind of ludicrous. Do you think the 3DS would have reached it's current LTD in Japan without Monster Hunter? The data suggests otherwise. I'd argue that MH was more instrumental in 3DS's success in Japan than most games outside of Pokemon.

The Switch isn't the 3DS and the Switch has Splatoon which will sell more in Japan than any Monster Hunter Capcom puts on the system.

 

[Ōkami]

Sony is stopping Monster Hunter on the Switch, just like Nintendo stopped Monster Hunter on the Vita.

Sounds like a repeat of 2012's threads, its just that the sides changed.

 

[Vena]

Sony is stopping Monster Hunter on the Switch, just like Nintendo stopped Monster Hunter on the Vita.

Sounds like a repeat of 2012's threads, its just that the sides changed.

That rumor is poison, lol.

 

[Cerium]

Hell Minecraft will probably outsell Monster Hunter on Switch in Japan when all is said and done, especially after Better Together hits.

I mean it'll be a great franchise to have on the platform no doubt but Switch doesn't need a savior and Monster Hunter is not Video Game Jesus.

 

[VLQ]

So let me get this straight.

Sony paid Capcom to keep a game that has been in development for 4 years off a platform that didn't exist until recently?

Interesting theory you got there.

 

[Fularu]

Sony is stopping Monster Hunter on the Switch, just like Nintendo stopped Monster Hunter on the Vita.

Sounds like a repeat of 2012's threads, its just that the sides changed.

I do believe a deal was worked out between Nintendo and Capcom back in 2011. Doing an upconversion of MHP3 on Vita would have been prety easy for Capcom and would have brought in quite a bit of money (and that would have been without significntly upping the game's graphical aspects).

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

Stop quoting that rumour. It's bullshit. Specifically the word of internal strife, open world, the combat and that bogus contract that forbids a Switch release.

 

[Gotdatmoney]

I personally don't believe Sony has a hand in why MHW isn't on Switch. I think Capcom is literally just that stupid. Whether they did or did not bet on the Switch being successful their utter lack of support for the system highlights they have reasons (however dumb they are) to not have MH on Switch. I don't buy the game was in dev so long ago that they couldn't add a Switch version either. Given having it very likely would add millions to the games total sales, even a 3-4 month delay to have it up and running on Switch is an easy justification.

Capcom is chasing that Western market for better or for worse.

 

[James Scott]

Switch needs MH to be as successful as it's predecessor in Japan.

I'm not 100% convinced. More first party backing might make up for it. I think Splatoon might help where there was no 3DS equivalent (it sold over a million in japan on Wii U)

 

[Neoleo2143]

Sony is stopping Monster Hunter on the Switch, just like Nintendo stopped Monster Hunter on the Vita.

Sounds like a repeat of 2012's threads, its just that the sides changed.

Only its way more of a gamble for Capcom this time, they're basically sacrificing the Japanese Market effectively by cutting out handhelds. Which makes me imagine that Monster Hunter Switch is in the works somehow because surely Capcom isn't that insane to damage what is currently their most reliable revenue stream.

 

[MoonFrog]

I'm not 100% convinced. More first party backing might make up for it. I think Splatoon might help where there was no 3DS equivalent (it sold over a million in japan on Wii U)

Very curious how amenable to portability/LAN Japan finds Splatoon.

 

[Xbro]

MHX overperformed, MHXX was a bad idea to release, frankly. On the overperformance of MHX, Capcom should have pushed further with the styles and additions to a completely new title and not go back on the initial idea that there would be no G version for X since X was something unlike the main entries.

X sparked a lot of new interest with the changes and styles/arts which basically magnified options five-fold. MHXX was ju8st more tired rehashing for an already tired audience.

I seem to recall Capcom explicitly saying there wouldn't be a G version of X.

 

[CaviarMeths]

Nothing fantasy about it.

It's make-believe. Your take is not based in reality. Call it whatever you want.

 

[Cerium]

I'm not 100% convinced. More first party backing might make up for it. I think Splatoon might help where there was no 3DS equivalent (it sold over a million in japan on Wii U)

Again Minecraft and Splatoon are two mega popular franchises coming to Switch that weren't on 3DS.

The idea that Monster Hunter is bigger than the two combined is what's ludicrous.

 

[VLQ]

Stop quoting that rumour. It's bullshit. Specifically the word of internal strife, open world, the combat and that bogus contract that forbids a Switch release.

and platforms, and portable on switch, and name (it was mh5 during development), and timing of rumour, bullshit, yeah

 

[James Scott]

Very curious how amenable to portability/LAN Japan finds Splatoon.

I believe they said they were implementing more local co-op modes which I think could be a big boost for the franchise and for the Switch.
Not sure how Japan will gravitate to those, but it sounds good on paper.

 

[Kyoufu]

MHW isn't open world, timer still remains and missions/quests are still there.

Internal strife? Okay. lol

 

[sanstesy]

and platforms, and portable on switch, and name (it was mh5 during development), and timing of rumour, bullshit, yeah

He has facts. Watch out!

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

It's make-believe. Your take is not based in reality. Call it whatever you want.

And you're telling me this because you know what really happened?

 

[NintendosBooger]

Look back at media create data throughout the past 6 years and tell me with a straight face that Monster Hunter games haven't caused huge spikes in 3DS hardware sales that have ultimately contributed to its 23m LTD.

Okay? How does that make it instrumental in the 3DS's success (your words, not mine)? Last I checked, it was the successor to one of the greatest systems of all time, which by the way didn't have MH. Nintendo handhelds are big for one reason and one reason alone: its first party titles. Every thing else is just hoping along for the ride.

 

[Vena]

I seem to recall Capcom explicitly saying there wouldn't be a G version of X.

Yes, I recalled this as well which was my statement's point. But I may be misremembering.

Their handling of X has been a bit tone deaf, frankly. Between the XX release, the delay on XX at/from Switch launch, and now the seeming refusal to localize it. They're just making a mess of things with the whole of the X line.

I am fairly convinced they were caught off by its (X's) success but had no idea what to do with it and, in common Capcom fashion, undermined themselves.

 

[Gradivus]

I'm pretty sure Splatoon 2 is going to have a greater impact on Switch performance in Japan than even a brand new Monster Hunter would.

The franchise is already big, now it's about to explode.

I agree with you on this, but Monster Hunter is sorta needed to show 3rd party games sell on the switch (to encourage other 3rd parties to join). Heck, before Monster Hunter Worlds was announced, people were bragging that Monster Hunter XX Switch alone could rival PS4's first year of 3rd party sales.

 

[MatrixMan.EXE]

Okay? How does that make it instrumental in the 3DS's success (your words, not mine)? Last I checked, it was the successor to one of the greatest systems of all time, which by the way didn't have MH. Nintendo handhelds are big for one reason and one reason alone: its first party titles. Every thing else is just hoping along for the ride.

Okay.

 

[Aters]

It's prety much a given that MHW, Deep Down and SFV were part of the same deal way back then and while the Switch didn't exist, Sony wasn't stupid enough to believe that Nintendo wouldn't have a successor to its current lineup of systems.

Otherwise there would be no reason for the game to skip PC in Japan.

Hold on. So it is only available on PS4 and XONE in Japan? What kind of deal is that? Region exclusive? Is it even fair?

 

[VLQ]

Hold on. So it is only available on PS4 and XONE in Japan? What kind of deal is that? Region exclusive? Is it even fair?

It's PS4 exclusive in Japan

 

[sinonobu]

Having proper MH will definitely help Switch out in Japan.

But even without MH Switch will still be a success since it has other mega titles like Splatoon, DQ, Mario, Pokemon, etc. It's not like Ps Vita situation where it will fail without proper MH.