Capcom still undecided about Monster Hunter 3 fees
by JC Fletcher 
{ Oct 22nd 2009 at 1:30PM } 
The other part isn't necessarily bad news, but it could be in the future: Capcom still hasn't decided whether to use the pay-for-play model found in all online Monster Hunter games in Japan, or whether to make online play free like it has for those same games in North America so far. It's likely that Capcom will do things the same way as before (which means free online), but with the company not saying anything, we can't be sure yet.
Gallery: Monster Hunter 3
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
KIMP @ Oct 22nd 2009 1:33PM
I want a release date for North America.
anthony @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:10PM
somtime in march of next year but dont know that exact date and if the online is free and i can for say that ill be buying it at the midnight release
Maverick Saturn (Igor) @ Oct 22nd 2009 1:53PM
Don't you dare Capcom, you do that, and my interest has gone right off!
S. Tiger @ Oct 22nd 2009 1:53PM
Capcom...please don't be stupid. PLEASE.
bongoes Sector 2814 @ Oct 22nd 2009 3:01PM
PLEASE.
Lunastra78 (PSN: lunastra78) @ Oct 22nd 2009 3:56PM
Pretty please with Akantor on top?
Geist @ Oct 22nd 2009 1:55PM
I suspect that if they put fees on the Japanese servers, people will buy it there, but if they put fees on the western servers, people will not purchase it. Don't do it, Capcom.
devilsei @ Oct 22nd 2009 3:01PM
The way I see it Geist, is they don't exactly care. MH isn't exactly the most well-known title in the US, besides me and a few friends, I don't know anyone else who plays the game where I live. So honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they charged us a fee to play 3 online on the Wii. Why?
1) They gave up developing it for the PS3 for "cost issues", as in they felt it would be a waste of money to update the graphics and code it for the PS3, and instead chose a larger console base thats inhabited mainly by those NOT into the kind of game MH is.
2) Like I said, not well-known at all, and considering that there isn't much to lose in charging a fee for the Wii game, they'll do it. They didn't do it to the PSP crowd because they had an idea of how much money they'd make based on those who bought the PS2 games. Hell, the PS2 needed an accessory just to play online, so of course they didn't charge for those games either. Yet the wii? Can't guarantee everyone who owns a PS2/PSP and the other games to also own a Wii. And you can't guarantee those same people would buy a Wii just for that game.
Suichimo @ Oct 22nd 2009 3:36PM
1. How is the switch from PS3 to Wii relevant other than you just wanting to complain?
2. They didn't charge the PSP crowd because THERE WAS NO ONLINE IN THOSE GAMES. They had local wireless unless you used a workaround that involved third party software like Xlink Kai, or the fairly recent Ad-hoc Party that Sony put out.
Every online Monster Hunter game in Japan had a monthly fee. It wasn't about having to buy an accessory. If that were the case the games would've been free to play in Japan, like the original Monster Hunter was here.
Seriously, your reasoning is horrible. We'll have to pay fee for Monster Hunter 3 online because of the switch to Nintendo and it being relatively unknown?
Geist @ Oct 22nd 2009 4:24PM
Except that, and correct me if I'm wrong here, they DID charge for the PS2 games in Japan, and not in the West. So your argument is pretty bunk.
Plus if they're worried about sales as-is in NA, why would they charge fees at all?
anthonyjh @ Oct 23rd 2009 2:44AM
Yeah Devilsei, only you and a few friends have heard of Monster Hunter. Totally.
aang1818 @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:10PM
I know I refuse to purchase any console game that charges for DLC or online play.
It's the reason I didn't get Megaman 9, so I sure as heck wouldn't get a full retail game like that.
CrissCross87 @ Oct 22nd 2009 3:43PM
Wait what? Mega Man 9 may have dlc that shouldn't have paid dlc, but the game itself neither was pay to play or dlc. So you go ahead and download the game pronto. I want a MegaMan 10.
Yan @ Oct 22nd 2009 3:51PM
You're refusing to pay $10 (total, including DLC) for a new, quality Mega Man title?
Your loss.
SoshiKitai @ Oct 22nd 2009 4:38PM
When a game gives legitimate DLC, it's your loss.
When a great MMO that actually makes it WORTH to spend the money (though I don't believe any good ones came out for a console... only PC), it's your loss again.
I understand you not liking games that already had stuff INSIDE THE GAME but locked away with DLC, but not all games are like that. And it's your loss once more.
Kevin @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:13PM
Choose wisely, for while the true Grail will bring you life, the false Grail will take it from you.
Zsavior @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:19PM
yea Nazi face melting artifacts shall solve this problem indeed.
Geist @ Oct 22nd 2009 4:27PM
Except the true grail will only stop you from dying from bullet holes before you die from age later on.
Marco le Polo @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:19PM
Woo some news about MH! Buying this on release day. I don't give a fuck, smoke weed everyday!
Omega2k3 @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:39PM
Wow. You are awesome. Good job being a total douche.
Marco le Polo @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:46PM
QUEST CLEARED
btw who the heck are you Omegatwothousandandthree?
Omega2k3 @ Oct 23rd 2009 1:06AM
Nobody likes you.
billysea @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:21PM
Monster Hunter is not popular here enough to justify a fee. Putting a fee on it will just make the franchise stay niche here. If they want to make it just as popular here as in Asia, they need to give incentive to people here.
Mechanically, what is it different from the other 4 players online co-op games anyway.
CJLopez @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:45PM
there are some quest and monster ya cant defeat alone and really, reaaaaaaaaaaaally need the help from another 2 or 3 partners.
Geist @ Oct 22nd 2009 4:29PM
Yeah it's a difficulty thing. It's a lot easier to take down a beast when a friend can lay covering fire with his bow, another friend plays distraction, you're laying a trap, and another friend is hacking at the beast's legs.
heyo007 @ Oct 22nd 2009 2:46PM
You know, it may be because I'm cheap, but this pay-to play model is what stopped me from buying Phantasy Star Online ver. 2 for the Dreamcast. The first was a blast to play.
Mr Khan @ Oct 22nd 2009 3:19PM
It'll be a simple question of cost/benefit for 'em. Will they make more money off the fewer people who buy the game and pay the fees, or more money of more people who buy the game, but they have to maintain the server themselves?
Lack of friend codes was a given. They did it in Japan, and i don't think they would significantly re-code a whole portion of the game just to localize it to a region where it won't sell as well anyway, to get it up and running on a worse online network.
Anti-Villian @ Oct 24th 2009 5:59AM
Its a simple question of maths
the variables being retail price and monthly fees and expected sales.
if monthly fees are x/10, x being retail price and sales are y/2 then
people who buy the game would have to pay to play it for 2 years before Capcom can justify the decision.
For the consumer, well IMO, I'm not going to buy a retail game and then have to pay monthly fees to play a game I have never played before, I don't know if it's worth it.
su-pakame @ Oct 22nd 2009 3:58PM
@aang1818
So what games do you buy then because most games that come out nowadays usually charge for DLC.
Darkpen @ Oct 22nd 2009 5:49PM
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they made Monster Hunter 3 *the* MMO for Wii, subscription model and all.
Shimrra @ Oct 22nd 2009 8:35PM
Honestly from a company point of view they need to draw in more revenue even after the game is released. It is no surprise that alot of Wii games drop off the sales charts after its release. The only ones that stay on top would be the casual games geared towards soccer moms.
So if Capcom is smart they would price point about 5 dollars a month I think that would be the best decision.
Personally I would hate it if they do charge anything a month for any game but lets be realistic here these companies are here to make money so if they know they have a chance of making some extra bucks they will take it. Servers to run this game cost money and since Capcom would be the ones to run the servers they need to have a constant flow of income to maintain the up keep for this game.
bm @ Oct 23rd 2009 6:46AM
Frankly, it'll make the difference between buy or no buy for me.
JeezWhiz87 @ Oct 23rd 2009 6:49AM
I will not pay to play anything. I'm not paying $420* to play a game for two years, more if you play longer. That's just ludicrous. I don't know how people justify it.
*Estimate based on: $60 title + $15 per month for 24 months = No fucking way.