| Mail |
You might also like: WoW Insider, Massively, and more

Reader Comments (33)

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 1:33PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
I want a release date for North America.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 2:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 1:53PM Spunky Monkey 190906 said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Don't you dare Capcom, you do that, and my interest has gone right off!
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 1:53PM STiger said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Capcom...please don't be stupid. PLEASE.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 3:01PM bongoes said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
PLEASE.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 3:56PM Pure Black World Tendency said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Pretty please with Akantor on top?
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 1:55PM Geist said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 3:01PM DevilSei said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 3:36PM Suichimo said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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?
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 4:24PM Geist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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?
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2009 2:44AM Haizeus said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Yeah Devilsei, only you and a few friends have heard of Monster Hunter. Totally.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 2:10PM (Unverified) said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 3:43PM CrissCross87 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 3:51PM Yan said

  • 2.5 hearts
  • Report
You're refusing to pay $10 (total, including DLC) for a new, quality Mega Man title?

Your loss.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 4:38PM blahblah55 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 2:13PM Berzerk said

  • 3 hearts
  • Report
Choose wisely, for while the true Grail will bring you life, the false Grail will take it from you.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 2:19PM zsavior said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
yea Nazi face melting artifacts shall solve this problem indeed.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 4:27PM Geist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Except the true grail will only stop you from dying from bullet holes before you die from age later on.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 2:19PM Marco le Polo said

  • Half a heart
  • Report
Woo some news about MH! Buying this on release day. I don't give a fuck, smoke weed everyday!
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 2:39PM Omega2k3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Wow. You are awesome. Good job being a total douche.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 2:46PM Marco le Polo said

  • 1 heart
  • Report
QUEST CLEARED

btw who the heck are you Omegatwothousandandthree?
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2009 1:06AM Omega2k3 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Nobody likes you.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 2:21PM billysea said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 2:45PM CJLopez said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
there are some quest and monster ya cant defeat alone and really, reaaaaaaaaaaaally need the help from another 2 or 3 partners.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 4:29PM Geist said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 2:46PM heyo007 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 3:19PM Mr Khan said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Oct 24th 2009 5:59AM AntiVillian said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 3:58PM ShiroZetsumei said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
@aang1818

So what games do you buy then because most games that come out nowadays usually charge for DLC.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 5:49PM Darkpen said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they made Monster Hunter 3 *the* MMO for Wii, subscription model and all.
Reply

Posted: Oct 22nd 2009 8:35PM shimrra74 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2009 6:46AM bm111 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
Frankly, it'll make the difference between buy or no buy for me.
Reply

Posted: Oct 23rd 2009 6:49AM JeezWhiz87 said

  • 2 hearts
  • Report
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.
Reply
Sorry, you must be logged in to leave a comment.

Featured Stories

Remedy not done with Alan Wake

Posted on Feb 9th 2012 10:30AM

Portabliss: Time Ducks (iOS)

Posted on Feb 7th 2012 9:00PM

Engadget

TUAW

Massively

WoW