In an era where most major publishers treat experimentation like a four-letter word, Capcom keeps greenlighting projects that have no business existing.
The AAA landscape has calcified into predictable patterns. Ubisoft makes Ubisoft games. EA makes EA games. Sony polishes its established formulas to a gleaming shine. Konami resurrects its greatest hits through remakes rather than risking new entries. None of this is inherently wrong. Development costs have ballooned. Timelines stretch into years. Playing safe makes financial sense when a single failure can gut a studio.
But Capcom operates differently. The company has rebuilt itself into one of the industry’s most consistent performers since Resident Evil 7 launched in 2017, and that success hasn’t made it conservative. If anything, the guaranteed money from Monster Hunter, Resident Evil, and Street Fighter seems to have emboldened the publisher to fund stranger projects that most boardrooms would reject outright.
The failures matter as much as the hits
Exoprimal launched in 2023 and disappeared almost immediately. The PvPvE hero shooter had decent shooting mechanics and a solid character roster, but it couldn’t crack an oversaturated multiplayer market. Mission variety came too slowly. The player base evaporated.
By conventional publishing logic, that failure should have triggered caution. Retreating to proven franchises would be the sensible response. Instead, Capcom followed Exoprimal with Kunitsu-Gami: Path of the Goddess in 2024, a tower defense action hybrid that was always going to be niche. The game earned genuine love from everyone who played it, featuring gorgeous aesthetics and an addictive loop that rewarded investment. Capcom admitted it underperformed sales expectations.
Capcom’s recent experimental releases:
| Title | Year | Genre | Commercial Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Exoprimal | 2023 | PvPvE Hero Shooter | Underperformed significantly |
| Kunitsu-Gami: Path of the Goddess | 2024 | Tower Defense/Action | Below sales expectations |
| Pragmata | 2026 | Third-Person Shooter/Puzzle | Upcoming |
Two commercial disappointments in a row would convince most publishers to abandon experimentation entirely. Capcom kept going.
Pragmata represents the philosophy in action
Looking at 2026, Pragmata might be Capcom’s most intriguing release. The game combines third-person shooting with puzzle mechanics in ways that preview impressions suggest actually work. Early hands-on time and coverage from outlets like GamesRadar+ describe something genuinely cool rather than merely competent.
The project also marks directorial debut for Yonghee Cho, whose previous work includes Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance. Capcom has been handing major projects to first-time directors with notable frequency. Kunitsu-Gami came from longtime Resident Evil designer Shuuichi Kawata making his first console directing credit. The upcoming Onimusha revival has Sengoku Basara designer Satoru Nihei at the helm, another first-time director on a major release.
This pattern matters. New creative voices require institutional support to emerge. Someone has to approve budgets for unproven talent working on experimental concepts. Most publishers funnel resources toward established directors working on established franchises. Capcom does that too, but it also creates pathways for the next generation.
The historical precedent for creative risk
Capcom’s willingness to get weird isn’t new. The 2000s produced Killer 7, God Hand, Okami, and Viewtiful Joe. None of those became massive franchises, but they established Capcom as a publisher willing to fund distinctive visions.
More importantly, the company’s biggest successes often emerged from creative risk-taking. Devil May Cry exists because Hideki Kamiya’s action-oriented approach to Resident Evil 4 became its own project rather than being cancelled or forced into conformity. Metal Gear Solid happened because Hideo Kojima got the chance to make an action game and decided it should encourage avoiding enemies instead.
The through line connects past and present. Without institutional tolerance for experimentation, the franchises that now generate guaranteed revenue might never have existed. Today’s weird project could become tomorrow’s tentpole.
Dormant franchises getting another shot
Beyond original concepts, Capcom’s back catalog rivals Nintendo’s in depth. Dragon’s Dogma returned after years of dormancy. Mega Man has seen renewed attention. Okami persists as a beloved property awaiting its moment. Onimusha is coming back with fresh creative leadership.
None of these revivals are guaranteed hits. Dragon’s Dogma 2 found its audience but didn’t achieve Monster Hunter numbers. The others carry similar uncertainty. Yet Capcom keeps reviving them anyway, treating the catalog as a resource for experimentation rather than a museum of past glories.
This approach requires accepting that some projects will underperform. Exoprimal and Kunitsu-Gami didn’t move the needle commercially. Future experiments will likely follow similar patterns. The calculation Capcom seems to have made is that occasional creative failures cost less than the long-term stagnation that comes from only pursuing safe bets.
What this means for the industry
Capcom’s position isn’t easily replicated. The company has Monster Hunter generating billions, Resident Evil maintaining consistent performance, and Street Fighter anchoring the fighting game market. That financial cushion enables experimentation that struggling publishers can’t afford.
But the philosophy itself deserves attention. Creative industries survive through renewal. The franchises that dominate today emerged from risks that could have failed. Publishers who only exploit existing IP eventually exhaust their catalogs without creating replacements.
Capcom seems to understand this. The weird projects, the first-time directors, the revivals of dormant franchises all point toward a company thinking about where its next Monster Hunter comes from rather than simply milking the current one.
Whether Pragmata becomes a new tentpole or joins Exoprimal in the commercial disappointment column remains to be seen. But the fact that it exists at all says something about how Capcom operates that most of its competitors should consider.
Should more publishers follow Capcom’s model of funding experimental projects alongside guaranteed franchises, or does the current economic climate make that approach too risky for most companies?
