Well, if we are talking about this specific thread, then it was me who said that Activision's decision to not even think about checking if a Crash port on the Switch is possible at all was dumb.And I truly think that it's dumb.

DonFerrari had nothing noteworthy to reply to that, but instead used some comments including mine as a nice chance to bash the entire Nintendo fanbase. He then talked generally about some decisions and some companies and some instances bla bla bla, but I didn't, I was talking about this one specific decision. And this one specific decision was dumb. Nothing more, nothing less.

As I said to him Zorg, his replies to me was after I was responding to the claims of Dumb devs, so it was on the line of argument. And I clarified that I wasn't calling him out on it, but that was included on the argument he was replying to.

Will you deny that in plenty of threads we have see a lot of people saying devs are dumb and hate Nintendo as the main reason for ports not being made or that they should develop exclusives to Switch (some of those said within 6 months of release).

And very good that you think doing personal attacks is valid while consider that saying there is Nintendo fans that call devs dumb is somewhat an attack to all Nintendo fanbase.

It must be taken in consideration.

Curl was answering first to a post that had it, so it must be taken in consideration. There are to many people in VGC that jump in discussions answering posts but ignoring the context of the discussion itself to them say "that wasn't what I was discussing". If you want to arguee a different point to someone then you may be clear that you want to address another point.

But going at the rest of your post. I saw your reply and you are right that we have a lot of users that bring "data" from other forums only he visited to say there are people doing that. I didn't take it personally and that is why I didn't reply to you. There is one user in here that everytime he see I posting a critic to something Nintendo done he says that I should be complaining at XX and YY forums at Sony fans that defend Vita, which after I say those Sony fans are wrong he keep repeating that If I'm not going there to criticize Vita and fight them I must be a fanboy as well and can't criticize mistakes Nintendo may have made.

You may think they are dumb, open your company and make it billionary and show you are wiser. And if you think saying there are Nintendo fans that do it is a bash at the entire Nintendo fanbase then you are the one generalizing by your ownself.

Well, this is a bit more complicated I think. It may warrant it's own thread, but there are different levels. From the standpoint of a gamer it is dumb: every game on every platform is a win. So we tend to see a port or a game which doesn't actually makes loss as a good thing.

For a company it is more complicated. See, no manager ever will be fired because he didn't release a game. Think this scene: an activision shareholder demands that the CEO is replaced, because he didn't greenlight a new big open world RPG. That probably will never happen. But what may happen, that if said CEO greenlighted said open world RPG and it sold mediocre, that the shareholder will demand the CEO must go because of that. So from a view of a manager: a project not greenlighted is never a risk, only the greenlighted projects are risks.

That said Crash probably never was a big deal. Even as it sells pretty well, it is a one-off thing. Call of Duty releases regularly and is always big, Skylanders may not so big anymore, but still releases regularly and brings in extra profit with the figurines. Crash simply doesn't matter overall. What managers decide with such projects is nothing the shareholders really care about. So the managers make such decisions with their gut feelings or their personal gaming preferences.

Yep no matter how much data and projection you make a project the decision call will always involve some risk avoidance and gut feeling (for a good and experienced professional it will be the sum of his past experiences results and may be quite precise for others it may be a wrong decision, but those usually are on lower level of the chain).

You don't listen. I don't think I could run a multibillion dollar company. I said this one specific decision was dumb. Are you finally done now? Thanks.

Yes, I agree on all of this. Nothing to argue here. It's just baffling how they ignored a system that showed a very successful launch, that showed healthy sales for 3rd party titles and that is known to host an audience which is very used to platformers. These are clear signs in my opinion that they should try to catch the wave. But the confusing thing about is that one programmer tried it on his own, just because he was curious, and it worked surprisingly well. So the implication is that the management doesn't even know what the Switch hardware can even do at all. It needed this kick off. And I believe that the management needs to know as many info as possible about the entire gaming landscape in its entirety.

I believe that we can safely assume that Activision is full of hard working and knowledgeable people. So why did they not consider these signals?

You say that smaller projects can be outweighed by bigger projects, and this is true, no doubt. But we still see Activision releasing a whole lot of more games than just Call of Duty. Games from all sizes and scopes. So why ignore the Switch? And last but not least, they knew that they would port this game to the Xbox One. Please explain how they could completely ignore the third console in the mix?

My guess is that they a) simply underestimated its impact and/or b) don't seem it relevant. Both assumptions shouldn't be done by a big company like Activision.

hmm if you were a shareholder, i would be surprised, but just a fan, i am not in the least surprised.

it comes down to business, and business means money. fandom doesnt make money.

Skylanders is actually on hiatus, this will be the 2nd year in a row with no new title after being a yearly release from 2011-2016. The Toys to Life market has crashed with Skylanders, Disney Infinity & Lego Dimensions all gone at the moment.

The devs behind Skylanders (Vicarious Visions/Toys for Bob) are actually the ones that made the Crash/Spyro remasters and since these remasters are/will be multimillion sellers, i think these devs might get assigned to making new entries in the Crash/Spyro franchises.

He does have a way of creating strawman arguments that have little relevance to a point a person makes and then sticking to that irrespective of any further explanations or rebuttals. I've had previous with him and I am not completely sure if that is just the way his mind works or if he goads deliberately.

Hmm, interesting if they actually revive Crash. I'm not sure if it is revival for Spyro, as he was around somehow, but probably as a game IP it is revival too. Let's see how that works out.