By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soleron said:
spemanig said:
...


It has nothing to do with being charitable. Wii Sports will never cost as much money to develop as Zelda, but it will always sell more and be exponencially more profatable. Zelda on a Wii fit budget wouldn't sell, and not making a Zelda game would completely alianate an entire audience that won't buy a console with out it. That is obvious. I don't know what kind of point you were trying to prove, but you definitely didn't prove it.

You are a Nintendo exec. You have $50m in capital gained from good sales of Wii Sports.

Do you invest it in:

a) Wii Sports 2, NSMB Wii 2 AND Wii Relax/Vitality Sensor

b) Zelda

Wii Sports is cheaper than Zelda and exponentially more profitable (you said this). AND you can afford to develop the other two games with the budget saved vs Zelda. Therefore Option a) gives a far greater return for the same money invested. Why choose b) at all?


Well that's exactly what Nintendo did and where their current problems come from. They ignored the gamers, invested in casuals. Now the casuals are gone and when Nintendo looks at gamers, gamers go like "LOL! You must be kidding me! I'm not touching your stuff anymore, have fun with your casuals, I won't let you screw me over again".



Wii U is a GCN 2 - I called it months before the release!

My Vita to-buy list: The Walking Dead, Persona 4 Golden, Need for Speed: Most Wanted, TearAway, Ys: Memories of Celceta, Muramasa: The Demon Blade, History: Legends of War, FIFA 13, Final Fantasy HD X, X-2, Worms Revolution Extreme, The Amazing Spiderman, Batman: Arkham Origins Blackgate - too many no-gaemz :/

My consoles: PS2 Slim, PS3 Slim 320 GB, PSV 32 GB, Wii, DSi.