DonFerrari said: I have a hard time believing this chart. Ea and activision smaller than ms and sony on sw Sales? |
Sony and MS take a piece of every game sold on thier respective systems, so yeah. Thats also why Apple and Goggle are high up.
DonFerrari said: I have a hard time believing this chart. Ea and activision smaller than ms and sony on sw Sales? |
Sony and MS take a piece of every game sold on thier respective systems, so yeah. Thats also why Apple and Goggle are high up.
Norris2k said:
I agree Ruler is not giving any evidence his charts are more accurate. But still, the OP come with a chart showing MS games bigger than Sony and EA, that's something big and as far as I know, new. IMO, the OP is the one that need to explain/add evidences: Still, I'm not telling it's wrong, I have no idea how huge Minecraft is, but it's indeed huge and multiplatform. |
agree.
Are any of those charts trustful?
We can´t even know accurate software sales...... how could we trust revenues charts?
Anyway... mobile games, mobile games everywhere
ktay95 said:
Sony and MS take a piece of every game sold on thier respective systems, so yeah. Thats also why Apple and Goggle are high up. |
If we are going to include royalties, subscriptions and things not releases why leave hw out but keep stores?
this seems like a very bizare metric.
thus
duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."
3sexty said:
|
Revenue is not profit.
I LOVE ICELAND!
Well this chart offers some good news Ubisoft is paying for all their shitty practices.
Pretty meaningless until we see the actuall profit.
I remember Sony few years agofor example having huge revenue in the billions yet in the end ended up losing money.
If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing (mostly)
And shepherds we shall be,
For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints
If that includes revenue from third party licensing fees then yeah it would make sense since Nintendo has lost basically all their console 3rd party revenue and Western devs don't support the 3DS for shit.
It kinda shows too that the whole "Nintendo doesn't need third parties" thing isn't really even smart business.
That crappy version of Barbie's Dream House sitting in a clearance bin in Wal-Mart still nets Nintendo $6-$10 for doing nothing the moment it's printed.
3sexty said:
|
Profit is more important that revenue. You can make millions in revenue but if you still end up in the red what does it amount to?
T
Xxain said:
T |
Read below my earlier post...there is a difference between 'meaning nothing' and thinking about it within the full context...
'But that was not qualified in the above statement which was a very broad sweeping statement to start with. Also as you would appreciate revenue is the foremost important precursor to making a profit. And then still some corporations are prepared go tolerate high revenues at a loss for a little while to secure growth. '
Xbox 360 and Xbox One
Gamertag: GamertagOz70