Reggie: Third parties don't "get" the Wii, more

[Esa-Petteri]

The Ghost of RubangB said:

Esa-Petteri said:

The Ghost of RubangB said:

So your entire argument is based on a hypothetical scenario in which somebody makes an SD game on an HD console?  HD graphics alone more than double the costs of an SD game.  Do you know any SD games on HD consoles?  If so, compare their costs to a Wii game.  Also, compare their sales.

 

I am not going to go through every game, but there are many examples where a game does not actually render at hd-resolutions. Halo 3 renders at 640p, which is not a hd-resolution. It cost something like 30 million $ to develop.

It has sold more than SMG!

 

Blah, you are boring.

 

The highest the Wii renders games at is 480p.  Halo 3 cost twice as much to develop as Super Mario Galaxy, but only sold 1 million more (8 million compared to 7 million).  But here's the catch: they had a $40 million advertising campaign.  It takes a $30 million game and a $40 million advertising campaign to barely beat a $16 million game on the Wii.  When every AAA HD game sells like Halo 3, then HD consoles will be profitable for more than 3 or 4 companies.  The rest of the companies will stick to the Wii development that they can afford.

 

Like they are sticking with wii development now? Funny, I haven't seen any other than nintendo-fans complaining about third parties... But hey, whatever. ;)

Of course smg did not have any advertisement, at all. No way. Just out of curiosity, where did you get that 40 million advertisement costs?