Godot said:
De85 said:
Deneidez said:
De85 said:
Different strokes. I bet that even if Ubisoft didn't have the Petz and Imagine stuff they would still be making bleeding money badly. With the exception of Endwar all the Tom Clancy games have sold well, and Assassin's Creed made bank.
There's still a large market for those kind of games. It may not be as large as the "expanded" market, but making games for it can be profitable. All the "support Wii or die" talk is really getting tiring |
Uhm?... *fixed*
HC games aren't that profitable anymore. Bets are higher and risk are higher. Thats really not the way you should run your business. :)
|
Assassin's Creed >7M sold
Rainbow Six Vegas >2.5M sold
Rainbow Six Vegas 2 >2.5 M sold
GRAW >2 M sold
GRAW 2 ~2 M sold
Splinter Cell DA > 1.3 M sold
That's what you call "bleeding money?" The profit off AC could probably have paid for development of all of those combined. Not to mention the sequels have reduced dev costs because you reuse a lot of assets like engines, character designs, etc... Also since most of those are established frachises with decent sized fanbases it's not as big of a risk as you think. It's true that HD development costs more than for Wii, but it is not a one way ticket to bankruptcy as you'd have us all believe so quit spreading your FUD around.
|
DS games represent 33% of all Ubisoft sales. Ubisoft is doing great because it supports all consoles.
|
I fully realise that, I just felt like I had to point out the idiocy of saying that supporting HD development causes developers to "bleed money," when we can clearly see that that's not necessarily true.
