| ookaze said: Perhaps the points are valid, but lots of the basis are plain wrong: - described what hardcore and casual is, but not what "hardcore/casual game" and what "casual/hardocre gaming market" is. It's impossible to understand most of what's written without these definitions, - the complete price of a game as revenue for the publisher/developer is just plain wrong. They get a fraction of that, more in the 20-30 %, but surely not 100 %. Some Forbes article recently claimed Nintendo had 65 % of the games price on their 1st party titles, that they publish, develop, market. |
Someone didn't read all the way through. I stated:
"For now, "casual" and "hardcore" games will be based on the genres that the stereotypes suggest they play in."
Paragraph 5, line 2 I believe. If you are going to comment plz make you have read it all.
I did say however I was not going to define what a real hardcore and casual game was because it wouldn't help further my point. This is an editorial ya know.
And people seem to be having issues with the revenue part. I know they don't get all of it. The wore, THEORETICALLY, is not used for no reason. If I used the word, it has a purpose. That purpose is to say its theoretical and not real. The reason I did it that way is because it difficult to figure how much they are going to get out of every game but that for each title it's going to be about the same percentange. So to make it fair across the board and for easy comparison I did it with 100%. No matter what percent I did it at, it was going to be theoretical and it was goign to be the same. The outcome wouldn't have mattered.
