|
jammy2211 said: It's really impossible to say without a solid idea of figures and costs and everything else. Say the first title lost money, I'd say a sequel would be justified if the revenue generated by the first game outweights the expected reduced costs of a sequel, considering you'd expect a smaller dev and marketing budget. But we don't know, we've not got anywhere near the figures to even begin to contemplate why Viewtiful Joe had sequels and everything. My gut feeling says it was just CApcom felt if they kept pushing the IP they could get more out of it, eventually, but it didn't work out in the end, neither of us can really say whether that was close to the truth or not, or what any other sequence of events could suggest. It'd be great to get more incite into the minds of these companies to be honest, in my opinion most people are too 'generous' with how profitable video games are, but as I say, we need more incite.
|
If we were talking about a sequel I might be inclined to agree with your logic. However, there were 2 sequels and a spin-off fighting game. After the second game failed, why would you make the third? Why in gods name would the worlds largest collection of fighting game IPs make a spin-off fighters based on a failed franchise? Simply trying to push the IP doesn't make much sense given their catalogue of games. Megaman, and Resident Evil were super huge at the time. Dino Crisis might have just died off, and Devil May Cry was taking off. The Capcom vs SNK series was doing really well also. There was simply no need to push out a new IP let alone a new fighting game based on it.
