Demotruk said:
outlawauron said:
Demotruk said:
outlawauron said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
"You must be kidding. There is no absolute number for budgets or $ recieved from retailers."
The game would have to cost tens of millions to not have made a profit. Even the ads are not numerous enough to have exceeded that.
|
I don't think it has lost Activision money, but it's ludricrious to think that the Wii version has made more profit than the PS3 version.
@ averyblund
Not necessarily. Red Steel cost more than Gears of War to make.
|
Of course it didn't, but you're missing what's important: profit/investment. The investment in CoD on Wii was much lower than that on the HD consoles. So, it may have a similar ratio of profit to investment.
|
That's like saying that attach rates actually matter more than game sales!
I'd much rather get 20 million profit off of a 10 million invesment than get 10 million off of a 5 million investment. This will probably be my last post in my thread as I feel I'm saying the same thing over and over again.
|
Er, what does it have to do with attach rates? It's simple money, business. If you have 10 million dollars, you can invest in the 5 mill project and something else if you wish, but that's irrelevant anyway, all that matters is that they're making enough money to continue. To use your example, Activision have got the extra 5 million, so why not invest in both projects? They both make money (and doing so reduces costs by sharing some assets accross the various versions).
|
You said that they have a similar ratio of profit and investment. I said who really cares if you get a lot more money off of your bigger investment (HD versions of CoD) than your smaller investment (Wii version).
