mrstickball said:
The glaring problem is that no pro-Wii owner bothered with math...Which is why this thread sucks. There are about 100 different mathematical arguments you can make on variable profit rates, as well as development estimates. No matter which one you use, within reason, the HD twins come out well ahead of the Wii, or all SD versions. Heck, the PS3 version alone should have been able to bankroll the entire development. World @ War used the CoD4 engine, so costs CANNOT go that high. It should have cost around $20m for the initial HD version + PS3 port + SD downgrade port + Wii port + PS2 port. There are no arguments you can use that make the Wii look superior. None. That's why psrock, claude, or any others failed to bother using math to prove their point. Again, that's not to say the Wii version was a 'failure' - You can prove that, under most formulas, that the Wii version has already broke a profit, thus justifying the SD port + Wii development. However, it's totally asinine to believe the Wii version was more profitable. It was not. Unless the HD versions stop selling tomorrow, and the Wii version is bundled with every Wii sold in the West, it will not be more successful. |
The PC version probably could've covered the entire operation. Steam's margins are probably quite low, far lower than any B&M store, at least.
