mibuokami said:
Because what he is saying goes against the industry norm; at least half of the 1.5 million sale should be at full price, and even those at the discounted price should still net them money. Most HD games are generally considered a moderate commercial success if they manage to break the 1 million mark on a console. This game should have netted a total revenue of at least $30 million (very low estimate here) to the publisher of which a percentage generally find its way back to the developer. As MS publish the game, I assume they funded the project. For a developer to therefore 'break even' at those figures is pathetically heartbreaking not to mention being unbelievable; just what type of contract did they sign with MS? There are too many questions to answer and I won't call the dev a liar, but unless he can justify or clarify what he says, I'll treat his word with skeptism, a sort of 'their truth versus THE truth' scenario. |
@ BOLD: I think you sorta got your answer why there. They aren't the first devs to not make a profit from a million sold. It's the natural of the business right now. Blaming the used game market doesn't solve the problem that they signed a carppy deal.
...If you look at the process of making games into movie experiences, I don't think that in the future a million will be enough anymore for your blockbuster games to break even.
The Interweb is about overreaction, this is what makes it great!
...Imagine how boring the interweb would be if everyone thought logically?







